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

Tables of Results
by College

The following tables provide results to questions in Section C: Leadership, broken down by college. Statistically significant differences (p>.05) between colleges are noted with an asterisk (*). For exact question wording for this section, click here.

To download an MS Word document with Section C: Leadership results by college, academic profile, and demographic profile, click here.

Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | Section C by Academic Profile | Section C by Demographic Profile

C1a: Dept admin communication with faculty

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	3.0	35.8	37.2	17.3	9.7	1096

C1a: Dept admin communication with faculty
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	37.9	42.8	14.5	4.8	269
..... CED	3.0	47.1	21.6	19.6	11.8	51
..... CHASS	3.0	36.2	34.8	17.0	12.1	224
..... CNR	3.0	39.3	31.1	18.0	11.5	61
..... COE	2.8	20.6	45.0	23.8	10.6	160
..... COM	2.8	25.9	37.0	25.9	11.1	54
..... COT	2.7	25.0	35.7	25.0	14.3	28
..... CVM	3.5	55.6	36.1	6.9	1.4	72
..... Design	2.8	32.0	32.0	24.0	12.0	25
..... FYC	2.3	.	42.9	42.9	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.1	45.2	33.9	11.3	9.6	115
..... Student Affairs	2.4	23.3	23.3	20.0	33.3	30

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)	3.0	38.8	33.3	16.9	11.0	1074

C1b: Dept admin seek faculty input for dept vision
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	45.0	34.2	13.8	6.9	260
..... CED	3.0	42.3	21.2	30.8	5.8	52
..... CHASS	2.9	38.7	29.0	17.1	15.2	217
..... CNR	3.1	38.3	36.7	16.7	8.3	60
..... COE	2.8	27.8	35.4	22.8	13.9	158
..... COM	3.0	35.2	37.0	16.7	11.1	54
..... COT	2.9	32.1	39.3	10.7	17.9	28
..... CVM	3.2	48.6	31.4	14.3	5.7	70
..... Design	2.9	32.0	40.0	12.0	16.0	25
..... FYC	2.7	14.3	57.1	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.2	43.9	36.0	13.2	7.0	114
..... Student Affairs	2.4	20.7	31.0	17.2	31.0	29

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)	2.9	32.9	36.9	18.5	11.8	1062

C1c: Dept admin use faculty ideas in decision-making
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	38.2	41.6	13.0	7.3	262
..... CED	3.0	46.2	19.2	21.2	13.5	52
..... CHASS	2.9	34.0	32.5	19.6	13.9	209
..... CNR	3.0	31.7	45.0	11.7	11.7	60
..... COE	2.7	20.5	40.4	25.8	13.2	151
..... COM	2.9	33.3	35.2	20.4	11.1	54
..... COT	2.6	25.0	28.6	28.6	17.9	28
..... CVM	3.1	43.7	32.4	18.3	5.6	71
..... Design	2.8	25.0	45.8	8.3	20.8	24
..... FYC	2.7	14.3	57.1	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.9	29.8	40.4	21.1	8.8	114
..... Student Affairs	2.3	23.3	20.0	16.7	40.0	30

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	29.3	44.5	19.4	6.9	1048

C1d: Dept admin delegate dept responsibility to faculty
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	31.7	46.7	17.8	3.9	259
..... CED	3.0	39.2	31.4	17.6	11.8	51
..... CHASS	2.9	30.4	40.6	22.2	6.8	207
..... CNR	3.0	29.3	46.6	15.5	8.6	58
..... COE	2.8	19.5	50.0	22.1	8.4	154
..... COM	2.9	27.8	48.1	11.1	13.0	54
..... COT	2.5	15.4	30.8	46.2	7.7	26
..... CVM	3.2	36.8	47.1	11.8	4.4	68
..... Design	2.7	13.0	47.8	30.4	8.7	23
..... FYC	2.4	14.3	28.6	42.9	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.1	33.9	45.5	16.1	4.5	112
..... Student Affairs	2.9	31.0	37.9	17.2	13.8	29

Back to top

C1e: Dept admin grant faculty autonomy

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	3.2	46.8	36.6	10.4	6.2	1063

