Printer friendly version

Findings of the Staff Survey
Conducted in October 2001
Report of the Council on Family and Work
December 2002

Contents

INTRODUCTION

STAFF FINDINGS and ANALYSIS

APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION

The Quality of Life Survey was announced to the MIT community by MIT President Charles M. Vest in October 2001. In his email, Dr. Vest said, “Two years ago, I reestablished the MIT Council on Family and Work and requested advice on how to make MIT a better place to work and study. Our goal is to provide an environment that promotes personal and professional growth for everyone. The devastating events of Sept. 11 have made us even more determined to strengthen our sense of community, and I am committed to this.… This survey will give us an understanding of the factors affecting the well-being of faculty and staff and will help the Council to formulate its recommendations.… Your responses will help make MIT a better place to work.”

The survey’s purpose was to investigate the factors that contribute to quality of life for faculty and staff at MIT, and the implications for the future of MIT. Quality of life is defined as the ability to integrate a fulfilling and productive work life with a fulfilling personal and/or family life. During the spring and summer of 2001, the survey instrument was developed, with different versions for faculty, campus staff, and Lincoln Laboratory staff. All faculty and staff working half-time or more were invited to participate in the survey, which was conducted during October and November 2001.

Completed surveys were received from 33% of the faculty, 30% of the campus staff, and 40% of the Lincoln Laboratory staff. The data were analyzed by an external contractor, WFD Consulting, Inc., and the results were reported to the Council on Family and Work in a summarized form so that the confidentiality of all respondents was preserved. Survey methods and response rates are discussed in Appendix A: Response Rates and Methodology, and profiles of the staff subpopulations can be found in Appendix C: Profiles of MIT Staff Groups.

This report contains a summary and analysis of the results of the Staff Quality of Life Survey, as well as the recommendations formulated by the Council on Family and Work after considering the findings.

Staff Survey Results

Nearly three-quarters of staff are satisfied with their jobs at MIT, and nearly twothirds are satisfied with its pace and pressure. However, higher levels of stress and burnout are reported by certain subgroups, including post-docs and campus administrative staff, in particular, administrative staff who work directly for faculty.

Over three-quarters of staff feel that their co-workers and immediate supervisors are supportive of their personal/family responsibilities. However, less than half feel that MIT’s senior leadership is supportive of their personal/family responsibilities. Minority staff are less likely than Caucasian/White staff to be satisfied with the Institute’s diversity and policies to foster diversity.

Recommendations for Staff

After considering the findings, the Council proposes the creation of a special committee, co-sponsored by the Vice President for Human Resources and the Chair of the Faculty, to explore more fully and make recommendations regarding several complex issues, including stress and burnout in subpopulations within the staff. Subpopulations to be examined include those with high turnover rates, those with low response rates in the survey, and those whose concerns may have been masked by the largely aggregated data.

The Council also recommends that special attention be given to the problems of the post-doc position, and that a senior officer be designated as a point of contact for all post-docs, both associates and fellows. These efforts should be coordinated with the newly formed post-doc association.

Other concerns that emerged from the survey are already in the process of being addressed by new initiatives within the Human Resources Department. For example, the Department has convened a team to follow through on the work of the Council’s Task Force on Job Flexibility by reviewing and disseminating a set of job flexibility guidelines drafted by the Task Force. The Department also has recently revamped its Orientation Program, created a Rewards and Recognition Program, and established a center called Career Planning at MIT. The Council recommends that these programs be given ongoing support, and that they be evaluated periodically.

Both the faculty and staff surveys revealed that dependent care is a salient issue at MIT. The concerns of both groups, which were quite similar, are summarized in Appendix B: Dependent Care for Faculty and Staff.

Relevance of Faculty Survey

It is important to note that the Council also gave significant attention to the faculty survey, and its findings are directly relevant to the staff as well as to committees that are and will be addressing staff issues. The quality-of-life challenges and proposals that affect faculty have ripple effects on staff, and vice versa. Furthermore, it is critical to pay attention to the areas of overlap, so that remedies suggested for one group do not become problems for the other. Also, there may be programmatic approaches that will benefit the entire community.

In short, the Council urges staff, faculty, and committees working on their behalf to read both reports. Important issues reported by faculty in the survey include high levels of stress and burnout, especially among younger faculty and among women. The complete report on the faculty survey, Findings of the Faculty Survey Conducted in October 2001, is available separately.

STAFF FINDINGS and ANALYSIS

The following are key findings from the Staff Quality of Life Survey, organized into four major categories: Pace and Pressure, Diversity, Family Status, and The MIT Environment. The staff's perceived needs are summarized in What Are Staff Asking for?; a section containing Recommendations completes the report.

Pace and Pressure

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of staff are satisfied with their jobs at MIT. They are satisfied with their working relationships with others and with the challenge of their jobs. About two-thirds (63%) of staff also say they are satisfied with the pace and pressure at the Institute and with their ability to integrate a fulfilling work life with a satisfying personal life.

Over one-fourth (29%) of staff report that the stress of meeting their work and personal responsibilities affects their health. Among non-academic staff, the group reporting the highest stress and burnout scores, according to WFD’s measurements, is the campus administrative staff.

Campus administrative staff who work directly with faculty register higher levels of stress and burnout than those who work with other staff members. Researchers and administrative staff who work directly for faculty members log longer hours than those who work for staff: almost half who work for faculty log 50 or more hours per week compared to about one-third of those who work for staff.

Work hours are especially long for post-docs, one-third of whom routinely log 60 or more hours a week. More than one-third (37%) of research and administrative staff work 50 or more hours a week.

