North Carolina State University
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey
Section C: Leadership

College Results
Tenure Track Faculty
(Tenured and Probationary)

The following tables provide results to questions in Section C: Leadership, broken down by college for tenure track faculty only. For exact question wording for this section, click here.

Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | College Results for all Faculty

To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section C only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.

C1a: Dept admin communication with faculty

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	37.3	37.6	16.6	8.5	897

C1a: Dept admin communication with faculty	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	35.7	44.3	15.2	4.9	244
..... CALS
..... CED	3.0	48.8	18.6	18.6	14.0	43
..... CHASS	3.2	46.3	34.2	10.7	8.7	149
..... CNR	2.9	36.5	32.7	17.3	13.5	52
..... COE	2.8	21.2	44.5	24.0	10.3	146
..... COM	2.7	27.9	32.6	25.6	14.0	43
..... COT	2.7	23.1	38.5	23.1	15.4	26
..... CVM	3.5	56.5	33.9	8.1	1.6	62
..... Design	2.8	32.0	32.0	24.0	12.0	25
..... PAMS	3.2	46.0	34.0	12.0	8.0	100
..... Student Affairs	2.6	20.0	20.0	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1b: Dept admin seek faculty input for dept vision

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.1	41.3	33.1	15.7	9.9	881

C1b: Dept admin seek faculty input for dept vision	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	43.4	34.9	14.5	7.2	235
..... CALS
..... CED	3.0	45.5	20.5	27.3	6.8	44
..... CHASS	3.2	52.4	26.5	10.9	10.2	147
..... CNR	3.0	35.3	37.3	17.6	9.8	51
..... COE	2.8	28.5	36.1	21.5	13.9	144
..... COM	2.9	39.5	27.9	18.6	14.0	43
..... COT	2.9	34.6	38.5	7.7	19.2	26
..... CVM	3.2	45.9	32.8	14.8	6.6	61
..... Design	2.9	32.0	40.0	12.0	16.0	25
..... PAMS	3.2	43.4	37.4	12.1	7.1	99
..... Student Affairs	2.8	25.0	25.0	50.0	.	4

Back to Top

C1c: Dept admin use faculty ideas in decision-making

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	34.4	37.5	17.1	10.9	877

C1c: Dept admin use faculty ideas in decision-making	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	34.9	44.1	13.4	7.6	238
..... CALS
..... CED	3.0	50.0	18.2	18.2	13.6	44
..... CHASS	3.1	45.5	31.5	11.2	11.9	143
..... CNR	2.9	31.4	43.1	11.8	13.7	51
..... COE	2.7	20.1	41.0	25.9	12.9	139
..... COM	2.9	39.5	25.6	20.9	14.0	43
..... COT	2.6	26.9	26.9	26.9	19.2	26
..... CVM	3.1	40.3	35.5	17.7	6.5	62
..... Design	2.8	25.0	45.8	8.3	20.8	24
..... PAMS	2.9	31.0	40.0	21.0	8.0	100
..... Student Affairs	2.6	40.0	.	40.0	20.0	5

Back to Top

C1d: Dept admin delegate dept responsibility to faculty

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	30.4	44.9	18.1	6.6	867

C1d: Dept admin delegate dept responsibility to faculty	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	29.9	48.7	17.9	3.4	234
..... CALS
..... CED	3.0	39.5	30.2	18.6	11.6	43
..... CHASS	3.0	35.4	41.7	15.3	7.6	144
..... CNR	3.0	32.7	42.9	14.3	10.2	49
..... COE	2.8	21.1	48.6	22.5	7.7	142
..... COM	2.9	32.6	44.2	7.0	16.3	43
..... COT	2.6	16.7	29.2	50.0	4.2	24
..... CVM	3.1	33.3	50.0	11.7	5.0	60
..... Design	2.7	13.0	47.8	30.4	8.7	23
..... PAMS	3.2	37.8	43.9	15.3	3.1	98
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1e: Dept admin grant faculty autonomy

