1
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION RESULTS RELATED TO WORK/LIFE BALANCE DRAWN FROM RECENT
QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEYS FOR FACULTY & STAFF
REPORT BY THE MIT COUNCIL ON FAMILY AND WORK
SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
Motivation
Over the past year, the Presidential Council on Family and Work has worked to investigate
work/life balance issues at MIT and discover areas amenable to improvement. This memo
highlights our findings from a deep dive into the results of the 2012 Quality of Life Survey
focusing on responses by MIT faculty and staff. We explored these data and found that, for MIT
staff, two factors had large and robust correspondence to work/life balance and overall employee
satisfaction: a manager open to flexible work schedules and access to mentoring.
Since the dissemination of our results in late fall 2013, we were fortunate to present these results
to Academic Council, AO/FO, Working Group on Support Staff Issues, and Administrative
Advisory Council II and received valuable feedback. We also investigated the extent to which
mentoring programs are employed here at MIT.
The remainder of this memo is organized as follows. Section I reiterates our findings from the
2012 Quality of Life Survey, with additional information about hetereogeneity across the school
in openness to flexibility and strengths in mentorship (I.4). Section II describes some of the
themes we heard as we presented the results across the Institute. Section III describes
mentorship programs at MIT with a focus on the valued program at Lincoln Labs. Finally,
Section IV offers some recommendations. We hope this memo will continue to provide an
impetus to improve quality of life at MIT through renewed policies and attitudes toward
flexibility and mentorship.
I. Quality of Life Survey Results
The Council’s initial exploration into the Quality of Life Survey was summarized in our reports
found here: http://hrweb.mit.edu/workfamily/index.html
. Faculty report long working hours and
considerable stress, but also a high degree of satisfaction, with both measures notably higher in
2012 compared to the faculty survey in 2008. In 2012, staff also reported a high degree of
satisfaction. There was no staff survey in 2008 for comparison.
I.1. Predictors of Work/Life Satisfaction: Flexible Work Schedules & Mentoring
The 2012 Quality of Life Survey asked respondents about their ability to integrate the needs of
work and personal/family life. Figure 1 shows that 60% of faculty, nearly 80% of Campus Staff,
and over 80% of employees at Lincoln Lab report being somewhat or very satisfied in their
ability to integrate these needs. That 40% of faculty struggle to integrate work and
personal/family life strikes us as a potential area for improvement.
2
We systematically considered predictors of this ability to integrate work and personal/family life.
The most striking finding was that, controlling for demographics and workload, staff members
who reported having a supervisor/chair/dean who is open to flexible work arrangements are
considerably more likely to report satisfaction with such integration, as well as overall
satisfaction, compared to their colleagues who reported that their supervisors were not open to
such schedules.
In particular, Figure 1 shows that 80% of MIT employees report having a supervisor who is
“open to flexibility” and these employees have a 15 percentage-point higher ability to integrate
work and family needs. To put this in perspective, adding ten hours to their (self-reported)
number of hours worked per week—which should impact their ability to integrate these needs in
a tangible way—lowers their reported satisfaction in such integration by only 5 percentage points
for faculty, 8 percentage points for staff, and 10 percentage points for Lincoln Lab employees.
The full model estimates are available in the appendix table.
The second main predictor of the integration of work and family, as well as overall satisfaction,
is whether the employee felt he or she received adequate mentoring: an affirmative answer
raises the satisfaction with the integration of work and family needs by 6-8 percentage points.
Interestingly, while only 13% of faculty (and 20% of Postdocs), found mentoring “Not
Applicable” for themselves, larger fractions of MIT’s staff considered mentoring “Not
Applicable”. Administrative and other academic staff were most likely to expect to be mentored
(only 29% of these groups chose “Not Applicable), while service staff had the highest response
of “Not Applicable”, at 67%. For support staff, 44% responded “Not Applicable” as did 39% of
research staff. It appears that the focus on improving the mentoring of faculty over the past 10
years has been successful, but has had limited effect on the expectations of staff.