C1e: Dept admin grant faculty autonomy
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.4	53.7	38.4	4.5	3.4	268
..... CED	3.3	59.6	19.2	9.6	11.5	52
..... CHASS	3.2	45.9	31.4	15.9	6.8	207
..... CNR	3.3	55.2	25.9	10.3	8.6	58
..... COE	3.1	35.1	44.2	14.9	5.8	154
..... COM	3.1	39.6	45.3	3.8	11.3	53
..... COT	2.9	33.3	44.4	3.7	18.5	27
..... CVM	3.4	55.6	36.1	5.6	2.8	72
..... Design	3.2	43.5	34.8	17.4	4.3	23
..... FYC	3.3	57.1	28.6	.	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.2	41.1	40.2	14.3	4.5	112
..... Student Affairs	3.0	36.7	36.7	16.7	10.0	30

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	21.0	38.3	29.0	11.7	1055

C1f: Dept admin set clear and explicit priorities
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.7	23.6	38.8	26.4	11.2	258
..... CED	2.7	19.6	37.3	35.3	7.8	51
..... CHASS	2.7	26.2	28.0	35.5	10.3	214
..... CNR	2.6	17.5	35.1	33.3	14.0	57
..... COE	2.6	13.2	41.1	33.8	11.9	151
..... COM	2.5	15.4	36.5	30.8	17.3	52
..... COT	2.5	25.0	21.4	35.7	17.9	28
..... CVM	3.0	28.6	45.7	22.9	2.9	70
..... Design	2.3	8.7	47.8	8.7	34.8	23
..... FYC	2.6	14.3	42.9	28.6	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.9	19.3	54.4	20.2	6.1	114
..... Student Affairs	2.3	16.7	33.3	16.7	33.3	30

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)	2.9	36.3	34.0	16.7	12.9	1075

C1g: Dept admin appreciate your contrib to mission
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	41.9	37.7	14.0	6.4	265
..... CED	3.2	49.0	31.4	9.8	9.8	51
..... CHASS	2.7	37.0	21.9	18.3	22.8	219
..... CNR	2.9	36.1	34.4	14.8	14.8	61
..... COE	2.8	27.1	41.3	20.6	11.0	155
..... COM	2.6	20.8	37.7	24.5	17.0	53
..... COT	2.8	38.5	26.9	15.4	19.2	26
..... CVM	3.3	50.0	31.9	15.3	2.8	72
..... Design	2.8	41.7	16.7	16.7	25.0	24
..... FYC	2.9	28.6	42.9	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.9	31.3	42.0	16.1	10.7	112
..... Student Affairs	2.6	16.7	43.3	20.0	20.0	30

Back to top

C1h: Dept admin conflict resolution

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.6	22.2	36.8	22.8	18.2	962

C1h: Dept admin conflict resolution
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	25.8	44.2	19.7	10.3	233
..... CED	2.6	27.7	25.5	27.7	19.1	47
..... CHASS	2.6	25.1	28.7	22.6	23.6	195
..... CNR	2.7	22.6	43.4	13.2	20.8	53
..... COE	2.5	16.5	32.3	36.1	15.0	133
..... COM	2.5	17.3	40.4	21.2	21.2	52
..... COT	2.1	15.4	15.4	30.8	38.5	26
..... CVM	2.9	26.2	44.6	18.5	10.8	65
..... Design	2.3	8.7	47.8	4.3	39.1	23
..... FYC	2.0	.	28.6	42.9	28.6	7
..... PAMS	2.7	23.2	41.4	20.2	15.2	99
..... Student Affairs	2.1	10.3	31.0	20.7	37.9	29

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	18.3	41.2	26.2	14.4	1086

C1i: Dept admin provide necessary resources
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.6	18.3	39.9	24.6	17.2	268
..... CED	3.2	39.2	45.1	9.8	5.9	51
..... CHASS	2.5	16.4	35.5	28.2	20.0	220
..... CNR	2.6	14.8	44.3	23.0	18.0	61
..... COE	2.6	11.8	46.6	31.1	10.6	161
..... COM	2.5	3.8	52.8	30.2	13.2	53
..... COT	3.0	29.6	40.7	25.9	3.7	27
..... CVM	2.9	29.2	40.3	20.8	9.7	72
..... Design	2.4	8.7	39.1	34.8	17.4	23
..... FYC	2.6	14.3	42.9	28.6	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.7	21.9	36.8	30.7	10.5	114
..... Student Affairs	2.9	24.1	51.7	13.8	10.3	29