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.3	48.5	36.4	9.1	6.0	877

C1e: Dept admin grant faculty autonomy	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.4	52.5	40.1	4.1	3.3	242
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	65.9	15.9	6.8	11.4	44
..... CHASS	3.3	52.8	29.6	12.0	5.6	142
..... CNR	3.2	53.1	26.5	10.2	10.2	49
..... COE	3.1	35.0	44.1	14.7	6.3	143
..... COM	3.1	41.9	39.5	4.7	14.0	43
..... COT	3.0	36.0	44.0	4.0	16.0	25
..... CVM	3.4	56.5	33.9	6.5	3.2	62
..... Design	3.2	43.5	34.8	17.4	4.3	23
..... PAMS	3.2	43.3	39.2	13.4	4.1	97
..... Student Affairs	3.6	60.0	40.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

C1f: Dept admin set clear and explicit priorities

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.7	21.3	39.0	27.9	11.9	865

C1f: Dept admin set clear and explicit priorities	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.7	21.0	40.8	26.2	12.0	233
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	18.6	37.2	34.9	9.3	43
..... CHASS	2.8	30.8	28.8	29.5	11.0	146
..... CNR	2.5	16.7	33.3	35.4	14.6	48
..... COE	2.6	13.9	41.6	32.1	12.4	137
..... COM	2.4	14.3	33.3	31.0	21.4	42
..... COT	2.5	26.9	19.2	34.6	19.2	26
..... CVM	3.0	29.5	44.3	23.0	3.3	61
..... Design	2.3	8.7	47.8	8.7	34.8	23
..... PAMS	2.9	22.2	51.5	20.2	6.1	99
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	40.0	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1g: Dept admin appreciate your contrib to mission

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	39.5	34.6	15.2	10.7	879

C1g: Dept admin appreciate your contrib to mission	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	41.4	38.5	13.4	6.7	239
..... CALS
..... CED	3.2	51.2	30.2	7.0	11.6	43
..... CHASS	3.1	48.3	23.8	15.0	12.9	147
..... CNR	2.9	36.5	34.6	13.5	15.4	52
..... COE	2.9	28.4	41.8	19.9	9.9	141
..... COM	2.7	26.2	31.0	26.2	16.7	42
..... COT	2.8	41.7	20.8	16.7	20.8	24
..... CVM	3.3	51.6	32.3	12.9	3.2	62
..... Design	2.8	41.7	16.7	16.7	25.0	24
..... PAMS	3.0	32.7	41.8	15.3	10.2	98
..... Student Affairs	2.8	20.0	60.0	.	20.0	5

Back to Top

C1h: Dept admin conflict resolution

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.7	23.6	37.8	21.9	16.6	793

C1h: Dept admin conflict resolution	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.8	23.6	44.8	21.2	10.4	212
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	28.2	25.6	25.6	20.5	39
..... CHASS	2.7	31.1	31.1	15.6	22.2	135
..... CNR	2.7	23.9	43.5	13.0	19.6	46
..... COE	2.6	17.9	33.3	35.0	13.8	123
..... COM	2.5	21.4	33.3	21.4	23.8	42
..... COT	2.0	12.5	16.7	33.3	37.5	24
..... CVM	2.8	24.6	45.6	19.3	10.5	57
..... Design	2.3	8.7	47.8	4.3	39.1	23
..... PAMS	2.8	27.1	40.0	21.2	11.8	85
..... Student Affairs	2.2	.	40.0	40.0	20.0	5

Back to Top

C1i: Dept admin provide necessary resources

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.6	18.2	41.1	26.2	14.5	889

C1i: Dept admin provide necessary resources	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.5	15.7	40.1	25.6	18.6	242
..... CALS
..... CED	3.2	39.5	44.2	9.3	7.0	43
..... CHASS	2.5	19.2	35.6	26.0	19.2	146
..... CNR	2.6	13.5	48.1	23.1	15.4	52
..... COE	2.6	11.6	46.9	31.3	10.2	147
..... COM	2.4	4.8	45.2	33.3	16.7	42
..... COT	2.9	26.9	42.3	26.9	3.8	26
..... CVM	2.9	32.3	40.3	16.1	11.3	62
..... Design	2.4	8.7	39.1	34.8	17.4	23
..... PAMS	2.7	23.2	35.4	31.3	10.1	99
..... Student Affairs	3.2	20.0	80.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