Diversity

The figures in this section were taken from a special report prepared by WFD for MIT’s Office of Affirmative Action, and pertain only to non-academic staff (research, medical, administrative, service, support) on campus and at Lincoln Laboratory. In contrast, staff findings in the rest of the report also include responses from academic staff (post-docs; visiting, adjunct, and emeritus professors; instructors; lecturers and senior lecturers; visiting scholars; affiliates).

Of the respondents, 281 (10%) were minorities. Asians/Pacific Islanders are more likely to be found on the research staff; African Americans/Blacks are more likely to be found on support staff.

Minority and Caucasian/White respondents alike report that their coworkers respect individual and cultural differences (81%). Minority staff are similar to their Caucasian/White counterparts with respect to: satisfaction with their quality of life; sense of the pace and pressure at the Institute; feelings of work/life supportiveness in the MIT community; and feelings of commitment to MIT.

Overall, minority staff are less likely than Caucasian/White staff to be satisfied with the Institute’s diversity (66% vs. 78%), and they are less likely to say that MIT’s policies and practices foster diversity (53% vs. 62%). In addition, minority staff are somewhat less likely to be satisfied with their working relationships with co-workers (76% vs. 84%). Minority staff are also less likely (21% vs. 32%) to say they feel “extremely comfortable, valued, and included” within their department, lab, or center.

African-American/Black staff are less likely than other staff to feel that MIT’s policies and practices foster diversity (47%), to be satisfied with the Institute’s diversity (48%), and to feel “extremely comfortable, valued, and included” as a member of their department, lab, or center (16%).

Minority and Caucasian/White staff are about equally likely to have considered leaving (“very seriously” or “somewhat seriously”) in the past year (44% vs. 49%). Minority staff who have considered leaving are more likely than their Caucasian/White colleagues to have considered leaving for advancement opportunities (44% vs. 33%).

Minority staff are more likely than Caucasian/White staff to greatly value: more opportunities for professional development (42% vs. 29%); more opportunities for cross-cultural interaction (29% vs. 12%); a comprehensive orientation program (47% vs. 31%); assistance with housing (28% vs. 12%).

Family Status

Men are more likely than women to report that their spouses or partners work or study less than 35 hours per week (24% vs. 4%). Among staff who are married or partnered, women are more likely than men to report that their spouses or partners have a job involvement or commitment that is the same as or greater than their own (75% vs. 50%).

Among staff who are married or partnered, women are less likely than men to report that their spouses or partners spend the same amount of time or more time on the care of their homes, the care of children, and the care of other dependents. Table 1 shows the contrasts.

TABLE 1: Household Involvement/Commitment of Spouse or Partner

  % of respondents who say that the household involvement/commitment of their spouse or partner exceeds or equals their own a
  Men Women
Time spent on care of house 87% 50%
Time spent on care of dependents other than children 87% 57%
Time spent on care of children 93% 43%

a. Includes “Same as mine,” “Much more than mine,” and “More than mine.”

Two-fifths (39%) of staff reported that their own career considerations have been of “major importance” in their family plans to have children and when to have children. An additional one-third (33%) reported that career considerations have been “somewhat important.” No differences were found by gender.

The MIT Environment

The overwhelming majority of staff rate their supervisors (76%) and coworkers (79%) as being supportive of personal/family responsibilities. In contrast, just 60% agreed that MIT policies are supportive, and less than half (49%) agreed that senior leadership is supportive. See Table 2 for other staff perceptions.

TABLE 2: Staff who Agree or Strongly Agree with Statement

MIT staff… say that…
79% they are satisfied with their benefits
79% their co-workers are supportive of their personal and/or family responsibilities
76% their immediate supervisors are supportive
60% MIT’s policies are supportive
51% they are rewarded for their contributions to MIT
50% they are satisfied with a sense of shared mission
49% MIT senior leadership is supportive
46% they are satisfied with their salary and advancement opportunities
46% they very seriously or somewhat seriously considered leaving MIT in the past year
44% they are satisfied with feeling valued by the Institute

What are Staff Asking For?

More than half of staff (57%) greatly value flexible work arrangements. Four out of five respondents (81%) felt they had sufficient flexibility, but there were comments on the need for consistency and clear policies in making such arrangements.

Post-docs, more than others, request increased opportunities for professional interaction (65%) and ongoing career guidance from their supervisors (48%).

Research women are more likely than research men to value: ongoing career guidance from supervisors (36% vs. 23%); a strong mentoring program (40% vs. 26%); resources and technology for home offices (44% vs. 34%); and enhanced information about campus procedures and resources (36% vs. 20%).

About 40% of administrative and support staff members greatly value a comprehensive orientation program for new staff. Support staff (42%) greatly value better information about campus procedures and resources.

On-site or near-site child care at MIT is valued, along with backup care. Staff parents reported “a great deal of difficulty” with: finding child care when regular care is not available (36%); finding child care for an infant or toddler (34%); finding child care that is affordable (30%); and finding care for a mildly ill child (29%). A special section on findings and recommendations regarding child care and elder care can be found in Appendix B: Dependent Care for Faculty and Staff.

Recommendations

The Council’s recommendations for following up on the survey results are of two kinds. First, there are complex issues that require further study and analysis, for which the Council recommends the creation of a new committee. Because of the importance and the interrelatedness of faculty and staff issues, the Council suggests that the committee be jointly sponsored by the Vice President for Human Resources and the Chair of the Faculty, and that it include representatives from a broad range of staff and faculty constituencies.

Second, the Council recommends specific action steps that emerge from the findings and that can be expected to be highly cost-effective in improving quality of life for staff. Many are already underway, having been anticipated and acted upon before the survey results were announced.

Proposal for a Committee

While some clear-cut action steps emerge from the survey, some of the most cogent issues that it raises are more complex. For example:

• Stress and burnout are significant for certain subpopulations of staff.