Back to top

C1j: Dept admin allocate resources fairly

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.8	26.0	41.1	22.1	10.8	1028

C1j: Dept admin allocate resources fairly
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	28.2	43.1	19.4	9.3	248
..... CED	3.3	54.2	29.2	10.4	6.3	48
..... CHASS	2.7	25.8	29.6	29.1	15.5	213
..... CNR	2.8	22.8	45.6	22.8	8.8	57
..... COE	2.8	12.8	55.7	25.5	6.0	149
..... COM	2.5	11.5	50.0	19.2	19.2	52
..... COT	2.8	36.0	32.0	12.0	20.0	25
..... CVM	3.1	40.0	37.1	15.7	7.1	70
..... Design	2.6	21.7	30.4	34.8	13.0	23
..... FYC	2.6	14.3	42.9	28.6	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.9	23.9	46.8	20.2	9.2	109
..... Student Affairs	2.9	33.3	33.3	18.5	14.8	27

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)	3.1	43.4	34.5	15.2	6.9	1006

C1k: Dept admin serve as advocate for dept to college
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	44.7	32.7	16.3	6.2	257
..... CED	3.3	60.0	22.0	8.0	10.0	50
..... CHASS	3.0	39.3	33.0	19.4	8.4	191
..... CNR	3.2	43.9	38.6	12.3	5.3	57
..... COE	3.2	40.4	41.8	14.9	2.8	141
..... COM	3.0	28.8	46.2	17.3	7.7	52
..... COT	3.1	42.3	34.6	15.4	7.7	26
..... CVM	3.4	53.6	33.3	10.1	2.9	69
..... Design	3.1	52.2	26.1	4.3	17.4	23
..... FYC	2.8	33.3	33.3	16.7	16.7	6
..... PAMS	3.2	44.2	36.5	12.5	6.7	104
..... Student Affairs	2.8	40.0	20.0	23.3	16.7	30

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	53.8	35.6	7.7	2.9	1010

C1l: Dept admin support academic freedom
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.5	56.9	36.1	5.1	2.0	255
..... CED	3.4	60.0	26.0	8.0	6.0	50
..... CHASS	3.4	53.7	33.8	11.4	1.0	201
..... CNR	3.4	57.9	29.8	7.0	5.3	57
..... COE	3.3	46.9	43.4	6.2	3.4	145
..... COM	3.3	49.0	35.3	7.8	7.8	51
..... COT	3.3	47.8	39.1	8.7	4.3	23
..... CVM	3.5	58.8	33.8	7.4	.	68
..... Design	3.4	54.5	31.8	9.1	4.5	22
..... FYC	3.4	71.4	14.3	.	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.4	52.4	39.8	5.8	1.9	103
..... Student Affairs	3.1	42.9	28.6	21.4	7.1	28

Back to top

C1m: Dept admin make rational decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	3.0	35.3	39.6	16.4	8.7	1057

C1m: Dept admin make rational decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	40.8	41.1	12.5	5.7	265
..... CED	3.1	47.1	27.5	15.7	9.8	51
..... CHASS	2.9	34.3	34.3	21.7	9.7	207
..... CNR	3.0	29.3	48.3	13.8	8.6	58
..... COE	2.9	26.3	48.7	15.8	9.2	152
..... COM	2.9	28.8	40.4	21.2	9.6	52
..... COT	2.9	33.3	29.6	25.9	11.1	27
..... CVM	3.4	47.9	42.3	8.5	1.4	71
..... Design	2.8	41.7	25.0	8.3	25.0	24
..... FYC	2.6	14.3	42.9	28.6	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.0	32.7	42.5	18.6	6.2	113
..... Student Affairs	2.4	23.3	23.3	20.0	33.3	30

Back to top

C1n: Dept admin make equitable decisions

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.9	33.3	37.8	17.2	11.7	1033

C1n: Dept admin make equitable decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	39.5	39.5	13.3	7.8	256
..... CED	3.3	49.0	35.3	9.8	5.9	51
..... CHASS	2.7	31.1	29.6	20.4	18.9	206
..... CNR	2.9	27.6	46.6	13.8	12.1	58
..... COE	2.9	23.1	47.6	20.4	8.8	147
..... COM	2.6	17.6	45.1	17.6	19.6	51
..... COT	2.7	29.6	29.6	22.2	18.5	27
..... CVM	3.3	48.5	36.8	13.2	1.5	68
..... Design	2.8	39.1	21.7	21.7	17.4	23
..... FYC	2.4	14.3	28.6	42.9	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.9	31.2	40.4	20.2	8.3	109
..... Student Affairs	2.6	33.3	20.0	16.7	30.0	30