C1j: Dept admin allocate resources fairly

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.9	27.4	41.2	21.8	9.6	844

C1j: Dept admin allocate resources fairly	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.9	26.0	43.5	20.6	9.9	223
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	60.0	22.5	10.0	7.5	40
..... CHASS	2.9	34.3	28.7	27.3	9.8	143
..... CNR	2.9	24.5	46.9	20.4	8.2	49
..... COE	2.8	12.4	56.2	26.3	5.1	137
..... COM	2.6	14.6	46.3	19.5	19.5	41
..... COT	2.8	37.5	29.2	12.5	20.8	24
..... CVM	3.1	41.0	36.1	14.8	8.2	61
..... Design	2.6	21.7	30.4	34.8	13.0	23
..... PAMS	2.9	26.0	43.8	20.8	9.4	96
..... Student Affairs	3.2	20.0	80.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

C1k: Dept admin serve as advocate for dept to college

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.2	45.9	33.9	14.1	6.2	824

C1k: Dept admin serve as advocate for dept to college	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	42.2	34.5	16.8	6.5	232
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	64.3	21.4	4.8	9.5	42
..... CHASS	3.2	51.2	27.2	16.0	5.6	125
..... CNR	3.2	42.9	38.8	12.2	6.1	49
..... COE	3.2	42.5	40.2	14.2	3.1	127
..... COM	3.0	33.3	45.2	14.3	7.1	42
..... COT	3.1	41.7	33.3	16.7	8.3	24
..... CVM	3.4	55.7	31.1	9.8	3.3	61
..... Design	3.1	52.2	26.1	4.3	17.4	23
..... PAMS	3.2	45.7	33.7	14.1	6.5	92
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1l: Dept admin support academic freedom

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.4	55.8	34.8	6.4	3.0	830

C1l: Dept admin support academic freedom	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.5	55.9	37.1	4.8	2.2	229
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	61.9	23.8	7.1	7.1	42
..... CHASS	3.5	63.9	27.1	8.3	0.8	133
..... CNR	3.4	55.1	32.7	6.1	6.1	49
..... COE	3.4	47.8	43.3	6.0	3.0	134
..... COM	3.3	52.4	31.0	7.1	9.5	42
..... COT	3.3	45.5	40.9	9.1	4.5	22
..... CVM	3.5	59.3	32.2	8.5	.	59
..... Design	3.4	54.5	31.8	9.1	4.5	22
..... PAMS	3.5	54.9	37.4	5.5	2.2	91
..... Student Affairs	3.6	60.0	40.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

C1m: Dept admin make rational decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.1	37.6	39.3	15.7	7.5	868

C1m: Dept admin make rational decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	38.9	41.8	13.0	6.3	239
..... CALS
..... CED	3.1	48.8	27.9	11.6	11.6	43
..... CHASS	3.1	43.8	32.8	17.5	5.8	137
..... CNR	2.9	28.0	48.0	14.0	10.0	50
..... COE	2.9	27.1	47.9	16.4	8.6	140
..... COM	2.9	33.3	33.3	23.8	9.5	42
..... COT	2.8	30.8	30.8	26.9	11.5	26
..... CVM	3.4	50.0	38.7	9.7	1.6	62
..... Design	2.8	41.7	25.0	8.3	25.0	24
..... PAMS	3.1	35.7	40.8	18.4	5.1	98
..... Student Affairs	2.8	40.0	.	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1n: Dept admin make equitable decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	35.9	37.2	17.4	9.6	847

C1n: Dept admin make equitable decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	37.8	39.6	13.9	8.7	230
..... CALS
..... CED	3.3	51.2	32.6	9.3	7.0	43
..... CHASS	3.0	41.6	27.7	21.2	9.5	137
..... CNR	2.9	28.0	46.0	14.0	12.0	50
..... COE	2.9	24.4	46.7	20.7	8.1	135
..... COM	2.6	22.0	39.0	17.1	22.0	41
..... COT	2.7	30.8	26.9	23.1	19.2	26
..... CVM	3.3	50.8	33.9	13.6	1.7	59
..... Design	2.8	39.1	21.7	21.7	17.4	23
..... PAMS	3.0	34.4	36.5	20.8	8.3	96
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