 Staff at MIT are highly heterogeneous, with widely varying job responsibilities and roles at the Institute. While in the aggregate, the survey found levels of job satisfaction to be high, problems were present among particular groups, including campus administrative staff who work with faculty, and post-docs across the board.

• Additional problems may well emerge from further analysis of subpopulations.

 In this study, staff populations were grouped, in effect, by payroll category. However, staff members with similar functions can be found in both the “administrative staff” group as well as the “research staff” group, distinguished only by the source of funds that supports them. This had the effect in the survey of homogenizing a large group of people who may or may not have similar job characteristics, while blurring the distinguishing characteristics of groups that may have common characteristics. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain where there may be serious problems and which groups should be targeted for relief. For example, it would be helpful to characterize properly and analyze certain key staff groups, such as those who are directors or executive directors of campus departments, labs, and centers (DLCs). Furthermore, the response rates for some subpopulations, including academic staff and service staff, are sufficiently low that the problems within them may not have been clearly indicated. Finally, there may be subpopulations with comparatively high turnover rates, although benchmarking with other area employers would be needed to determine this.

• Staff lack a sense of connection and shared mission as a community.

 While staff feel a sense of connection in their departments, many lack a sense of shared mission and strongly want connections across the Institute. Some staff commented that there are social divisions among employees that negatively affect morale and the coherence of the MIT community.

• Faculty and staff issues are interrelated.

 Staff and faculty are part of a common community with shared values and assumptions about productivity, excellence, and overwork. Any measures that are taken to address these issues for staff must take into account these shared cultural forces. They must also take into account the impact on faculty of making changes for staff, and vice versa.

For all of the above reasons, the Council recommends the establishment of a special committee, co-sponsored by the Vice President for Human Resources and the Chair of the Faculty, to follow up on the survey initiative and to make further recommendations. Specifically, the Council suggests that the committee include in its research the following steps:

• Evaluate populations at risk of leaving MIT to determine if interventions are needed to retain staff. A benchmarking study of area institutions, as indicated above, would help provide a context for MIT’s turnover figures.

• Analyze staff subpopulations to identify problems that may not be visible in the aggregate data. Subpopulations to be analyzed include not only those that are already identified in the data, such as campus administrative staff, but also those that require reanalysis, such as staff in different payroll categories with similar job functions.

• Explore additional ways to improve morale and connection. Helping employees connect with one another not only creates stronger attachments to the Institute, but also helps get work accomplished because of improved networking among staff. Suggestions include a staff newsletter, networking events for staff performing similar functions, and meetings with both training and social components.

One rich source of data for the committee’s study is the list of comments that were made by staff respondents to open-ended questions in the survey and to consultants who conducted focus groups. (See Appendix A: Response Rates and Methodology.) These comments, edited by the consulting firm to preserve anonymity, will be available to the committee.

Similarly, the Council’s Task Group on Workplace Flexibility solicited feedback from staff as part of its research in preparing recommendations to the Council, and much of this feedback is highly relevant to the committee’s work. Staff frequently commented, for example, on pressures created by unequal workload and by gradual increases in workload (“workload creep”).

Furthermore, the Council recommends that the committee hold forums with appropriate staff groups, such as the Administrative Advisory Council II and the Working Group on Support Staff Issues, to solicit further feedback, while sharing the results of the survey to date. In addition, other offices at MIT have important data to contribute, such as turnover rates, medical care costs, and other metrics of well-being.

Finally, the Council encourages the new committee to coordinate its efforts with those of other committees and organizations whose work is related, such as the new committee to be appointed on faculty quality of life issues, and the new Child Care Advisory Committee.

Action Steps

While the survey highlights some issues that need further study, it points to other issues that are ready for concrete measures to be considered. They include job flexibility, resources for post-docs, career advancement, rewards and recognition, orientation of new employees, and the severe weather policy. Details of the Council’s recommendations are as follows.

• Communicate and implement a clear policy about flexible work arrangements.

Careful development and comprehensive roll-out is essential to insure the success of a workplace flexibility program in MIT’s pressured environment. To date, the potential benefits of flexibility have not been consistently realized, in part because of some managers’ unwillingness to allow flexible work arrangements and some employees’ lack of knowledge about options and the process for requesting flexibility. Key elements of the Council’s recommendation include:

• creating guiding principles

• developing comprehensive guidelines for requesting and evaluating proposals for flexibility arrangements

• disseminating the guidelines effectively to supervisors and staff

• training employees and managers in their effective implementation

• assigning ongoing responsibility for flexibility initiatives to the Human Resources Department

The Council’s Task Group on Workplace Flexibility, under the leadership of Elizabeth Reed, researched flexibility at MIT and presented its final report and recommendations to the Council in May 2001. The report included eight proposed principles for flexible work practice at MIT. The Task Group also drafted a preliminary set of flexibility guidelines, which are expected to be revised, reviewed, and distributed by spring 2003. Finally, the Task Group recommended that ongoing responsibility for flexibility initiatives be assigned to the Human Resources Department, which would provide follow-through guidance and tools to support workplace flexibility.

• Address special problems of the post-doc position.

Among post-docs, 42% are dissatisfied with their salaries and 20% are dissatisfied with benefits. Suggestions from the Council include: (1) examining the policies of peer institutions that have articulated uniform minimum salary and benefit standards for post-docs, and (2) expanding community-building resources. As of fall 2002, Provost Robert Brown, along with Associate Provost and Vice President for Research Alice Gast, have committed staffing and resources to convene an association of post-docs at MIT. The Council recommends supporting the efforts of the newly established post-doc association.

• Continue a focus on professional development and career advancement.