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	37.6	38.7	16.6	7.1	987

C1o: Dept admin promote diversity within dept
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	44.7	34.6	14.6	6.1	246
..... CED	3.1	38.0	38.0	18.0	6.0	50
..... CHASS	3.0	34.0	37.6	18.3	10.2	197
..... CNR	3.1	33.9	48.2	12.5	5.4	56
..... COE	2.8	22.3	47.5	23.0	7.2	139
..... COM	2.9	28.3	41.3	19.6	10.9	46
..... COT	3.4	52.0	40.0	.	8.0	25
..... CVM	3.0	32.8	39.3	23.0	4.9	61
..... Design	3.4	60.9	21.7	13.0	4.3	23
..... FYC	2.9	28.6	42.9	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.4	49.5	37.6	11.9	0.9	109
..... Student Affairs	2.8	32.1	32.1	14.3	21.4	28

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	10.1	43.1	33.6	13.2	974

C2a: College admin communication with faculty
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.4	7.3	40.8	35.5	16.4	262
..... CED	2.6	4.0	60.0	30.0	6.0	50
..... CHASS	2.6	14.7	40.0	33.5	11.8	170
..... CNR	2.6	9.3	55.6	24.1	11.1	54
..... COE	2.4	7.8	38.3	38.3	15.6	128
..... COM	2.6	7.3	56.4	27.3	9.1	55
..... COT	2.1	7.4	22.2	44.4	25.9	27
..... CVM	2.6	12.2	44.6	31.1	12.2	74
..... Design	2.8	16.7	50.0	25.0	8.3	24
..... FYC	2.6	.	57.1	42.9	.	7
..... PAMS	2.6	14.1	42.4	31.3	12.1	99
..... Student Affairs	2.6	16.7	33.3	41.7	8.3	24

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)	2.3	9.2	34.1	34.5	22.2	901

C2b: College admin seek faculty input for vision
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.1	5.3	25.9	39.3	29.6	247
..... CED	2.7	14.3	49.0	26.5	10.2	49
..... CHASS	2.5	12.1	39.6	30.9	17.4	149
..... CNR	2.5	5.8	51.9	25.0	17.3	52
..... COE	2.1	4.6	27.5	39.4	28.4	109
..... COM	2.7	18.5	44.4	24.1	13.0	54
..... COT	2.4	19.2	26.9	30.8	23.1	26
..... CVM	2.3	9.9	35.2	33.8	21.1	71
..... Design	2.4	12.5	41.7	20.8	25.0	24
..... FYC	2.7	14.3	57.1	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.3	10.1	28.1	43.8	18.0	89
..... Student Affairs	2.3	8.3	33.3	37.5	20.8	24

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	7.8	32.3	36.3	23.6	818

C2c: College admin use faculty ideas in decision-making
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.1	5.9	25.9	40.5	27.7	220
..... CED	2.3	8.2	34.7	38.8	18.4	49
..... CHASS	2.3	6.5	37.9	32.3	23.4	124
..... CNR	2.5	10.4	47.9	25.0	16.7	48
..... COE	2.1	4.3	26.9	38.7	30.1	93
..... COM	2.4	13.0	35.2	35.2	16.7	54
..... COT	2.1	8.0	24.0	40.0	28.0	25
..... CVM	2.2	4.5	37.3	34.3	23.9	67
..... Design	2.4	12.5	37.5	29.2	20.8	24
..... FYC	2.9	28.6	28.6	42.9	.	7
..... PAMS	2.4	12.5	32.5	37.5	17.5	80
..... Student Affairs	2.3	11.1	29.6	33.3	25.9	27

