Keirsey Faculty Temperament Survey

1
Keirsey Faculty Temperament Survey

• Dave Graff Feras Alshehri
  Chris Zellers Joe Gherardi
• Guardian Idealist
  Guardian Guardian

2
Beginning

• Created ANGEL Group
• Sent out emails
• Set up prelim meeting

3
Group meetings

• Initial Meeting
• Attempted Weekly
• Computer Labs
• Conflicting Schedules
• ANGEL

4
Original Timeline

• 2-17-07
• Week of 2-18
• 2-28-07
• Week of 3-26
• 3-30-07
• 4-23-07

5
Mission

• We are engineering students enrolled in the ENGR
  493 class, wishing to gain leadership experience
  to further our education here at Pennsylvania
  State University. We want to conduct a proper
  and thorough survey of the faculty and staff of
  the Penn State College of Engineering, and
  analyze the results, to gain understanding
  between trends in temperament between different
  faculty and staff members within the College of
  Engineering, in order to help the college operate
  more effectively with this information.

6
Meeting with Dean Engel

• Helpful, but not the response we expected
• Deans office will NOT endorse email
• No list-serves
• Contact Faculty members we personally know
• Very challenging assignment

7
Contacting an Expert

• Contacted Prof. Greg Loviscky
• Approved the overall survey
• Suggested minor additions

8
New timeline

• 3-20-07
• 3-30-07
• 4-6-07
• 4-23-07

9
Survey

• Difficulties
• Limited response size
• Credibility

10
Personalized Emails

• Sent to previous/current instructors
• Explanation
• Instructions
• Thank You

11
Responses
12
Responses

• The hardest part of the Project
• Faculty apathy.
• Non official survey.
• Faculty just finished two long surveys.
• Hard to find office hours

13
Responses

• The response
• Sent messages to
• 149 faculty members .
• All 12 department heads.
• Only received
• 33 responses from faculty(22 response).
• 7 department heads(58.3 response).

14
Responses

• People who did not take the survey
• Sorry. Please find someone else to help you
• No plus E-mail no survey.
• swamped with my existing commitments.

15
Responses

• People who took the survey
• Glad to oblige. Good luck with your project.
• it sounds interesting.
• This is so cool! Can I help?

16

• Statistical Analysis

17
Statistical Analysis

• Pearson Chi-Squared Test of Independence
• Calc1 (Row Total) (Column Total) / (Grand
  Total)
• Error1 (Actual1 Calc1) / (Calc1)
• Sum(Error1 Error2 ) Test Statistic
• Reject if Test Statistic gt Critical
  Value

18
Possible Comparisons

• Faculty vs. Department Heads
• Department vs. Temperament
• Male vs. Female
• National vs. International
• Experience vs. Temperament
• Age vs. Temperament
• Penn State vs. National Average

19
Survey Results

• Comparison of the Penn State Engineering Faculty
  and the Engineering Department Heads

20
Penn State vs. National Averages
21
Results

• Faculty vs. Department Heads
• Male vs. Female
• Experience vs. Temperament
• Penn State vs. National Average

22
Successes and Failures

• Successes
• Responses from every department
• Executed project well
• Learned a great deal

• Failures
• Response time
• Low response rate
• Communication with faculty could have been better

23
Application to ENGR 408

• Keirsey Temperament Paper
• Group Dynamics
• Shared Leadership

24
What our Project Means

• Penn State
• The Future

25
Leadership Takeaway
26

• QUESTIONS?