Lack of advancement opportunities is cited as a major issue by those who very seriously consider leaving MIT. Because managers are the primary source of career development for their staff, MIT should consider training enhancements for this aspect of the manager role. The Human Resources Department’s new office, Career Planning at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/hr/careers/index.html), can be expected to make headway in addressing this important issue, and hence should be supported. The office was established in January of 2001 in response to Institute-wide feedback and inquiries about the need to help employees grow and develop, in order both to achieve greater job satisfaction and to meet the changing requirements of the MIT workplace. The office should be evaluated periodically to assess its effectiveness in meeting its goals, and additions and changes should be made as needed.

• Continue efforts to recognize and reward staff.

Given that fewer than half of staff reported feeling valued by the Institute, efforts like the Rewards and Recognition Program (http://web.mit.edu/hr/rewards/index.html) should be supported. The Rewards and Recognition Program was established in fall of 2000 following studies by the Human Resources Practices Design and Development teams and by a Human Resources task force. The Program should be reviewed in the near future to assess its effectiveness in meeting its goals, and additions and changes should be made as needed.

• Continue roll-out of the new comprehensive Orientation Program.

Staff respondents identified the need for an enhanced orientation program, and, in fact, since the survey was administered, the Human Resources Department has refocused its approach to orientation. In the new approach, orientation becomes a comprehensive process. Responsibility for helping the employee get acclimated during the first year is shared among Human Resources, the new employee’s department, and the new employee’s manager. It is expected that by late January 2003, a new half-day orientation event will be introduced and that all incoming, benefits-eligible employees will be invited to attend. The new initiative should be evaluated after a period of implementation, and additions and changes should be made as needed.

• Consider a revised severe weather policy.

While the survey did not request feedback on MIT’s attendance policies, a surprising number of comments about attendance on severe weather days appeared in the open-ended section of the survey. Many staff members expressed concern that they put themselves in harm’s way to try to get to work in inclement weather and lose a vacation day if they don’t. The current practices should be reconsidered, since they appear to generate some amount of ill will toward the Institute.

Conclusion

In summary, within the Quality of Life Survey results, the Council for Family and Work found striking evidence of areas where MIT is a leader among workplaces locally and nationally, but also problem areas where additional measures could significantly increase productivity, morale, and a sense of community. Quality-oflife issues are clearly salient for many staff, whatever their family structure or life experience. A strong message needs to be sent—by means of policies, programs, and statements from senior administration—that this diversity of life style and experience is not only respected but also supported as part of what creates MIT’s excellence.

Appendix A: Response Rates and Methodology

Response Rates Academic and non-academic staff working 50% time or more were invited to participate in the staff survey. These groups include the following staff populations.

Non-academic staff
Academic staff
research staff post-docs
administrative staff other academic staff
support staff • visiting, adjunct, and emeritus professors
service staff • instructors
  • lecturers and senior lecturers
  • visiting scholars, affiliates, and others

Unions participated, with the exception of campus Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which declined. Because medical staff are a small group, their responses were not analyzed separately. Two versions of the staff survey were created: one customized for campus, the other for Lincoln Laboratory.

Across the 9309 staff invited to participate, 3017 responded for a response rate of 32%. Of the 7067 campus staff, 2115 responded for a response rate of 30%. The response rate was higher for non-academic staff (38%) than for academic staff (13%). Of the 2242 Lincoln Laboratory staff, 902 responded for a response rate of 40%. See Table 3 for response rates by subpopulation.

Among staff, response rates for “other academic staff” as well as for service staff were low: 10% and 15%, respectively. The administrative staff had the highest response rate, with 49% of this group returning a survey.

TABLE 3: Staff Populations by Rank/Position and Gender

  MIT Population Survey Respondents Respondents as % of Population
Total Men Women Total a Men Women Total% Men% Women%
# % # % # % # %
Other Acad
emic		 1525 1150 75.4 373 24.5 155 101 65.2 54 34.8 10% 9% 14%
Post-
docs		 753 537 71.3 216 28.7 152 107 70.4 45 29.6 20% 20% 21%
Res 2458 1874 76.2 584 23.8 882 645 73.1 237 26.9 36% 34% 40%
Admin 1956 910 46.5 1046 53.5 960 382 39.8 578 60.2 49% 42% 55%
Support 1863 412 22.1 1451 77.9 720 135 18.8 585 81.3 39% 33% 40%
Service 702 619 88.2 83 11.8 104 91 87.5 13 12.5 15% 15% 16%

a. A total of 3017 staff surveys were returned; 44 did not indicate campus position. Additionally, population information for 52 staff members was missing.

Response rates by race for campus and Lincoln Laboratory are show in Table 4.

TABLE 4: Population and Response Pool by Race for Campus and Lincoln Laboratory Staff

  Asian/P.I. A.A./Black Cauc./White Hisp./Latino
Campus Population 11% 5% 81% 2%
Campus Response 8% 5% 85% 2%
LL Population 4% 2% 93% 1%
LL Response 3% 1% 94% 1%

Campus staff response rates by number of years at MIT are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5: Population and Response Pool by Years at MIT for Campus Staff

  < 1 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15+
Campus Population 24% 24% 11% 13% 10% 19%
Campus Response 18% 23% 11% 16% 12% 20%

Response rates for campus and Lincoln Laboratory (LL) non-academic staff are shown in Table 6. See Appendix C: Profiles of MIT Staff Groups for WFD’s profiles of the various staff populations.