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	20.6	47.7	20.3	11.4	896

C2d: College admin grant departmental autonomy
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.7	20.4	43.9	20.0	15.7	255
..... CED	2.7	20.4	44.9	18.4	16.3	49
..... CHASS	2.7	16.5	49.6	21.6	12.2	139
..... CNR	3.1	32.0	56.0	6.0	6.0	50
..... COE	2.8	16.4	55.5	20.9	7.3	110
..... COM	2.6	14.8	44.4	27.8	13.0	54
..... COT	3.0	31.8	40.9	27.3	.	22
..... CVM	2.9	22.2	52.4	20.6	4.8	63
..... Design	3.0	29.2	41.7	29.2	.	24
..... FYC	3.4	42.9	57.1	.	.	7
..... PAMS	2.8	23.2	49.5	15.8	11.6	95
..... Student Affairs	2.5	17.9	28.6	35.7	17.9	28

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)	2.5	13.4	37.3	32.1	17.2	868

C2e: College admin set clear and explicit priorities
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.2	7.9	31.3	35.4	25.4	240
..... CED	3.1	34.7	49.0	8.2	8.2	49
..... CHASS	2.4	13.9	33.6	35.0	17.5	137
..... CNR	2.5	12.2	42.9	24.5	20.4	49
..... COE	2.3	5.9	32.7	42.6	18.8	101
..... COM	2.6	13.0	42.6	35.2	9.3	54
..... COT	2.4	11.1	33.3	37.0	18.5	27
..... CVM	2.7	14.3	51.4	25.7	8.6	70
..... Design	3.0	29.2	50.0	16.7	4.2	24
..... FYC	2.7	28.6	28.6	28.6	14.3	7
..... PAMS	2.6	17.6	38.8	31.8	11.8	85
..... Student Affairs	2.7	20.0	40.0	28.0	12.0	25

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	16.4	37.4	27.0	19.2	885

C2f: College admin appreciate your contrib to mission
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.6	19.1	37.0	25.6	18.3	246
..... CED	2.7	28.0	30.0	26.0	16.0	50
..... CHASS	2.3	11.6	34.0	23.1	31.3	147
..... CNR	2.5	10.2	53.1	14.3	22.4	49
..... COE	2.4	12.4	35.2	36.2	16.2	105
..... COM	2.3	7.7	36.5	32.7	23.1	52
..... COT	2.5	19.2	30.8	26.9	23.1	26
..... CVM	2.6	14.7	44.1	32.4	8.8	68
..... Design	2.5	17.4	34.8	26.1	21.7	23
..... FYC	2.9	28.6	28.6	42.9	.	7
..... PAMS	2.7	20.0	42.4	22.4	15.3	85
..... Student Affairs	2.8	25.9	33.3	37.0	3.7	27

Back to top

C2g: College admin conflict resolution

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
Total(N)	2.4	8.9	38.6	31.9	20.6	640

C2g: College admin conflict resolution
College of appointment	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.2	5.9	34.1	34.7	25.3	170
..... CED	2.4	7.9	42.1	34.2	15.8	38
..... CHASS	2.4	13.5	34.4	32.3	19.8	96
..... CNR	2.7	13.2	52.6	23.7	10.5	38
..... COE	2.3	5.9	41.2	33.8	19.1	68
..... COM	2.2	6.4	31.9	36.2	25.5	47
..... COT	1.9	8.7	17.4	30.4	43.5	23
..... CVM	2.3	3.4	43.1	34.5	19.0	58
..... Design	2.7	16.7	50.0	20.8	12.5	24
..... FYC	2.7	.	66.7	33.3	.	6
..... PAMS	2.7	18.4	46.9	20.4	14.3	49
..... Student Affairs	2.4	8.7	39.1	34.8	17.4	23

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	36.2	32.1	22.7	1004

C2h: College admin provide necessary resources
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.2	8.2	30.7	31.1	30.0	267
..... CED	2.8	13.7	54.9	27.5	3.9	51
..... CHASS	2.1	6.0	25.5	37.0	31.5	184
..... CNR	2.6	16.7	40.7	24.1	18.5	54
..... COE	2.3	7.4	36.3	32.6	23.7	135
..... COM	2.3	1.8	40.0	43.6	14.5	55
..... COT	2.9	23.1	46.2	26.9	3.8	26
..... CVM	2.6	9.5	52.7	24.3	13.5	74
..... Design	2.6	4.3	56.5	34.8	4.3	23
..... FYC	2.7	14.3	42.9	42.9	.	7
..... PAMS	2.4	12.5	34.6	28.8	24.0	104
..... Student Affairs	2.6	12.5	41.7	41.7	4.2	24

