Executive Summary
In 2004, the College Council recommended that the administration provide an opportunity for Columbia College faculty and staff to participate in an evaluation of the College and its leadership. President Carter acted on that recommendation by conducting the Institutional Performance Survey (IPS), developed by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).
The IPS survey is designed to provide useful and timely information about institutional performance and to help develop strategies for improvement. The IPS is based on extensive empirical research and over 300 institutions have used it to accurately reflect the dynamics of an institution and the perceptions held by its members. A full description of the IPS is available on the NCHEMS website here.
In the spring of 2005, the IPS was carried out under the aegis of a 15-member Leadership Advisory Team with full-and part-time faculty, staff and student representatives, appointed by the President. The survey was distributed to a stratified random sampling of 650 full-and part-time faculty and full-time staff members. Approximately 53% of each of these groups received the survey. Of the 650 recipients, 250 returned completed surveys, with approximately 39% of recipients from each of the three populations (38.5% overall) participating.
Below is a brief summary of the survey results, by section, followed by a set of recommendations proposed by the Leadership Advisory Team:
Institutional Culture
NCHEMS identified four types of organizational cultures in four-year institutions: 1) Clan, a "family" culture defined by loyalty, tradition and strong personal bonds; 2) Emergent System, a dynamic and entrepreneurial culture emphasizing innovation; 3) Hierarchy, a formalized, tightly structured bureaucracy; and 4) Market, a goal-oriented and highly competitive culture. The IPS results indicate that Columbia's culture is fairly heterogeneous and has no one dominant culture; responses were somewhat evenly distributed among three of the four types - Clan (33%), Emergent System (28%) and Hierarchy (24%). Within this heterogeneity, the responses indicate that Columbia is committed to innovation and development and has an institutional passion to be "first in the field". Institutional leadership (broadly defined by survey respondents to encompass departmental as well as overall College leadership) at Columbia is also viewed in a largely heterogeneous way, although a slightly dominant perception of it as market-oriented (focused on results and efficiency of process) is observed.
Institutional Functioning and Characteristics
Questions in this section focus on structural and process characteristics highly correlated with institutional management and performance. The results indicate that Columbia is perceived as an institution with a special sense of identity and distinctive purpose to fulfill and that its academic programs reflect the College's mission. A strong long-term plan is perceived as guiding Columbia's direction and its ability to meet new challenges and expansion. In terms of operational flexibility, full- and part-time faculty perceive a higher level of formal policies and rules governing activities than do staff, with full-time faculty in particular seeing more centralized decision-making at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Full-time faculty also expressed less confidence in the credibility and integrity of top administrators than other survey respondent groups. Innovation and experimentation are perceived as increasing, but a fairly large percentage of respondents (37% of full-time faculty, 42% of staff) also see a certain level of resistance to change at Columbia. The data also suggest stagnated satisfaction and increasing conflicts among faculty and staff (although part-time faculty do not seem to share these perceptions), results which can be viewed as reflective of the complex and pluralistic organization Columbia is becoming.
Institutional Strategy
This section deals with an institution's ongoing adaptation and development, as reflected via the nature and extent of its recent changes. Columbia is perceived as expanding and rapidly diversifying its academic programs and activities (although these efforts have not yet led to a more diversified student body) in response to external forces. The data suggest that employees believe that these changes are sometimes made prematurely and, consequently, are concerned that the College not lose focus on its existing strengths in the rush to innovate. The results suggest that a degree of moderation would provide a "buffer" from conflicting demands. Employees view the administration as aggressive in communicating Columbia's strengths and objectives to external constituents and on top of enrollment and financial conditions. However, the IPS responses indicate that the administration could do more to promote open communication internally, particularly with the part-time faculty.
Resource Allocation Decision Processes
Questions here are concerned with an institution's decision process for allocating resources (money, staff positions, space, etc.). Survey data indicate that Columbia's decision process in this area is unclear to a significantly large proportion of faculty and staff (nearly one-third of respondents answered "Don't Know" to many questions). The process tends to be viewed as highly centralized and political, with no pattern that is discernable to the faculty and staff. The NCHEMS guidelines note that employees' responses to the questions about resource allocations are affected by how much institutional allocations align with their own priorities. That said, the survey results are clear that faculty and staff at the very least do not know how resource decisions are made at Columbia.