Furthermore, for those staff members who do expect to receive mentoring, less than half state
that they receive adequate mentoring. Postdocs who expect to be mentored are most likely to
believe they receive adequate mentoring (49% responded “Yes” vs. 31% “No”). For each of the
other categories of staff (administrative, support, service, other academic, and research) the
majority of those expecting to receive mentoring felt they were not receiving adequate mentoring.
As there is a clear correlation between receiving adequate mentoring and job satisfaction, this
evidence suggests that a larger mentoring initiative for staff would likely result in more satisfied
employees.
These results are not restricted to work/life balance issues, but extend to overall employee
satisfaction. Figure 2 shows that most employees are satisfied with their employment at MIT. It
also shows that openness to flexible schedules strongly increases this satisfaction by 10-13
percentage points across the employee groups. Put another way: those whose supervisors are not
open to such arrangements would be expected to have much lower satisfaction levels. In
comparison, adding ten hours to a typical work week barely registers in the satisfaction of
employees.
3
I.2. Competing Explanations
One concern with these correlations is that some employees may be prone to answering
questions positively across the board, and the openness to flexibility question and satisfaction
questions may be positively correlated as a result. Figure 3 suggests that this is not the case by
considering satisfaction outside of MIT. Openness to flexibility is relatively unrelated to
satisfaction outside of MIT. While a lack of a direct effect of such openness on satisfaction
outside of MIT is somewhat surprising, it strongly suggests that the initial results are not driven
by those who answer all questions in a positive way.
At the same time, those who feel they have received adequate mentoring do show a positive
relationship with their satisfaction outside of MIT. While this could be a direct effect of
mentoring improving their situation at MIT, which spills over into satisfaction outside of MIT, it
is more prone to the criticism that the two measures are correlated due to the inclination to
answer questions in a positive manner across the board.
When exploring the issue in more depth, one mechanism by which the openness to flexibility and
the receipt of adequate mentoring can raise satisfaction is that members of the community find it
related to fairness and equity at the workplace. Figure 4 shows that 70% of employees agree that
their department has procedures that are fair and equitable to all. Figure 4 also shows that
flexibility and mentoring are positively correlated to such a feeling, especially among employees
on the main campus.
I.3. Potential Benefit of Flexibility: Employee Retention
Figure 5 considers retention. The Quality of Life Survey asks whether employees are likely to
leave MIT in the next three years. Among main-campus staff, and especially among Lincoln
Lab employees, those with supervisors who are open to flexible work arrangements have
statistically-significantly lower rates of having an intention to leave MIT. Having adequate
mentoring is also associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of having such an
intention across all three groups. In comparison, adding 10 hours of work to a typical week has a
smaller relationship with this retention measure across all three groups.
I.4. Heterogeneity across the Institute
The final set of figures displays results for work/life balance satisfaction, mentorship, and
openness to flexibility across groups at MIT.
I.4.1 By Employee Type
Figure 6 shows the main comparisons across different types of employees at the Institute
Faculty and postdocs report a lower ability to integrate the needs of work with personal or family
life: 23% report that they are very satisfied along this dimension compared to approximately
42% for staff.
4
Admin, support, and especially service staff members report less openness to flexibility than the
other types of employees.
Staff members also note that they have not received adequate mentoring. Interestingly,
approximately one-third of admin and support staff report that this question is not applicable, and
among the remainder who say it is applicable, over half say they have not received adequate
mentoring. We see both improving the adequacy of staff mentoring and creating a demand for
staff mentoring as potential avenues for improving staff quality of life at the Institute.
Faculty and postdocs are supposed to have formal mentors. The fact that a substantial minority
of faculty and postdocs report that they have not received adequate mentoring shows that a
formal program needs to be managed. We are encouraged by early efforts described below that
are attempting to roll out mentorship more broadly in a well-informed way.