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	8.2	38.2	31.3	22.3	840

C2i: College admin allocate resources fairly
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.1	4.4	33.8	29.8	32.0	225
..... CED	2.7	23.3	39.5	23.3	14.0	43
..... CHASS	2.2	8.6	31.7	35.3	24.5	139
..... CNR	2.5	8.3	50.0	27.1	14.6	48
..... COE	2.2	1.9	38.1	40.0	20.0	105
..... COM	2.3	3.9	43.1	33.3	19.6	51
..... COT	2.4	16.0	32.0	24.0	28.0	25
..... CVM	2.6	11.6	50.7	23.2	14.5	69
..... Design	2.5	8.7	43.5	34.8	13.0	23
..... FYC	3.2	16.7	83.3	.	.	6
..... PAMS	2.5	15.1	37.2	27.9	19.8	86
..... Student Affairs	2.5	5.0	40.0	55.0	.	20

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	29.3	43.0	18.0	9.8	779

C2j: College admin serve as advocate for college to univ
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.9	25.2	46.3	20.6	7.8	218
..... CED	3.4	55.3	31.9	10.6	2.1	47
..... CHASS	2.6	18.9	36.9	28.7	15.6	122
..... CNR	3.1	28.3	56.5	10.9	4.3	46
..... COE	2.8	22.2	46.7	20.0	11.1	90
..... COM	2.8	17.4	60.9	8.7	13.0	46
..... COT	3.3	40.0	50.0	5.0	5.0	20
..... CVM	3.2	40.0	40.0	15.0	5.0	60
..... Design	3.7	75.0	20.8	4.2	.	24
..... FYC	3.4	42.9	57.1	.	.	7
..... PAMS	2.8	28.0	37.3	18.7	16.0	75
..... Student Affairs	2.8	37.5	29.2	12.5	20.8	24

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	34.7	50.2	11.0	4.2	867

C2k: College admin support academic freedom
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	35.5	50.4	9.5	4.5	242
..... CED	2.9	31.3	41.7	16.7	10.4	48
..... CHASS	3.1	32.7	49.7	15.6	2.0	147
..... CNR	3.3	36.5	59.6	.	3.8	52
..... COE	3.1	26.3	59.6	10.1	4.0	99
..... COM	3.1	25.0	64.6	6.3	4.2	48
..... COT	3.3	48.0	36.0	16.0	.	25
..... CVM	3.2	36.4	50.0	7.6	6.1	66
..... Design	3.4	58.3	25.0	12.5	4.2	24
..... FYC	3.7	71.4	28.6	.	.	7
..... PAMS	3.2	36.8	49.4	10.3	3.4	87
..... Student Affairs	3.0	36.4	27.3	31.8	4.5	22

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	16.0	49.3	25.0	9.7	852

C2l: College admin make rational decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.5	11.9	45.8	27.1	15.3	236
..... CED	2.8	22.4	42.9	26.5	8.2	49
..... CHASS	2.7	17.4	43.5	30.4	8.7	138
..... CNR	2.9	16.7	64.6	10.4	8.3	48
..... COE	2.8	12.9	56.4	23.8	6.9	101
..... COM	2.7	9.8	60.8	15.7	13.7	51
..... COT	2.7	21.7	34.8	34.8	8.7	23
..... CVM	2.8	19.7	48.5	25.8	6.1	66
..... Design	3.0	37.5	33.3	25.0	4.2	24
..... FYC	3.0	14.3	71.4	14.3	.	7
..... PAMS	2.9	17.6	60.0	17.6	4.7	85
..... Student Affairs	2.6	16.7	33.3	41.7	8.3	24

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	13.5	43.1	28.7	14.7	805

C2m: College admin make equitable decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.4	9.1	42.9	29.2	18.7	219
..... CED	2.6	15.9	38.6	31.8	13.6	44
..... CHASS	2.5	16.8	32.1	34.4	16.8	131
..... CNR	2.8	17.4	54.3	21.7	6.5	46
..... COE	2.5	8.5	50.0	28.7	12.8	94
..... COM	2.5	6.3	47.9	33.3	12.5	48
..... COT	2.6	20.0	32.0	32.0	16.0	25
..... CVM	2.6	15.4	44.6	27.7	12.3	65
..... Design	2.8	33.3	29.2	20.8	16.7	24
..... FYC	3.0	16.7	66.7	16.7	.	6
..... PAMS	2.7	17.3	53.1	16.0	13.6	81
..... Student Affairs	2.6	13.6	36.4	45.5	4.5	22