TABLE 6: Non-Academic Staff Population and Response Pool by Gender

  Men Women
Research    
Campus Pop (n=1109) 65% 35%
Campus Resp (n=327) 57% 43%
LL Pop (n=1349) 86% 14%
LL Resp (n=555) 83% 17%
Administrative    
Campus Pop (n=1744) 45% 55%
Campus Resp (n=835) 37% 63%
LL Pop (n=212) 62% 38%
LL Resp (n=125) 60% 40%
Support    
Campus Pop (n=1572) 22% 78%
Campus Resp (n=582) 18% 82%
LL Pop (n=291) 25% 75%
LL Resp (n=138) 20% 80%
Service    
Campus Pop (n=293) 85% 15%
Campus Resp (n=24) 88% 12%
LL Pop (n=409) 91% 9%
LL Resp (n=80) 88% 12%

Design and Fielding of the Survey

In designing the survey, input was sought from senior administrators as well as faculty and staff. First, in spring 2001, executive interviews were conducted to help frame the research questions. Then, during the summer, focus groups and interviews to identify key topics for the survey instruments were conducted for and with faculty and staff.

The Quality of Life Surveys were conducted by the Council on Family and Work in the fall of 2001. All faculty and staff working 50% time or more were invited to participate.1 Different versions of the survey instrument were developed for faculty, campus staff, and Lincoln Laboratory staff. Because this survey was intended in part as a follow-up to the survey conducted in 1989 by the Ad Hoc Committee on Family and Work,2 several questions were repeated to allow for comparisons.

Participation in the study was strictly voluntary, and the information provided has been held in strict confidentiality. The data were analyzed by an external contractor, WFD Consulting, Inc., a Watertown-based firm whose clients are primarily large corporations. WFD describes its expertise as being in “services to help clients create conditions—both at work and in the community—that help people come to work, stay at work, and be effective at work.” WFD presented its analysis of the data to the Council on Family and Work on February 26, 2002. Excerpts from WFD’s analysis are cited throughout this report.

WFD reported the survey results to The Council on Family and Work in a summarized form so that the confidentiality of all respondents was preserved. Because of the differential response rates, all data were weighted to represent the true population proportions. For faculty, data were weighted by rank and gender. For staff, data were weighted by location (campus or Lincoln Laboratory), position, and gender.

Statistical Methods

Tests of significance

For questions with ordinal responses (e.g., very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied), a Kruskal-Wallis test was run on the groups of interest (e.g., campus administrative staff, Lincoln administrative staff, etc.) to see if any significant differences existed among these groups. For questions with responses on an interval scale (e.g., stress and burnout index), an analysis of variance replaced the Kruskal-Wallis test at the same level of significance.

These tests were run at the 95% significance level, which may be interpreted as meaning that 95 out of 100 times, when a sample is drawn from the same population, one or more group differences under consideration will, in fact, be significant (i.e., not equal to zero). Prominent differences are highlighted in this report.

Staff were weighted by job category, gender, and location. Using female support staff at Lincoln Laboratory as an example, 217 surveys were sent and 110 returned. Each respondent was then weighted 217/110 or 1.97.

Non-responders

The first invitation to participate in the survey was sent to all staff via email following Dr. Vest’s email letter. The survey questionnaire could be completed interactively on the Web using a browser. Anyone who preferred to complete a paper questionnaire could request one and was sent a hardcopy form. Everyone who did not respond to the first invitation was automatically sent a reminder email and some DLC heads sent follow-ups as well. There was no further follow-up with non-responders after the second round, and no analysis was made of the nonresponding population to compare it to the responding population.

Appendix B: Dependent Care for Faculty and Staff

Findings

Dependent care issues are salient at MIT. Nearly half of faculty and almost as many staff have children currently living at home, and over a fifth of faculty and staff expect to have or adopt a child in the next few years. Parents face difficulties finding child care when their regular care is not available, for mildly ill children, and for infants and toddlers. Affordable child care is an issue for staff. Virtually the entire MIT community supports on-site or near-site child care at MIT; non-tenured faculty and post-docs are the most likely to say it is of great value to them.

MIT’s investment in on-site child care is greatly valued by a substantial population at MIT, and Institute members strongly believe that MIT should meet this need, whether or not they themselves would use these facilities.

Elder care is a growing concern. A quarter of faculty and staff expect to have this responsibility in the near future, while one in seven say they are currently engaged in elder care.

Recommendations

1) The Institute should continue its track record of improving and expanding child care resources.

In particular, three actions are recommended:

• Follow up with commitment to expand on-site child care capacity.

Responding to faculty and staff demand for an increase in on-site child care and to a serious shortage of local infant and toddler care, MIT is substantially expanding its total child care capacity. Within the next three years, capacity will grow from 123 slots to 277 or more slots: roughly 128 slots on campus, and 149 at Lincoln Laboratory.

Currently, MIT’s two campus facilities, located within graduate housing complexes at Eastgate and Westgate, serve a total of 55 children. In January 2004, a new child care facility, serving 73 children, will open in the Ray and Maria Stata Center for Computer, Information, and Intelligence Sciences. Support for the campus expansion has come from the Provost. Campus programs offer full- and part-time child care and occasional back-up child care for children from 15 months through kindergarten entry; the Stata Center will be able, in addition, to offer infant care. An additional 75 slots were recommended by an Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on On-site Child Care in 1998. Studies are underway to explore additional expansion opportunities at existing and new campus child care sites.

At Lincoln Laboratory, construction has been completed to increase the capacity of the existing child care facility on the grounds of Minuteman Regional High School from 68 to 149 children. Lincoln Laboratory will offer full-time child care for children from infancy through kindergarten.

The expansion of campus child care has been accompanied by a change in management structure. The Center for Work, Family, and Personal Life now oversees campus child care, and Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., an outside child care firm, has been engaged to provide management services to existing programs at Eastgate and Westgate; beginning in 2004, Bright Horizons will also manage the new program at the Stata Center.