I.4.1 Across Schools and Areas
The appendix figures show substantial heterogeneity in the ability to integrate work and
personal/family life, openness to flexibility, and satisfaction with mentoring across different
Areas and Schools at the Institute.
In particular, among admin/support staff, there appears to be substantial variance in the openness
to flexibility for admin/support staff across Schools (Figure A2) and across Areas and
Departments (Figure A3), as well as satisfaction with mentoring (Figure A4).
These differences in the data corroborate the reports that we have heard about heterogeneity in
the way that flexibility and mentorship is considered for staff. Our hope is that information
about these differences described in the Figures can spur a conversation about how to encourage
greater similarity in the implementation of our flexibility policy, and support the nascent efforts
to encourage more mentorship, especially among staff members.
II. Results of Spring 2014 “Listening Tour”
There were a few themes that arose from our discussions with staff and faculty across the
Institute.
First, there was general support for the notion that flexibility and mentorship among staff were
valuable and underutilized, even with concerns about specific features of each.
Second, there was a call for a better understanding in the coming Quality of Life survey over
what types of flexibility and mentorship are appreciated by staff and faculty. The current survey
did not allow us to consider nuances within these broad concepts. For example, flexibility could
range from openness to taking an afternoon to go to a personal appointment, all the way to
working from home.
5
Third, heterogeneity in access to these benefits across the Institute for similar positions was seen
as undesireable, and something that we hope the Institute can improve going forward.
Interestingly, some administrators in areas where flexibility is more difficult to provide voiced
concern that they might lose valuable employees to areas that have more flexibility.
Fourth, in terms of flexibility, there are naturally specific considerations that need to be
considered, such as which groups are eligible for various flexible work arrangements.
Fifth, our discussions revealed that the existing HR guidelines on flexibility are not as well
known across the Institute as would be desirable.
Six, many groups encouraged us to investigate the mentorship program at Lincoln Labs, which is
what we turn to next.
III. Current Models of Mentorship Programs at MIT
III.1 Human Resources
In February, David Hosmer began a 6 month pilot program with 7 mentor/mentee pairs. The
ongoing evaluation of the program is positive.
In addition, the Leader to Leader (L2L) program has a project that is looking to:
Assess whether there is value in establishing a mentoring network across
the Institute for staff.
Identify and make available resources and information on mentoring for
staff.
Identify existing best practices and promote them across MIT.
Identify key stakeholders working in mentoring programs for students,
faculty and Postdocs to build cross-functional links for future efforts.
We anticipate their report in October 2014.
III2. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Mentoring Program
MIT Lincoln Laboratory implemented a formal mentoring program in May 2011. Our contacts to
learn about this initiative included Ellen Beachy and our Council member Justin Brooke.
This formal effort serves as a valuable complement to the informal mentoring approaches at the
Laboratory. Over 1,000 employees have participated in various programs to date (380 mentors;
677 mentees). A brief description of each program is outlined below. The mentoring program
has been very successful at MIT LL and continues to evolve based on the needs of our
6
employees. There is also strong support and involvement by upper management which certainly
helps to drive the program forward.
Formal Mentoring Programs:
1) Guide Program – Focused on orienting new employees during the period from offer
acceptance through the early months of employment. An internal “Guide” is assigned to reach
out to the new hire prior to their coming onboard and responsible for introducing the new
employee to the Group and Division Offices as well as provide a Lab tour and point our
resources available.
2) Career Mentoring – A voluntary, 6-month one-on-one mentoring program available to
Technical and Administrative staff in all stages of their career. The recommendation is that the
employee has a minimum of 1-year service and that the pair meets 1-2 x per month with
objectives set by the mentee.
3) Circle Mentoring – A voluntary, 6-month program focused on small discussion groups of
up to 15 employees led by 2 experienced Laboratory employees. The discussion groups have
professional and career development themes. Circle Mentoring is available to Technical,
Administrative, and Support Staff.
