Comparisons Among Groups

Administrators placed the highest priority on establishing strategic priorities, with 53.2% ranking this as their first or second priority. Lecturer faculty, staff, and tenured or tenure-track faculty indicated this as less of a priority (Table 1-5).

One message that could be derived from this table is the need to impress upon all University employees the importance of strategic planning. Another message could be that not all University employees need to value strategic planning as their most important priority.

Again, administrators place higher importance on creating a vision than T/TT faculty, lecturers, or staff, but there is broad support among all groups (Table 1-6). Does this indicate that administrators should take the lead in expressing a university vision, or that more input is needed from non-administrators?

In an interesting turnaround, staff and lecturer faculty place more importance on solving problems than either T/TT faculty or administrators (Table 1-7). This phrase of addressing and solving problems must resonate with some concerns held by staff and lecturers that could be elucidated by focus groups.

Managing growth is seen as a priority by nearly two-thirds of administrators and by even more tenured and tenure-track faculty (Table 1-8). These are the two groups who have been most impacted by growth, although in different ways. Administrators have been dealing with the budgetary aspects of growth in enrollment, while faculty have been dealing with the academic aspects of growth (in the classroom, advising, thesis, internships, etc).

Staff and T/TT faculty placed a high priority on managing the budget, and lecturers also rated this strategy highly (Table 1-9). Administrators seemed the least concerned about managing the budget, perhaps because they consider it to already be well-managed, or perhaps because other strategies seemed more important.

Tenured/Tenure-track faculty as well as lecturer faculty place an emphasis on updating technology (Table 1-10). This is not as high a priority for staff or administrators, although it is important to a majority of all four groups of respondents.

Reviewing programs and assessing outcomes was not highly ranked by any group (compared to other strategies). However, about two-thirds of administrators assigned it some priority, compared to about half of lecturer faculty, staff, or T/TT faculty (Table 1-11). This generally positive level of support for program review and assessment is a good sign, possibly indicating widespread acceptance of the relatively new policies in these two areas.