C1o: Dept admin promote diversity within dept

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.1	40.0	38.1	14.9	7.1	808

C1o: Dept admin promote diversity within dept	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	42.6	35.9	14.8	6.7	223
..... CALS
..... CED	3.1	40.5	35.7	16.7	7.1	42
..... CHASS	3.1	42.3	35.4	12.3	10.0	130
..... CNR	3.1	33.3	50.0	10.4	6.3	48
..... COE	2.9	23.8	48.4	20.6	7.1	126
..... COM	2.9	33.3	38.9	13.9	13.9	36
..... COT	3.4	54.2	37.5	.	8.3	24
..... CVM	3.0	36.4	34.5	23.6	5.5	55
..... Design	3.4	60.9	21.7	13.0	4.3	23
..... PAMS	3.4	51.6	35.8	11.6	1.1	95
..... Student Affairs	3.0	50.0	25.0	.	25.0	4

Back to Top

C2a: College admin communication with faculty

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	9.2	41.8	34.7	14.2	801

C2a: College admin communication with faculty	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.4	6.3	40.3	36.1	17.2	238
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	4.7	58.1	30.2	7.0	43
..... CHASS	2.6	15.1	38.7	34.9	11.3	106
..... CNR	2.6	11.1	51.1	24.4	13.3	45
..... COE	2.4	7.6	38.7	37.8	16.0	119
..... COM	2.5	4.5	50.0	34.1	11.4	44
..... COT	2.0	3.8	23.1	46.2	26.9	26
..... CVM	2.5	10.9	42.2	34.4	12.5	64
..... Design	2.8	16.7	50.0	25.0	8.3	24
..... PAMS	2.6	15.1	40.7	31.4	12.8	86
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	40.0	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C2b: College admin seek faculty input for vision

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.2	8.6	31.4	36.0	24.1	748

C2b: College admin seek faculty input for vision	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.0	4.4	24.3	40.3	31.0	226
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	16.7	45.2	26.2	11.9	42
..... CHASS	2.4	10.2	37.8	33.7	18.4	98
..... CNR	2.4	7.0	46.5	25.6	20.9	43
..... COE	2.1	5.0	27.0	40.0	28.0	100
..... COM	2.5	16.3	37.2	30.2	16.3	43
..... COT	2.4	16.0	28.0	32.0	24.0	25
..... CVM	2.3	9.7	33.9	32.3	24.2	62
..... Design	2.4	12.5	41.7	20.8	25.0	24
..... PAMS	2.3	11.3	25.0	45.0	18.8	80
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	50.0	25.0	25.0	4

Back to Top

C2c: College admin use faculty ideas in decision-making

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.2	7.3	29.9	37.5	25.3	688

C2c: College admin use faculty ideas in decision-making	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.1	4.9	26.0	40.2	28.9	204
..... CALS
..... CED	2.3	7.0	34.9	39.5	18.6	43
..... CHASS	2.2	5.7	33.0	36.4	25.0	88
..... CNR	2.5	12.5	42.5	25.0	20.0	40
..... COE	2.1	4.7	26.7	38.4	30.2	86
..... COM	2.3	14.0	25.6	41.9	18.6	43
..... COT	2.1	8.3	20.8	41.7	29.2	24
..... CVM	2.2	3.4	37.3	32.2	27.1	59
..... Design	2.4	12.5	37.5	29.2	20.8	24
..... PAMS	2.4	14.1	29.6	38.0	18.3	71
..... Student Affairs	1.8	.	20.0	40.0	40.0	5

Back to Top

C2d: College admin grant departmental autonomy

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.8	20.5	47.9	19.6	12.0	750

C2d: College admin grant departmental autonomy	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.7	19.4	44.0	20.3	16.4	232
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	24.4	41.5	14.6	19.5	41
..... CHASS	2.7	17.2	51.5	19.2	12.1	99
..... CNR	3.1	31.7	58.5	2.4	7.3	41
..... COE	2.8	14.7	57.8	20.6	6.9	102
..... COM	2.5	13.6	38.6	31.8	15.9	44
..... COT	3.0	33.3	38.1	28.6	.	21
..... CVM	2.9	23.2	51.8	19.6	5.4	56
..... Design	3.0	29.2	41.7	29.2	.	24
..... PAMS	2.8	25.0	46.4	16.7	11.9	84
..... Student Affairs	2.0	.	40.0	20.0	40.0	5