Institutional Effectiveness - Performance and Actions of the Institution
The items in this section measure nine dimensions of institutional effectiveness - 1) student educational satisfaction; 2) student academic development; 3) student career development; 4) student personal development; 5) faculty and administrator employment satisfaction; 6) professional development/quality of the faculty; 7) system openness and community interaction; 8) ability to acquire resources; and 9) organizational health. Survey respondents perceive that students tend to be satisfied with their educational experiences at Columbia and with the ability of the College to prepare them for obtaining their career goals, even as the respondents state that the College should do more to promote students' academic development. Faculty and staff agree that one of Columbia's outstanding features is the opportunity it provides for students' personal development. Again, faculty and staff agree that the College could do more in this category; specifically in terms of outside-the-classroom activities. As far as their own professional development is concerned, faculty and staff tend to be satisfied with their employment at Columbia, and more than half would choose to stay here even if they were given a similar opportunity elsewhere (a consistent finding across all three respondent groups); in addition, a majority of full- and part-time faculty state that they are teaching at the cutting edge of their field. Respondents believe that the College could do more to create additional external impact beyond its many existing community-oriented programs, and they tend to lack confidence (more pronounced among the full-time faculty) in Columbia's ability to acquire additional financial resources and recruit faculty and staff who are leaders in their disciplines. Overall, though, despite frustrations, faculty and staff are generally in agreement that Columbia is a healthy, productive organization.
Changes in External Environment
The focus here is on changing factors relating to enrollment, revenue generation and competition with other institutions. Responses indicate that while Columbia faculty and staff recognize increased competition with other institutions and are highly optimistic about the College's recruiting ability, they are uncertain about exactly what kind of external factors impact enrollment. Respondents are also concerned with the College's ability to obtain non-tuition financial resources.
Institutional Enrollments
This section measures consensus within and among respondent groups about student enrollment over the last three years and about potential future trends. Questions in this section do not address Columbia's current challenge of keeping pace with the increased demands for space and other resources that result from this rapid growth. Survey respondents display a strong consensus that Columbia's enrollment growth has been rapid and can continue; there is little fear of a decline in enrollment, but even if there is such a decline in the short term it would not be a threat to the College's institutional viability.
Institutional Revenues
Similar to the previous section, the items here measure consensus about current and future trends related to institutional revenues. Respondents display a healthy consensus (although it is not as strong as that shown in the enrollment section) about Columbia's revenue level over the last three years, and are optimistic about the College's ability to withstand a temporary revenue decline.
Institutional-Specific Questions
NCHEMS gives each institution the opportunity to craft twenty "local" questions specific to its individual concerns; Columbia's questions were developed by the Leadership Advisory Team. Respondents' answers to these questions often reinforced survey findings from earlier sections: the confidence felt by faculty and staff in Columbia's ability to provide academic programs that reflect advancing trends in arts and media; the perceived poor quality of internal communication, particularly about the College's resource allocation and decision-making process; agreement that the climate/energy of the College is conducive to achieving its mission and the Columbia 2010 goals. Responses to these questions also indicate that the inter-departmental collaboration necessary for Columbia to become a truly student-centered institution is poor, and that the College's progress toward decreasing its heavy reliance on tuition revenue is unsatisfactory (many faculty and staff stated that they are unaware about the College's fundraising efforts, which ties into the notion of a lack of effective internal communication). Less than half (47%) of respondents are satisfied with their opportunities for recognition (full-time faculty are the least satisfied group in this area), while slightly over half (54%) are satisfied with how their knowledge and work are utilized in the College's decision-making process.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that Columbia's top leadership help to create opportunities to examine how the College could effectively address multiple issues arising from Columbia's rapid organizational transformation. More specifically, the Advisory Team recommends that the President convene a small working group to identify specific actions that the administration could take to improve employee morale.
Recommendation 2
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that the top leadership find ways to improve internal communication concerning the College's financial condition, possibly using the example of the new budgeting process in Academic Affairs to increase employees' collective understanding on these matters, thus promoting a greater sense of operational transparency.
Recommendation 3
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that the top leadership find ways to foster meaningful interdepartmental collaborations, which would make information/resource sharing the norm rather than the exception and help fulfill the College's distinctive mission and the Columbia 2010 goals.
Recommendation 4
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends repeating this survey on a timeline that is most sensible for the College, using current IPS data as a baseline for future comparison. The Team believes that further mining of the IPS data is necessary and that these in-depth analyses can be used to open up an objective and honest dialogue for improving the College's working environment and to help move toward making Columbia a vibrant community for all.
Leadership Advisory Team
For further information, please contact: hwexler@colum.edu
The IPS survey is designed to provide useful and timely information about institutional performance and to help develop strategies for improvement. The IPS is based on extensive empirical research and over 300 institutions have used it to accurately reflect the dynamics of an institution and the perceptions held by its members. A full description of the IPS is available on the NCHEMS website here.
In the spring of 2005, the IPS was carried out under the aegis of a 15-member Leadership Advisory Team with full-and part-time faculty, staff and student representatives, appointed by the President. The survey was distributed to a stratified random sampling of 650 full-and part-time faculty and full-time staff members. Approximately 53% of each of these groups received the survey. Of the 650 recipients, 250 returned completed surveys, with approximately 39% of recipients from each of the three populations (38.5% overall) participating.
