Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents committee hears plans to boost faculty and staff engagement and leadership development
Summary
University of Minnesota presenters described a decade of employee‑engagement surveying, a 74% reported response rate, and college-level leadership pipelines (cohorts and dean's fellows) intended to improve retention and supervision across campuses.
The Special Committee on University Workforce at the University of Minnesota heard a systemwide briefing on employee engagement and college-level leadership programs at a February 2025 special meeting. University human resources senior director Brandon Sullivan outlined the engagement survey approach and data; a College of Science and Engineering leader described cohort-based leadership development programs intended to strengthen supervision and retention.
Sullivan said the university has used an employee engagement survey for roughly 10 years as a confidential tool for faculty and staff feedback. He summarized engagement research and three ‘‘driver’’ buckets the survey targets: the nature of the work, interactions with colleagues, and leadership and supervision. Sullivan highlighted that engagement tends to predict outcomes the university cares about, including faculty and staff retention and the student experience. "When we are highly engaged, we're energetic and resilient, dedicated and involved, and focused and motivated," he said.
Sullivan described how the survey was developed—review of peer‑reviewed research, a faculty advisory committee, interviews with deans and chancellors, and a consulting partner—and presented recent response metrics. He reported a systemwide response rate of about 74% for the most recent administration, compared with a 38% response rate on the university's earlier pulse survey, and said the results are shared locally where at least five people respond so colleges and units can act on the data.
The College of Science and Engineering presenter described an integrated leadership pipeline that begins with onboarding cohorts for incoming faculty, adds a one‑year "college leads" cohort for rising leaders, and offers a compensated "dean's fellows" program that assigns short projects (for example, examining transfer pathways) to develop managerial skills. The college speaker said the approach helps create a bench of prepared leaders and improves hiring options for department heads and center directors.
Regents used the question period to press on measurement and language. Regent Turner said the term "burnout" can feel imprecise for clinical workers and preferred the term "moral distress" in some contexts; Sullivan apologized if the term caused offense and noted that research commonly uses the term burnout. Turner and others also asked whether the university assesses whether supervisor training produces measurable improvement; Sullivan acknowledged that assessing supervisor effectiveness is difficult and stressed opportunities to refine selection and recognition for good leadership at the college level.
President Cunningham praised the college's programming as "very impressive" and asked about scaling across colleges; presenters said expansion is possible but requires time and resources and may need adaptation to each college's culture and funding.
The presentation emphasized that much of the work to improve engagement happens at the local level: colleges, departments, and units use the survey data and campus supports to pilot changes. Sullivan said some systemwide follow‑up research and provost‑led pilots are under way on themes such as equitable workload distribution for faculty.
The committee did not take formal action on the presentations; presenters said they would continue work with colleges and provide follow‑up details when requested.