• Initiate a back-up child care program.

A modest increase in resources would allow back-up child care to be made available; this is very valuable to younger faculty, and it is a need perceived by staff as well. For example, Harvard subsidizes back-up and emergency child care through a local, vendor-managed, in-home service, Parents in a Pinch, which provides caregivers to homes in the greater Boston area. Parents contract with the vendor individually, but at a somewhat reduced cost.

• Address issues of affordability and best use of facilities by means of the newly established MIT Child Care Advisory Committee.

An MIT Child Care Advisory Committee is being established as an advisory group to the Center for Work, Family, and Personal Life to provide ongoing guidance regarding child care needs. This Committee will help assure the best use of on-site facilities, resulting in a mix of programs to meet the needs of the MIT community. The Council recommends that special attention be given to infant and toddler care and the issue of affordability.

2) Given the expected rise in the number of MIT employees who will provide care to elders, MIT should provide more comprehensive resources for elder care.

Resources must be useful for faculty and staff who provide care for elders locally as well as for those managing care at some distance.

Appendix C: Profiles of MIT Staff Groups

This appendix contains an analysis, prepared by WFD Consulting, Inc., of the staff responses to the survey.

Academic Staff

• Post-doctoral Fellows and Associates
• Other Academic Staff

Non-academic Staff

• Research Staff
• Administrative Staff
• Support Staff
• Service Staff

Post-doctoral Fellows and Associates

Given the nature of the post-doctoral position, it is not surprising that post-doc respondents are much younger than staff in other positions; four-fifths are between the ages of 25 and 34. Post-docs are mostly men (71%), and almost all post-docs work full-time. This is the most racially diverse staff group: the majority are Caucasian/White, but almost one-third are Asian/Pacific Islander. Reflecting their young age, only about one-fourth of post-docs have children younger than 23, but more than two-fifths expect to have their first child in the next few years.

Similar to other academic staff and faculty, half of post-doc respondents think MIT has more pace and pressure than other places. Post-docs, however, enjoy working at MIT for many reasons, including its reputation, the challenge of their jobs, and the Institute’s diversity. Post-docs, however, work long hours with inadequate recognition. They would like to see improvements to their jobs, including better salaries/wages, the Institute’s valuing of post-docs, fewer work hours, better professional guidance and supervision, and less working in isolation. More than other staff, post-docs report that too much extra time is required by their job.

Other Academic Staff

The other academic staff group comprises academic staff who are neither current faculty nor post-docs. They include: visiting, adjunct, and emeritus professors; instructors; lecturers and senior lecturers; visiting scholars; affiliates; and others. The majority of these individuals are men (76%). More than two-fifths of respondents have children under the age of 23, and about one-tenth are planning to have their first child in the next few years. Out of all of the groups of staff, other academic staff have the most part-time workers, nearly one-fifth. Men and women are equally likely to be working part-time.

Like the faculty, more than half of other academic staff respondents think MIT has more pace/pressure than other places. In addition to enjoying working at MIT because of its reputation, they enjoy the challenge of their jobs and the opportunity to learn and grow. Although they are generally satisfied with working at MIT, areas of dissatisfaction include salaries/wages, not feeling valued by MIT, and the lack of a sense of a shared mission. They would like to see a change in the culture to one that has less pace and pressure, fewer work hours and/or more staffing, and less working in isolation. Other academic staff are committed to MIT and experience some stress and burnout, but not more than staff in other professional positions and considerably less than their faculty colleagues. As a whole, other academic staff are less likely than staff in other positions to feel supported for their work, personal, and family integration.

Research Staff

Three-fourths of research staff respondents are men. About half of the research staff have children younger than 23 and about one-sixth (16%) are planning to have their first child in the next few years. Most research staff members are in the baby boom generation (35 to 54 years old), and one-fourth are younger and one-sixth are older. Many research staff have worked at MIT for a long time—half have worked at MIT for ten or more years. A similar proportion expect to work at MIT for five or more years; one seventh (15%) expect to leave MIT in fewer than three years. More than two-fifths of research staff respondents work on campus and more than half work at the Lincoln Laboratory.

Research staff enjoy working at MIT because of its reputation, their relationships with co-workers, their benefits, the challenge of the job, their work schedule, and the opportunity to learn and grow. Areas of dissatisfaction include not feeling valued by MIT, lack of advancement opportunity, and low salaries/wages. They would like MIT to improve staffing levels, reduce workload, increase flexibility of work schedules, and improve project management. In terms of the pace and pressure at MIT, about one-fourth of research staff believe the pace and pressure is greater than that of other places. They experience about the same amount of stress and burnout as staff in other professional positions at MIT and similar levels of commitment to MIT.

The majority of research staff are satisfied with their overall quality of integrating work and personal and/or family lives, and they are more likely than those in other staff positions to feel they are given support for their work, personal, and family life integration.

The research staff on campus differ somewhat from the research staff at Lincoln Laboratory. Campus research staff tend to be less satisfied with advancement and career opportunities, salary/wages, and feeling valued and rewarded. Lincoln Laboratory research staff lack flexibility to work at home at least some of the time, flexible full-time work hours, and ongoing career guidance. It should be noted that Lincoln Laboratory research staff are generally more satisfied than campus research staff and staff in other positions with their jobs and ability to integrate work, personal, and family responsibilities.

About one-seventh of research staff respondents expect to work at MIT for only another two years, although this varies significantly by location. One-fifth of campus research staff respondents expect to work at MIT only another one or two years while about one-tenth of Lincoln Laboratory staff expect to work at MIT only another one or two years.