4) Assistant Group Leader Mentoring – A voluntary, 6-month program that compliments other
leadership development programs currently available to new Group Leaders. New AGL’s are
assigned a mentor with a recommendation that 1-2x month meetings occur. Objectives are set by
the mentee.
In addition to the formal mentoring programs, MIT LL has an on-boarding orientation that new
hires attend on their first day of employment, as well as a New Employee Network (employee
resource group) that any employee, new or otherwise, may join.
Through these formal programs, we hope to capture the attention of employees by offering a
variety of resources, and reach those who may not otherwise reach out for informal mentoring on
their own.
Lincoln Lab has sought feedback on the program. Some of the highlights:
100% reported that one-on-one mentoring provides a valuable learning opportunity;
100% responded that they would recommend the program to others. Participation in
the formal mentoring program is seen as personally beneficial: networking opportunities
for mentees, rewarding experience for mentors, as it is seen as supporting the
Laboratory’s mission.
7
Exposure to different areas of the Laboratory leads to better understanding across the
groups.
Mentors learned about the concerns of mentees, leading to more effective leadership.
The formality of the program led individuals to take the meetings seriously, and the
conversations were usefully candid.
III.3. Additional sources of support
We understand that there have been calls for more staff mentorship at the School of Engineering,
the MIT Council on Staff Diversity and Inclusion, and MIT Medical, were there is a peer
connector program, in addition to the peer coaching that is an integral part of onboarding
activities. These all could provide more lessons as our community considers expanding
mentorship opportunities over the coming year.
IV. Recommendations for Further Action
We present the following recommendations to the Institute based upon our findings of the
Quality of Life Survey results.
1. Repeat the staff survey every 4 years. In analyzing the results of the 2012 surveys of
faculty and staff, we were hampered by the fact that it had been over a decade since staff
had last been surveyed. Fortunately, we had results from the quadrennial faculty surveys
to give some insight into the intervening years. Going forward, the Council will sponsor a
quadrennial staff survey, which (as in 2012), will be offered concurrent with the faculty
survey and with identical wording of the questions where practical.
2. Explore ways to increase workplace flexibility across the Institute. There are, of course,
practical limits to flexibility in work arrangements, some of which are dependent on the
responsibilities of a particular position. In addition, this issue has been raised before and
there are policies in place that relate to workplace flexibility. Indeed, the Council on
Family and Work collaborated with MIT Human Resources and MIT Center for Work,
Family & Personal Life in writing the Guide to Job Flexibility at MIT in June 2004. We
would be happy to revisit those issues given changes in technology and experiences with
these policies over the past decade. One of our goals would be to attain relative
homogeneity in implementation of flexible work arrangements among staff with similar
positions, perhaps through updated manager training on these issues.
8
It appears that the best way forward for this action is to offer our support to the new Vice
President for Human Resources once they are hired.
3. Explore ways to increase mentoring across the Institute. While the correlation between
adequate mentoring and job satisfaction was not as strong as that for flexibility, it is a
robust and positive correlation. Furthermore, there is substantial room for improvement
in this area, as approximately 70% of staff either feel that they do not receive adequate
mentoring or that mentoring is not applicable to them. Perhaps highlighting this
correlation to supervisors across the Institute will help encourage them to take advantage
of existing mentorship programs at MIT, as well as motivating a review of those
programs to ensure that their experience and expertise is being disseminated and that best
practices are being incorporated where practical.
4. Maintain liaison with the Employee Benefits Oversight Committee (EBOC) going
forward. Since the 2012 surveys were administered, EBOC was formed to advise the
Provost and Executive Vice President and Treasurer about employee benefits that directly
affect employees’ ability to balance work and family needs. We have begun (and will
continue) to meet with the EBOC to coordinate our efforts, particularly in the creation of
questions for the next round of Quality of Life surveys.
Over the coming year, we will continue to work on these issues as well as exploring on the
quality-of-life-issues that are particular to students and post-docs at MIT. We welcome
suggestions on other topics the Council might consider, and appreciate the opportunity to
contribute to the well being of the MIT community.