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	32.7	44.2	14.9	8.1	852

C2n: College admin promote diversity within college
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.0	33.6	42.5	14.6	9.3	226
..... CED	2.7	28.6	28.6	26.5	16.3	49
..... CHASS	2.9	21.5	52.6	18.5	7.4	135
..... CNR	3.3	50.0	38.5	3.8	7.7	52
..... COE	2.8	18.1	55.2	17.1	9.5	105
..... COM	2.9	25.0	45.5	22.7	6.8	44
..... COT	3.3	48.0	44.0	.	8.0	25
..... CVM	2.9	23.1	49.2	21.5	6.2	65
..... Design	3.1	45.8	25.0	20.8	8.3	24
..... FYC	3.6	57.1	42.9	.	.	7
..... PAMS	3.4	52.6	39.2	6.2	2.1	97
..... Student Affairs	3.2	47.8	34.8	4.3	13.0	23

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	4.4	34.3	39.6	21.6	970

C3a: Univ admin communication with faculty
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.3	5.9	35.0	42.9	16.1	254
..... CED	2.5	4.3	54.3	28.3	13.0	46
..... CHASS	1.9	2.6	22.4	38.3	36.7	196
..... CNR	2.3	1.8	41.8	38.2	18.2	55
..... COE	2.2	4.4	33.6	35.8	26.3	137
..... COM	2.3	4.0	38.0	40.0	18.0	50
..... COT	2.2	.	30.8	53.8	15.4	26
..... CVM	2.2	3.0	37.9	34.8	24.2	66
..... Design	2.4	.	50.0	35.0	15.0	20
..... FYC	2.7	14.3	42.9	42.9	.	7
..... PAMS	2.3	10.3	25.3	50.6	13.8	87
..... Student Affairs	2.7	.	73.1	23.1	3.8	26

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	4.2	27.3	40.2	28.3	696

C3b: Univ admin use faculty ideas in decision-making
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.2	5.8	29.2	39.2	25.7	171
..... CED	2.4	6.1	36.4	45.5	12.1	33
..... CHASS	1.8	1.4	17.1	39.0	42.5	146
..... CNR	2.3	6.7	35.6	37.8	20.0	45
..... COE	1.9	2.0	22.4	37.8	37.8	98
..... COM	2.1	2.6	30.8	43.6	23.1	39
..... COT	1.9	.	31.6	31.6	36.8	19
..... CVM	2.2	4.4	33.3	40.0	22.2	45
..... Design	2.2	.	38.5	46.2	15.4	13
..... FYC	2.8	16.7	66.7	.	16.7	6
..... PAMS	2.3	9.5	22.2	55.6	12.7	63
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	50.0	27.8	22.2	18

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)	2.5	7.3	46.5	30.6	15.6	879

C3c: Univ admin set clear and explicit priorities
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.5	8.2	49.4	29.2	13.3	233
..... CED	2.8	12.5	54.2	33.3	.	48
..... CHASS	2.2	3.2	40.0	34.1	22.7	185
..... CNR	2.5	7.7	50.0	25.0	17.3	52
..... COE	2.2	3.6	40.0	32.7	23.6	110
..... COM	2.4	6.8	50.0	20.5	22.7	44
..... COT	2.7	17.4	43.5	34.8	4.3	23
..... CVM	2.5	8.9	42.9	37.5	10.7	56
..... Design	2.9	.	90.0	5.0	5.0	20
..... FYC	3.0	14.3	71.4	14.3	.	7
..... PAMS	2.5	11.5	35.9	41.0	11.5	78
..... Student Affairs	2.9	13.0	73.9	4.3	8.7	23

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)	2.9	23.0	48.8	18.5	9.7	761

C3d: Univ admin serves as advocate for univ to constituents
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.0	30.7	46.7	14.2	8.5	212
..... CED	3.2	35.6	53.3	8.9	2.2	45
..... CHASS	2.6	12.9	46.8	26.6	13.7	139
..... CNR	2.8	26.7	44.4	13.3	15.6	45
..... COE	2.7	18.0	43.0	27.0	12.0	100
..... COM	2.6	13.2	50.0	23.7	13.2	38
..... COT	3.1	19.0	71.4	9.5	.	21
..... CVM	2.9	20.0	56.0	16.0	8.0	50
..... Design	3.1	29.4	52.9	11.8	5.9	17
..... FYC	3.2	20.0	80.0	.	.	5
..... PAMS	2.8	17.6	50.0	22.1	10.3	68
..... Student Affairs	3.4	42.9	52.4	4.8	.	21