Back to Top

C2e: College admin set clear and explicit priorities

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.4	12.6	35.4	34.2	17.8	723

C2e: College admin set clear and explicit priorities	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.2	8.2	29.5	35.5	26.8	220
..... CALS
..... CED	3.1	38.1	45.2	9.5	7.1	42
..... CHASS	2.3	12.2	27.8	42.2	17.8	90
..... CNR	2.4	10.0	42.5	25.0	22.5	40
..... COE	2.3	6.4	31.9	44.7	17.0	94
..... COM	2.5	11.6	34.9	41.9	11.6	43
..... COT	2.3	11.5	30.8	38.5	19.2	26
..... CVM	2.7	11.5	54.1	26.2	8.2	61
..... Design	3.0	29.2	50.0	16.7	4.2	24
..... PAMS	2.6	18.2	37.7	32.5	11.7	77
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	60.0	20.0	20.0	5

Back to Top

C2f: College admin appreciate your contrib to mission

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	17.1	37.1	27.0	18.8	725

C2f: College admin appreciate your contrib to mission	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	19.6	37.3	24.4	18.7	225
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	31.0	26.2	23.8	19.0	42
..... CHASS	2.4	13.3	37.8	26.7	22.2	90
..... CNR	2.5	12.2	46.3	17.1	24.4	41
..... COE	2.4	12.6	34.7	36.8	15.8	95
..... COM	2.2	7.1	33.3	33.3	26.2	42
..... COT	2.4	20.0	28.0	28.0	24.0	25
..... CVM	2.7	16.9	42.4	30.5	10.2	59
..... Design	2.5	17.4	34.8	26.1	21.7	23
..... PAMS	2.7	20.8	41.6	20.8	16.9	77
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	40.0	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C2g: College admin conflict resolution

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.3	8.6	37.1	33.1	21.3	526

C2g: College admin conflict resolution	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.2	5.9	32.7	34.6	26.8	153
..... CALS
..... CED	2.4	9.1	39.4	36.4	15.2	33
..... CHASS	2.4	11.3	33.9	37.1	17.7	62
..... CNR	2.7	12.5	53.1	25.0	9.4	32
..... COE	2.4	6.5	40.3	35.5	17.7	62
..... COM	2.0	5.3	23.7	39.5	31.6	38
..... COT	1.9	9.5	14.3	33.3	42.9	21
..... CVM	2.3	1.9	46.2	30.8	21.2	52
..... Design	2.7	16.7	50.0	20.8	12.5	24
..... PAMS	2.7	20.5	43.2	22.7	13.6	44
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	25.0	75.0	.	4

Back to Top

C2h: College admin provide necessary resources

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.3	9.1	35.0	32.6	23.3	824

C2h: College admin provide necessary resources	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.1	7.0	29.3	32.6	31.0	242
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	14.0	55.8	25.6	4.7	43
..... CHASS	2.1	6.8	23.9	36.8	32.5	117
..... CNR	2.6	17.4	43.5	23.9	15.2	46
..... COE	2.3	7.3	35.0	35.0	22.8	123
..... COM	2.2	2.3	29.5	50.0	18.2	44
..... COT	2.8	20.0	48.0	28.0	4.0	25
..... CVM	2.6	10.9	50.0	25.0	14.1	64
..... Design	2.6	4.3	56.5	34.8	4.3	23
..... PAMS	2.4	14.1	32.6	28.3	25.0	92
..... Student Affairs	2.5	.	50.0	50.0	.	4