9
Our thanks to the Council on Family and Work for discussions that led to this memo:
Dr. James W. Bales, Co-Chair
Prof. Joseph J. Doyle, Co-Chair
Prof. Amy K. Glasmeier, Urban Studies & Planning
Ms. Georgina Dorminy, Student '14
Dr. Justin J. Brooke, Lincoln Laboratory
Ms. Marisol Diaz, Working Group on Support Staff Issues
Ms. Gayle Sherman, Working Group on Support Staff Issues
Dr. Sara Calafell Gosline, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biological Engineering
Ms. Alyce Johnson, Human Resources
Ms. Ann E. Warner Harvey, Office of the Vice President for Finance
Ms. Maryanne Kirkbride, MIT Medical
Ms. Lydia S. Snover, Office of the Provost
Mr. Ryan Westrom, Graduate Student Representative
Ms. Kaitlyn Marie King, Staff to Committee, Sloan School of Management
Our special thanks to Gregory Harris, Office of the Provost, for his skillful data analysis.
Figure 1: Work/Life Balance & Its Predictors: Across Employee Types
Notes: Satisfaction means are from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys; Predictors are from a regression that controls for experience, sex, underepresented minority status, family structure, health program utilization,
and friendship measures, as shown in Appendix Table 1.
.000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.500
.600
.700
.800
.900
1.000
Please indicate the degree to which you are satisfied with your
ability to integrate the needs of your work with those of your
personal/family life. (Somewhat or Very Satisfied)
Satisfaction: Integration of Work and
Personal/Family Life Needs
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
-.150
-.100
-.050
.000
.050
.100
.150
.200
My supervisor/chair/dean is
open to flexible work
arrangements. (Somewhat or
Strongly Agree)
While at MIT, do you feel as
though you have received
adequate mentoring? (Yes)
How many hours is your typical
work week (+10 hours)
Comparison of Ability to Integrate Work/Life Predictors
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction and Comparison of Its Predictors Across Employee Types
Notes: Satisfaction means are from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys; Predictors are from a regression that controls for experience, sex, underepresented minority status, family
structure, health program utilization, and friendship measures, as shown in Appendix Table 1.
.000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.500
.600
.700
.800
.900
1.000
Overall, how satisfied are you being an employee of MIT?
(Somewhat or Very Satisfied)
Overall Satisfaction
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
-.020
.000
.020
.040
.060
.080
.100
.120
.140
My supervisor/chair/dean is
open to flexible work
arrangements. (Somewhat or
Strongly Agree)
While at MIT, do you feel as
though you have received
adequate mentoring? (Yes)
How many hours is your typical
work week (+10 hours)
Comparison of Satisfaction Predictors
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
Figure 3: Check: Satisfication with Life Outside of MIT, Across Employee Types
Check: Overall Satisfaction Outside of
MIT
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
.060
Comparison of Satisfaction Outside of MIT Predictors
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
500
.600
.700
.800
.900
1.000
.000
.020
.040
000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.
500
-.040
-.020
.000
My supervisor/chair/dean is
open to flexible work
While at MIT, do you feel
as though you have
How many hours is your
typical work week (+10
Notes: Satisfaction means are from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys; Predictors are from a regression that controls for experience, sex, underepresented minority status, family structure, health program
utilization, and friendship measures, as shown in Appendix Table 1.
.
000
Overall, how satisfied are you with your life outside MIT?
(Somewhat or Very Satisfied)
open
to
flexible
work
arrangements. (Somewhat
or Strongly Agree)
as
though
you
have
received adequate
mentoring? (Yes)
typical
work
week
(+10
hours)
Figure 4: Impression of Fairness of Procedures, Across Employee Types
1.000
Fair & Equitable Procedures
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
.250
Comparison of Predictors for Fair & Equitable Procedures
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
.600
.700
.800
.900
.100
.150
.200
100
.200
.300
.400
.500
-.050
.000
.050
Notes: Satisfaction means are from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys; Predictors are from a regression that controls for experience, sex, underepresented minority status, family structure, health program
utilization, and friendship measures, as shown in Appendix Table 1.