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	27.1	52.4	15.2	5.3	886

C3e: Univ admin support academic freedom
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.2	35.9	50.2	10.1	3.8	237
..... CED	3.0	32.6	37.0	26.1	4.3	46
..... CHASS	2.8	19.2	50.9	23.4	6.6	167
..... CNR	3.0	30.2	50.9	11.3	7.5	53
..... COE	2.9	22.6	50.4	20.9	6.1	115
..... COM	2.9	10.2	73.5	10.2	6.1	49
..... COT	3.2	32.0	56.0	12.0	.	25
..... CVM	3.0	20.7	63.8	8.6	6.9	58
..... Design	3.0	25.0	60.0	5.0	10.0	20
..... FYC	3.1	28.6	57.1	14.3	.	7
..... PAMS	3.1	33.7	47.0	14.5	4.8	83
..... Student Affairs	3.0	23.1	61.5	11.5	3.8	26

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	10.5	50.9	27.3	11.3	788

C3f: Univ admin make rational decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.7	13.8	51.0	25.7	9.5	210
..... CED	2.9	9.3	67.4	23.3	.	43
..... CHASS	2.3	7.1	37.4	34.8	20.6	155
..... CNR	2.5	8.5	53.2	19.1	19.1	47
..... COE	2.6	8.4	50.5	29.9	11.2	107
..... COM	2.6	5.0	60.0	25.0	10.0	40
..... COT	2.9	19.0	52.4	23.8	4.8	21
..... CVM	2.7	8.7	58.7	23.9	8.7	46
..... Design	2.9	21.1	57.9	15.8	5.3	19
..... FYC	3.0	16.7	66.7	16.7	.	6
..... PAMS	2.6	12.2	48.6	31.1	8.1	74
..... Student Affairs	3.0	10.0	75.0	15.0	.	20

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	9.5	43.0	26.5	21.0	739

C3g: Univ admin make equitable decisions
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	2.6	13.1	45.0	27.7	14.1	191
..... CED	2.7	7.9	60.5	28.9	2.6	38
..... CHASS	1.9	6.1	21.1	28.6	44.2	147
..... CNR	2.4	4.8	52.4	19.0	23.8	42
..... COE	2.4	8.2	42.3	30.9	18.6	97
..... COM	2.5	2.6	59.0	23.1	15.4	39
..... COT	2.8	25.0	45.0	15.0	15.0	20
..... CVM	2.6	8.5	51.1	27.7	12.8	47
..... Design	2.6	5.0	60.0	20.0	15.0	20
..... FYC	2.8	16.7	66.7	.	16.7	6
..... PAMS	2.5	12.5	41.7	25.0	20.8	72
..... Student Affairs	2.9	10.0	65.0	25.0	.	20

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	25.2	49.0	17.9	7.9	858

C3h: Univ admin promote diversity within university
College of appointment*	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total(N)
..... CALS	3.1	33.9	46.9	13.4	5.8	224
..... CED	2.8	20.5	40.9	31.8	6.8	44
..... CHASS	2.6	12.7	47.6	24.7	15.1	166
..... CNR	3.0	33.3	44.4	14.8	7.4	54
..... COE	2.9	20.5	54.7	17.9	6.8	117
..... COM	2.8	19.0	50.0	23.8	7.1	42
..... COT	3.2	34.8	56.5	.	8.7	23
..... CVM	2.9	19.6	54.9	17.6	7.8	51
..... Design	2.8	23.8	38.1	33.3	4.8	21
..... FYC	2.9	28.6	42.9	14.3	14.3	7
..... PAMS	3.1	30.6	54.1	14.1	1.2	85
..... Student Affairs	3.1	37.5	45.8	4.2	12.5	24

Back to top

Continue to Section D: Faculty-Administration Relationships

View These Results by Academic Profile

View These Results by Demographic Profile

To download an MS Word document with Section C: Leadership results by college, academic profile, and demographic profile, click here.

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: January, 2007

Return to Annotated Questionnaire

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