Back to Top

C2i: College admin allocate resources fairly

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.3	8.7	36.5	32.9	21.9	690

C2i: College admin allocate resources fairly	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.1	3.9	33.0	31.0	32.0	203
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	24.3	37.8	24.3	13.5	37
..... CHASS	2.4	11.9	33.3	38.1	16.7	84
..... CNR	2.6	9.8	51.2	24.4	14.6	41
..... COE	2.2	1.0	38.1	42.3	18.6	97
..... COM	2.2	5.0	32.5	42.5	20.0	40
..... COT	2.3	16.7	29.2	25.0	29.2	24
..... CVM	2.6	11.7	46.7	26.7	15.0	60
..... Design	2.5	8.7	43.5	34.8	13.0	23
..... PAMS	2.5	16.9	32.5	29.9	20.8	77
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	33.3	66.7	.	3

Back to Top

C2j: College admin serve as advocate for college to univ

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.9	29.0	43.2	18.3	9.5	639

C2j: College admin serve as advocate for college to univ	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.9	23.7	48.5	19.7	8.1	198
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	61.5	23.1	12.8	2.6	39
..... CHASS	2.6	21.3	31.3	32.5	15.0	80
..... CNR	3.0	21.1	63.2	10.5	5.3	38
..... COE	2.8	21.7	47.0	21.7	9.6	83
..... COM	2.7	17.1	54.3	11.4	17.1	35
..... COT	3.3	42.1	47.4	5.3	5.3	19
..... CVM	3.1	38.5	40.4	15.4	5.8	52
..... Design	3.7	75.0	20.8	4.2	.	24
..... PAMS	2.8	28.8	37.9	16.7	16.7	66
..... Student Affairs	2.5	.	75.0	.	25.0	4

Back to Top

C2k: College admin support academic freedom

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.2	35.2	49.6	10.6	4.6	714

C2k: College admin support academic freedom	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.2	35.6	49.8	9.6	5.0	219
..... CALS
..... CED	2.9	35.0	35.0	17.5	12.5	40
..... CHASS	3.2	33.7	50.0	14.1	2.2	92
..... CNR	3.3	36.4	59.1	.	4.5	44
..... COE	3.1	28.6	58.2	9.9	3.3	91
..... COM	3.1	23.1	64.1	7.7	5.1	39
..... COT	3.3	45.8	37.5	16.7	.	24
..... CVM	3.2	37.9	46.6	8.6	6.9	58
..... Design	3.4	58.3	25.0	12.5	4.2	24
..... PAMS	3.2	38.5	46.2	11.5	3.8	78
..... Student Affairs	2.5	.	50.0	50.0	.	4

Back to Top

C2l: College admin make rational decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.7	15.7	49.4	25.4	9.6	709

C2l: College admin make rational decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.5	11.6	45.4	27.8	15.3	216
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	23.3	44.2	23.3	9.3	43
..... CHASS	2.7	17.2	44.8	33.3	4.6	87
..... CNR	2.8	12.5	67.5	10.0	10.0	40
..... COE	2.8	13.7	55.8	24.2	6.3	95
..... COM	2.6	9.8	53.7	19.5	17.1	41
..... COT	2.6	18.2	36.4	36.4	9.1	22
..... CVM	2.8	20.3	49.2	23.7	6.8	59
..... Design	3.0	37.5	33.3	25.0	4.2	24
..... PAMS	2.9	18.4	57.9	19.7	3.9	76
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	40.0	60.0	.	5

Back to Top

C2m: College admin make equitable decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.6	13.9	42.6	29.2	14.2	667

C2m: College admin make equitable decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.4	9.0	42.5	30.0	18.5	200
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	18.4	34.2	31.6	15.8	38
..... CHASS	2.6	18.5	34.6	39.5	7.4	81
..... CNR	2.8	18.4	52.6	21.1	7.9	38
..... COE	2.6	9.0	49.4	29.2	12.4	89
..... COM	2.4	5.1	41.0	38.5	15.4	39
..... COT	2.5	20.8	29.2	33.3	16.7	24
..... CVM	2.6	15.8	45.6	26.3	12.3	57
..... Design	2.8	33.3	29.2	20.8	16.7	24
..... PAMS	2.7	19.2	49.3	17.8	13.7	73
..... Student Affairs	2.0	.	33.3	33.3	33.3	3