There are some differences that vary by location between research staff who plan on working for a shorter time compared to those staying for a longer time. The first comparison looks at campus research staff. In comparison to researchers who think they will work at MIT for three or more years, researchers who are likely to work two or fewer years are:

• younger with fewer years of service at MIT;

• less satisfied with many aspects of their jobs, such as challenge of their jobs, opportunity to learn and grow, salary/wages, and their jobs overall;

• less satisfied with their ability to integrate their work and personal/ family lives and with feeling supported by MIT for their personal and family lives, including less support from senior leadership, MIT’s policies, faculty/staff, and department administration;

• less attached to MIT, including being less satisfied with feeling rewarded by MIT, the sense of shared mission, feeling valued by the Institute, and feeling like they could recommend MIT to others, as well as feeling less loyalty towards the Institute; and

• more likely to value assistance with housing and ongoing career guidance from supervisors.

For Lincoln Laboratory research staff, those who predict they will be working at MIT for two or fewer years and those who predict they will work for longer exhibit few differences. Those leaving within a few years are somewhat older and tend to be less satisfied with their working relationships with co-workers than are those who predict they will work longer.

Administrative Staff

The administrative staff respondents include about equal numbers of men and women. About two-thirds are in the baby boom generation (ages 35 to 54), with about equal proportions younger and older. Two-fifths have children under the age of 23 and one-seventh are planning to have their first child in the next few years. More than half have worked at MIT for five or more years and half expect to work at MIT for at least another five years. Ninety percent work on campus, one-tenth at Lincoln Laboratory.

Administrative staff like working at MIT because of its reputation and benefits and because of their relationships with co-workers. Two-thirds of the administrative staff are satisfied with their ability to integrate their personal and family lives with their work at MIT, and they are likely to feel supported for their work, personal, and family life integration—more than most other staff positions.

Areas of dissatisfaction include: salaries/wages; not feeling valued; advancement opportunity; sense of shared mission; and pace and pressure. About one-third of administrative staff think the pace and pressure at MIT is greater than at other places. Other issues include excessive workload, limited flexible work schedules, and poor project management.

Some issues emerge by location.

• Campus administrative staff want greater access to the resources and information they need to do their jobs effectively, and less pace and pressure. They are more likely than their counterparts at Lincoln Laboratory as well as other staff to feel physically and emotionally drained at the end of a workday.

• Lincoln Laboratory administrative staff would like less focus on the number of hours worked and greater emphasis on what is accomplished. In addition, they would like greater flexibility to work at home some of the time and greater availability of flexible full-time schedules.

About one-sixth (17%) of administrative staff respondents expect to work at MIT for two or fewer years, and this proportion is the same regardless of the location. Those who expect to work at MIT for two or fewer years are younger than other administrative staff and are more likely to have children younger than six (66% vs. 39%).

Administrative staff who expect to work at MIT for only two years or less differ from their counterparts who expect to stay longer. They are:

• less satisfied with their jobs, including the advancement opportunity; challenge of their jobs; opportunity to learn and grow; supervision they get; salary/wages; pace and pressure at the Institute; working relationships with co-workers; feeling good about career development opportunities; opportunities to enhance skills in current job; and having the resources and information needed to do one’s job effectively;

• less attached to MIT, including being less satisfied with the sense of a shared mission; feeling valued by MIT; feeling loyal to MIT; feeling rewarded for their contribution by MIT; agreeing with MIT’s goals; being recognized by immediate supervisors; and feeling included as a member of their group or department; and

• less satisfied with the support they receive, including getting the support needed when conflicts arise; having the flexibility they need for work, personal, and family responsibilities; and their ability to leave work for child-related situations. They are less satisfied than other administrative staff with their ability to integrate their work, personal, and family roles and with their ability to manage the demands of work, personal, and family life.

In addition, the administrative staff who predict they will work at MIT for only one or two more years are more likely to frequently feel physically or emotionally drained at the end of the work day.

Support Staff

Most of support staff respondents are women (78%). About half are in the baby boom generation, with one-third younger and one-seventh older. They are the youngest workforce among the non-academic staff positions. More than two-fifths are single and have worked for two or fewer years at MIT. About one-third have children younger than 23, and about one-seventh are planning to have their first child within the next few years. More than two-fifths expect to work at MIT for another five or more years. The majority of support staff work on campus, while about one-sixth work at Lincoln Laboratory. Lincoln Laboratory support staff are long-time employees at MIT, with about half having worked there 10 or more years.

Support staff respondents like working at MIT because of its reputation and the benefits. While the majority of support staff are satisfied with their ability to integrate their work life with their personal and/or family lives, men in support positions are the least satisfied of all those in staff positions. In general, support staff feel they are supported at work for their personal and family responsibilities. Areas of dissatisfaction include salaries/wages, advancement opportunities, not feeling valued, sense of shared mission, and challenge of the job. Other issues include limited flexible work schedules, excessive workload, and poor project management.

The support staff have a lower commitment score than those in other staff positions; they have less stress and burnout than other positions as well. In terms of the pace and pressure at MIT, only about one-fifth of the support staff believe the pace and pressure is greater than that of other places. Among all of the staff positions, this group is the least satisfied with their specific jobs. They are dissatisfied with the challenge their jobs present and they report that they are likely to leave MIT for more challenging positions. These employees would like MIT to provide a comprehensive orientation program for new staff as well as assistance with housing.

About one-fifth of support staff respondents expect to work at MIT for only another one or two years, although this varies significantly by location. One-fourth of campus support staff expect only to work at MIT another one or two years, while this figure drops to less than one-tenth at Lincoln Laboratory.