Below is a brief summary of the survey results, by section, followed by a set of recommendations proposed by the Leadership Advisory Team:
Institutional Culture
NCHEMS identified four types of organizational cultures in four-year institutions: 1) Clan, a "family" culture defined by loyalty, tradition and strong personal bonds; 2) Emergent System, a dynamic and entrepreneurial culture emphasizing innovation; 3) Hierarchy, a formalized, tightly structured bureaucracy; and 4) Market, a goal-oriented and highly competitive culture. The IPS results indicate that Columbia's culture is fairly heterogeneous and has no one dominant culture; responses were somewhat evenly distributed among three of the four types - Clan (33%), Emergent System (28%) and Hierarchy (24%). Within this heterogeneity, the responses indicate that Columbia is committed to innovation and development and has an institutional passion to be "first in the field". Institutional leadership (broadly defined by survey respondents to encompass departmental as well as overall College leadership) at Columbia is also viewed in a largely heterogeneous way, although a slightly dominant perception of it as market-oriented (focused on results and efficiency of process) is observed.
Institutional Functioning and Characteristics
Questions in this section focus on structural and process characteristics highly correlated with institutional management and performance. The results indicate that Columbia is perceived as an institution with a special sense of identity and distinctive purpose to fulfill and that its academic programs reflect the College's mission. A strong long-term plan is perceived as guiding Columbia's direction and its ability to meet new challenges and expansion. In terms of operational flexibility, full- and part-time faculty perceive a higher level of formal policies and rules governing activities than do staff, with full-time faculty in particular seeing more centralized decision-making at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Full-time faculty also expressed less confidence in the credibility and integrity of top administrators than other survey respondent groups. Innovation and experimentation are perceived as increasing, but a fairly large percentage of respondents (37% of full-time faculty, 42% of staff) also see a certain level of resistance to change at Columbia. The data also suggest stagnated satisfaction and increasing conflicts among faculty and staff (although part-time faculty do not seem to share these perceptions), results which can be viewed as reflective of the complex and pluralistic organization Columbia is becoming.
Institutional Strategy
This section deals with an institution's ongoing adaptation and development, as reflected via the nature and extent of its recent changes. Columbia is perceived as expanding and rapidly diversifying its academic programs and activities (although these efforts have not yet led to a more diversified student body) in response to external forces. The data suggest that employees believe that these changes are sometimes made prematurely and, consequently, are concerned that the College not lose focus on its existing strengths in the rush to innovate. The results suggest that a degree of moderation would provide a "buffer" from conflicting demands. Employees view the administration as aggressive in communicating Columbia's strengths and objectives to external constituents and on top of enrollment and financial conditions. However, the IPS responses indicate that the administration could do more to promote open communication internally, particularly with the part-time faculty.
Resource Allocation Decision Processes
Questions here are concerned with an institution's decision process for allocating resources (money, staff positions, space, etc.). Survey data indicate that Columbia's decision process in this area is unclear to a significantly large proportion of faculty and staff (nearly one-third of respondents answered "Don't Know" to many questions). The process tends to be viewed as highly centralized and political, with no pattern that is discernable to the faculty and staff. The NCHEMS guidelines note that employees' responses to the questions about resource allocations are affected by how much institutional allocations align with their own priorities. That said, the survey results are clear that faculty and staff at the very least do not know how resource decisions are made at Columbia.
Institutional Effectiveness - Performance and Actions of the Institution
The items in this section measure nine dimensions of institutional effectiveness - 1) student educational satisfaction; 2) student academic development; 3) student career development; 4) student personal development; 5) faculty and administrator employment satisfaction; 6) professional development/quality of the faculty; 7) system openness and community interaction; 8) ability to acquire resources; and 9) organizational health. Survey respondents perceive that students tend to be satisfied with their educational experiences at Columbia and with the ability of the College to prepare them for obtaining their career goals, even as the respondents state that the College should do more to promote students' academic development. Faculty and staff agree that one of Columbia's outstanding features is the opportunity it provides for students' personal development. Again, faculty and staff agree that the College could do more in this category; specifically in terms of outside-the-classroom activities. As far as their own professional development is concerned, faculty and staff tend to be satisfied with their employment at Columbia, and more than half would choose to stay here even if they were given a similar opportunity elsewhere (a consistent finding across all three respondent groups); in addition, a majority of full- and part-time faculty state that they are teaching at the cutting edge of their field. Respondents believe that the College could do more to create additional external impact beyond its many existing community-oriented programs, and they tend to lack confidence (more pronounced among the full-time faculty) in Columbia's ability to acquire additional financial resources and recruit faculty and staff who are leaders in their disciplines. Overall, though, despite frustrations, faculty and staff are generally in agreement that Columbia is a healthy, productive organization.