Back to Top

C2n: College admin promote diversity within college

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	34.0	43.0	14.9	8.1	700

C2n: College admin promote diversity within college	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.0	33.5	42.7	14.6	9.2	206
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	31.7	24.4	24.4	19.5	41
..... CHASS	2.9	24.1	50.6	18.1	7.2	83
..... CNR	3.3	46.7	42.2	2.2	8.9	45
..... COE	2.9	19.1	56.4	18.1	6.4	94
..... COM	2.8	25.7	40.0	25.7	8.6	35
..... COT	3.3	50.0	41.7	.	8.3	24
..... CVM	2.9	26.3	45.6	21.1	7.0	57
..... Design	3.1	45.8	25.0	20.8	8.3	24
..... PAMS	3.5	55.8	36.0	5.8	2.3	86
..... Student Affairs	3.0	50.0	25.0	.	25.0	4

Back to Top

C3a: Univ admin communication with faculty

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.2	4.5	33.3	40.1	22.2	803

C3a: Univ admin communication with faculty	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.3	4.8	35.5	42.9	16.9	231
..... CALS
..... CED	2.5	5.1	56.4	25.6	12.8	39
..... CHASS	1.8	2.2	18.4	38.2	41.2	136
..... CNR	2.3	2.1	40.4	38.3	19.1	47
..... COE	2.2	4.7	33.9	37.0	24.4	127
..... COM	2.3	5.1	35.9	46.2	12.8	39
..... COT	2.2	.	29.2	58.3	12.5	24
..... CVM	2.2	3.4	40.7	28.8	27.1	59
..... Design	2.4	.	50.0	35.0	15.0	20
..... PAMS	2.3	11.8	22.4	51.3	14.5	76
..... Student Affairs	2.8	.	75.0	25.0	.	4

Back to Top

C3b: Univ admin use faculty ideas in decision-making

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.1	4.1	26.0	41.0	28.9	585

C3b: Univ admin use faculty ideas in decision-making	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.1	5.1	29.5	39.1	26.3	156
..... CALS
..... CED	2.4	6.9	37.9	41.4	13.8	29
..... CHASS	1.7	0.9	12.8	39.4	46.8	109
..... CNR	2.3	5.1	35.9	38.5	20.5	39
..... COE	1.9	2.2	22.0	40.7	35.2	91
..... COM	2.1	3.2	29.0	45.2	22.6	31
..... COT	1.9	.	29.4	35.3	35.3	17
..... CVM	2.2	4.8	33.3	38.1	23.8	42
..... Design	2.2	.	38.5	46.2	15.4	13
..... PAMS	2.3	11.1	20.4	55.6	13.0	54
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	66.7	.	33.3	3

Back to Top

C3c: Univ admin set clear and explicit priorities

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.4	7.1	43.9	32.5	16.5	733

C3c: Univ admin set clear and explicit priorities	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.5	7.5	48.6	30.4	13.6	214
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	14.6	53.7	31.7	.	41
..... CHASS	2.1	3.0	33.3	36.4	27.3	132
..... CNR	2.4	6.7	46.7	28.9	17.8	45
..... COE	2.2	3.8	38.5	34.6	23.1	104
..... COM	2.5	9.1	48.5	21.2	21.2	33
..... COT	2.7	14.3	42.9	38.1	4.8	21
..... CVM	2.5	9.6	42.3	36.5	11.5	52
..... Design	2.9	.	90.0	5.0	5.0	20
..... PAMS	2.4	10.4	35.8	41.8	11.9	67
..... Student Affairs	2.7	33.3	33.3	.	33.3	3

Back to Top

C3d: Univ admin serves as advocate for univ to constituents

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.8	23.3	47.3	19.3	10.1	636

C3d: Univ admin serves as advocate for univ to constituents	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.0	30.8	46.7	13.8	8.7	195
..... CALS
..... CED	3.3	39.5	50.0	7.9	2.6	38
..... CHASS	2.5	12.6	40.0	31.6	15.8	95
..... CNR	2.7	18.4	50.0	15.8	15.8	38
..... COE	2.7	19.1	42.6	27.7	10.6	94
..... COM	2.7	14.3	53.6	21.4	10.7	28
..... COT	3.1	20.0	70.0	10.0	.	20
..... CVM	2.9	21.7	56.5	13.0	8.7	46
..... Design	3.1	29.4	52.9	11.8	5.9	17
..... PAMS	2.7	18.0	45.9	24.6	11.5	61
..... Student Affairs	3.7	66.7	33.3	.	.	3