Support staff who expect to work at MIT for only a few more years are younger and less likely than other support staff to have children. Nearly two-thirds are single, which is significantly higher than for those who are staying for longer than two years. Nearly two-thirds have been at MIT for only two years or less. Those expecting to leave are:

• less satisfied with specific aspects of their jobs, including the advancement opportunity; challenge of the job; opportunity to learn and grow; supervision they get; salary/wages; job overall; career development opportunities; and having opportunities to enhance skills in their current job. They are also more likely to leave MIT for a more challenging position;

• less satisfied with the support they receive at work, such as feeling that ideas, questions, and feelings about their job are addressed; getting support when conflicts arise; feeling respected by their immediate supervisor; feeling respected by faculty (campus only); feeling respected by students (campus only); feeling respected by others in their group; and feeling included as a member of the group or department; and

• less attached to MIT, including being less satisfied with the sense of shared mission; feeling valued; feeling rewarded for their contribution; and feeling loyal to MIT.

Service Staff

Most of service staff respondents are men (88%), half have children younger than 23, and only a small proportion expect to start a family in the next few years. The service staff is the oldest of the staff groups, with less than one-tenth under 35, twothirds between the ages of 35 and 54, and one-fourth age 55 or older. Not surprisingly given their older age, this group has been at MIT the longest. This group also expects to work at MIT the longest—half expect to work at MIT for another ten or more years. Two-fifths of service staff work on campus, and nearly three-fifths work at Lincoln Laboratory.

In terms of their work environment, only about one-tenth of service staff believe the pace and pressure at MIT is greater than that of other places, significantly less than for other MIT staff positions. Among various work environment factors, service staff are the most satisfied with the Institute’s reputation. They are dissatisfied with advancement opportunities, feeling valued, salaries/wages, supervision, and opportunities to learn and grow. They are not as committed as other groups to MIT, and they report less stress and burnout than other groups.

The majority of service staff are satisfied with their ability to integrate their work and personal lives, although they do not feel as supported by the Institute as do those in other non-academic staff positions.

Appendix D: Council on Family and Work

Co-chairs

Roy E. Welsch 3
• Professor of Statistics and Management Science
• Director, Center for Computational Research in Economics and Management Science

A. Rae Simpson
• Co-manager, MIT Center for Work, Family, and Personal Life

Members

Lotte Bailyn ( ex officio)
• T Wilson Professor of Management
• Co-chair, Quality of Life Task Force

Noramay J. Cadena ’03
• Mechanical Engineering

Vicky Diadiuk
• Assistant Director for Operations, Microsystems Technology Laboratories
• Co-chair, Quality of Life Task Force

Lois S. Eichler
• Clinical Psychologist, Medical

Brian M. Ferrick
• 2nd Class Engineer, Facilities

R. John Hansman, Jr.
• Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation
• Co-chair, Task Group on Faculty Issues

Terry W. Knight
• Associate Dean, School of Architecture and Planning
• Co-chair, Task Group on Faculty Issues

Helen Elaine Lee
• Associate Professor, Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies

Sandra D. Manassa
• Senior Internal Auditor, Audit Division

Olga Parkin
• Administrative Assistant, Biological Engineering Division

Elizabeth A. Reed
• Director, Office of Career Services and Preprofessional Advising
• Chair, Task Group on Workplace Flexibility

David Saff 4
• Graduate Student, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Joyce D. Yaffee
• Director, Human Resources, Lincoln Laboratory

Quality of Life Task Force

Co-chairs

Lotte Bailyn 5 (acting)
• T Wilson Professor of Management

Vicky Diadiuk
• Assistant Director for Operations,
Microsystems Technology Laboratories

Other committee members and key contributors 6

Noramay J. Cadena ’03
• Mechanical Engineering

Regina Caines
• Director, Affirmative Action/EEOC and Diversity Programs

R. John Hansman, Jr.
• Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation
• Co-chair, Task Group on Faculty Issues

Terry W. Knight
• Associate Dean, School of Architecture and Planning
• Co-chair, Task Group on Faculty Issues

Helen Elaine Lee
• Associate Professor, Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies

Elizabeth A. Reed
• Director, Office of Career Services and Preprofessional Advising
• Chair, Task Group on Workplace Flexibility

A. Rae Simpson
• Co-manager, MIT Center for Work, Family, and Personal Life

Lydia Snover
• Assistant to the Provost for Institutional Research

Roy E. Welsch
• Professor of Statistics and Management Science
• Director, Center for Computational Research in Economics and Management Science

Ellen Williams
• Special Assistant to the Provost

Joyce D. Yaffee
• Director, Human Resources, Lincoln Laboratory

Appendix E: Acronyms

CFW - Council on Family and Work

DLC - department, lab, or center

HR - Human Resources

LL - Lincoln Laboratory

WFD - WFD Consulting, Inc., the Watertown-based contractor assisting with the survey design, implementation, and analysis

1. Quality-of-life questions were developed for graduate students and included in a separate general survey of graduate students fielded in late fall 2001 by the Provost’s Office.

2. The Ad Hoc Committee on Family and Work, chaired by Professor Peter Elias, was asked “to gather data on MIT demographics, to review current MIT practices affecting family responsibilities, and to recommend improvements.” The Committee presented its preliminary findings at the Faculty Meeting of March 21, 1990; issued a repor t on May 25, 1990 summarizing focus group and survey results; and released its final report on November 7, 1990.

3. Claude Canizares served as co-chair of the Council from 1999 through 2001. The Council gratefully acknowledges his contributions and guidance during the planning and design of the Quality of Life Survey.

4. Smaranda M. Moisescu served on the Council as a graduate student from 2000 through 2001. Christopher D. Coldren served on the Council as a post-doctoral fellow from 2000 through 2002.

5. Roy Welsch served as co-chair of the Quality of Life Task Force from its inception in 2000 until he assumed his role as co-chair of the full Council in February 2002.