Changes in External Environment
The focus here is on changing factors relating to enrollment, revenue generation and competition with other institutions. Responses indicate that while Columbia faculty and staff recognize increased competition with other institutions and are highly optimistic about the College's recruiting ability, they are uncertain about exactly what kind of external factors impact enrollment. Respondents are also concerned with the College's ability to obtain non-tuition financial resources.
Institutional Enrollments
This section measures consensus within and among respondent groups about student enrollment over the last three years and about potential future trends. Questions in this section do not address Columbia's current challenge of keeping pace with the increased demands for space and other resources that result from this rapid growth. Survey respondents display a strong consensus that Columbia's enrollment growth has been rapid and can continue; there is little fear of a decline in enrollment, but even if there is such a decline in the short term it would not be a threat to the College's institutional viability.
Institutional Revenues
Similar to the previous section, the items here measure consensus about current and future trends related to institutional revenues. Respondents display a healthy consensus (although it is not as strong as that shown in the enrollment section) about Columbia's revenue level over the last three years, and are optimistic about the College's ability to withstand a temporary revenue decline.
Institutional-Specific Questions
NCHEMS gives each institution the opportunity to craft twenty "local" questions specific to its individual concerns; Columbia's questions were developed by the Leadership Advisory Team. Respondents' answers to these questions often reinforced survey findings from earlier sections: the confidence felt by faculty and staff in Columbia's ability to provide academic programs that reflect advancing trends in arts and media; the perceived poor quality of internal communication, particularly about the College's resource allocation and decision-making process; agreement that the climate/energy of the College is conducive to achieving its mission and the Columbia 2010 goals. Responses to these questions also indicate that the inter-departmental collaboration necessary for Columbia to become a truly student-centered institution is poor, and that the College's progress toward decreasing its heavy reliance on tuition revenue is unsatisfactory (many faculty and staff stated that they are unaware about the College's fundraising efforts, which ties into the notion of a lack of effective internal communication). Less than half (47%) of respondents are satisfied with their opportunities for recognition (full-time faculty are the least satisfied group in this area), while slightly over half (54%) are satisfied with how their knowledge and work are utilized in the College's decision-making process.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that Columbia's top leadership help to create opportunities to examine how the College could effectively address multiple issues arising from Columbia's rapid organizational transformation. More specifically, the Advisory Team recommends that the President convene a small working group to identify specific actions that the administration could take to improve employee morale.
Recommendation 2
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that the top leadership find ways to improve internal communication concerning the College's financial condition, possibly using the example of the new budgeting process in Academic Affairs to increase employees' collective understanding on these matters, thus promoting a greater sense of operational transparency.
Recommendation 3
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends that the top leadership find ways to foster meaningful interdepartmental collaborations, which would make information/resource sharing the norm rather than the exception and help fulfill the College's distinctive mission and the Columbia 2010 goals.
Recommendation 4
The Leadership Advisory Team recommends repeating this survey on a timeline that is most sensible for the College, using current IPS data as a baseline for future comparison. The Team believes that further mining of the IPS data is necessary and that these in-depth analyses can be used to open up an objective and honest dialogue for improving the College's working environment and to help move toward making Columbia a vibrant community for all.
Leadership Advisory Team
| Name |
Department |
Role on Team |
| Shelley Brown | Institutional Advancement | Staff |
| Barbara Calabrese | Radio | Department Chair |
| Dominic Cottone | Student Affairs | Managerial Staff |
| Richard Dunscomb | Music | Department Chair |
| William Frederking | Photography | Full-Time Faculty |
| Kim Hale | Library | Managerial Staff |
| Kendra Hay | AEMM | Graduate Student |
| Dorothy Horton-Jackson | First Year Seminar | Staff |
| Peter Insley | Science and Mathematics | Part-Time Faculty |
| Daniel Kravitz | Film and Video | Part-Time Faculty |
| Sara Livingston | Television |
Full-Time Faculty |
| Brian Matos | Radio |
Undergraduate Student (replacement for J. Taylor, Fall 05) |
| Karen Osborne | English | Full-Time Faculty |
| Jason Taylor |
Television | Undergraduate Student |
| Ex Officio Representatives |
||
| Dianne Erpenbach | AEMM | College Council Executive Committee |
| Keith Kostecka | Science Institute/ President, CCFO | College Council Executive Committee (Sabbatical replacement for D. Erpenbach) |
| Patricia Olalde | Human Resources | Human Resources |
| Team Support |
||
| Yun Kim | Research, Evaluation and Planning | Co-Facilitator |
| Elizabeth Silk |
Research, Evaluation and Planning |
Co-Facilitator |
| Harold Wexler |
Research, Evaluation and Planning |
Recording Secretary/ Editor of Executive Summary |