Back to Top

C3e: Univ admin support academic freedom

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	28.0	50.1	15.8	6.1	726

C3e: Univ admin support academic freedom	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.2	36.4	49.1	10.3	4.2	214
..... CALS
..... CED	3.0	34.2	34.2	26.3	5.3	38
..... CHASS	2.7	17.4	45.9	26.6	10.1	109
..... CNR	3.0	28.3	50.0	13.0	8.7	46
..... COE	2.9	23.4	50.5	20.6	5.6	107
..... COM	2.9	13.2	68.4	13.2	5.3	38
..... COT	3.2	30.4	56.5	13.0	.	23
..... CVM	3.0	22.6	62.3	7.5	7.5	53
..... Design	3.0	25.0	60.0	5.0	10.0	20
..... PAMS	3.1	35.6	42.5	16.4	5.5	73
..... Student Affairs	2.8	.	75.0	25.0	.	4

Back to Top

C3f: Univ admin make rational decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.6	10.4	48.6	28.9	12.1	661

C3f: Univ admin make rational decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.7	13.5	50.0	27.6	8.9	192
..... CALS
..... CED	2.9	10.5	68.4	21.1	.	38
..... CHASS	2.1	5.5	29.4	39.4	25.7	109
..... CNR	2.5	7.5	50.0	22.5	20.0	40
..... COE	2.6	9.0	51.0	29.0	11.0	100
..... COM	2.5	3.2	58.1	25.8	12.9	31
..... COT	2.8	15.8	52.6	26.3	5.3	19
..... CVM	2.7	9.3	58.1	23.3	9.3	43
..... Design	2.9	21.1	57.9	15.8	5.3	19
..... PAMS	2.6	13.6	43.9	33.3	9.1	66
..... Student Affairs	2.7	.	66.7	33.3	.	3

Back to Top

C3g: Univ admin make equitable decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.4	9.9	41.4	28.2	20.5	614

C3g: Univ admin make equitable decisions	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	13.3	43.9	28.9	13.9	173
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	9.1	60.6	27.3	3.0	33
..... CHASS	1.8	5.8	15.5	35.0	43.7	103
..... CNR	2.3	5.7	48.6	20.0	25.7	35
..... COE	2.4	8.8	42.9	29.7	18.7	91
..... COM	2.5	3.3	53.3	30.0	13.3	30
..... COT	2.7	22.2	44.4	16.7	16.7	18
..... CVM	2.6	9.1	52.3	25.0	13.6	44
..... Design	2.6	5.0	60.0	20.0	15.0	20
..... PAMS	2.4	14.3	38.1	25.4	22.2	63
..... Student Affairs	2.7	.	66.7	33.3	.	3

Back to Top

C3h: Univ admin promote diversity within university

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.9	26.0	47.2	19.0	7.8	704

C3h: Univ admin promote diversity within university	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.1	33.5	47.3	13.8	5.4	203
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	21.1	39.5	31.6	7.9	38
..... CHASS	2.4	10.2	39.8	31.5	18.5	108
..... CNR	3.0	31.9	44.7	14.9	8.5	47
..... COE	2.9	22.2	53.7	19.4	4.6	108
..... COM	2.8	24.2	45.5	21.2	9.1	33
..... COT	3.1	33.3	57.1	.	9.5	21
..... CVM	2.9	21.7	54.3	15.2	8.7	46
..... Design	2.8	23.8	38.1	33.3	4.8	21
..... PAMS	3.2	33.8	50.0	14.9	1.4	74
..... Student Affairs	3.0	50.0	25.0	.	25.0	4

Back to top

Continue to Section D: Faculty-Administration relationships

For more information on the NC State University 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey contact:
Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
Box 7002
NCSU
Phone: (919) 515-4184
Email: ncsu_surveys@ncsu.edu

Posted: April, 2007

To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section C only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.

Return to Annotated Questionnaire

Return to 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey Table of Contents Page