.000
.
100
My DLC's procedures are fair and equitable to all.
(Somewhat or Strongly Agree)
My supervisor/chair/dean is
open to flexible work
arrangements. (Somewhat or
Strongly Agree)
While at MIT, do you feel as
though you have received
adequate mentoring? (Yes)
How many hours is your typical
work week (+10 hours)
Figure 5: Likelihood of Leaving MIT within 3 Years, Across Employee Types
Retention: Likely to Leave MIT within 3
years
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
.040
Comparison of Retention Predictors
Campus Faculty Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
.600
.700
.800
.900
1.000
-.040
.000
100
.200
.300
.400
.500
-.160
-.120
-.080
Notes: Satisfaction means are from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys; Predictors are from a regression that controls for experience, sex, underepresented minority status, family structure, health program
utilization, and friendship measures, as shown in Appendix Table 1.
.000
.
100
In the next three years, how likely are you to leave MIT,
including retirement? (Very or Somewhat Likely)
My supervisor/chair/dean is
open to flexible work
arrangements. (Somewhat or
Strongly Agree)
While at MIT, do you feel as
though you have received
adequate mentoring? (Yes)
How many hours is your typical
work week (+10 hours)
Figure 6: Heterogeneity Across Employee Types
40%
43%
40%
23%
42%
42%
23%
37%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Admin Staff
Support Staff
Service Staff
Faculty
Other Instructional Staff
Research Staff
Postdoc
Overall
Ability to integrate the needs of work with those of your personal/family life
Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
45%
40%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Admin Staff
Support Staff
Service Staff
My supervisor/chair/dean is open to flexible
work arrangements
56%
68%
60%
62%
50%
Faculty
Other Instructional Staff
Research Staff
Postdoc
Overall
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree
31%
24%
15%
58%
35%
29%
49%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Admin Staff
Support Staff
Service Staff
Faculty
Other Instructional Staff
Research Staff
Postdoc
Overall
Have you received adequate mentoring?
Yes No Not applicable
Figure A1: Heterogeneity Across Schools and Areas
43%
32%
39%
34%
48%
38%
40%
44%
57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Administrative Areas
Chancellor Areas
President/Provost/Corp
SAP
SHASS
Sloan
SOE
SOS
VPR
Ability to integrate the needs of work with those of your personal/family life
Admin/Support Staff
Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ability to integrate the needs of work with those of your personal/family life
Faculty
16%
21%
30%
19%
28%
23%
SAP
SHASS
Sloan
SOE
SOS
Overall
Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
Figure A2: Heterogeneity Across Areas & Schools: Flexibilty among Admin/Support Staff
56%
49%
39%
36%
38%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SAP
SHASS
Sloan
SOE
SOS
My supervisor/chair/dean is open to flexible
work arrangements
Admin/Support Staff (in units with faculty)
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
My supervisor/chair/dean is open to flexible
work arrangements
Admin/Support Staff (in units without faculty)
47%
37%
46%
40%
42%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Administrative Areas
Chancellor Areas
President/Provost/Corp
Schools (combined)
VPR
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree
Figure A3: Heterogeneity Across Areas and Departments: Mentorship among
Admin/Support Staff
49%
48%
47%
46%
43%
43%
43%
42%
41%
41%
41%
39%
38%
36%
35%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
My supervisor/chair/dean is open to flexible
work arrangements
Admin/Support Staff
Note: Areas or Departments with at least 10 responses.
35%
32%
27%
18%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree
Figure A4: Heterogeneity Across Areas & Schools: Mentorship among Admin/Support Staff
30%
37%
28%
22%
17%
31%
22%
26%
29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Administrative Areas
Chancellor Areas
President/Provost/Corp
SAP
SHASS
Sloan
SOE
SOS
VPR
Have you received adequate mentoring?
Admin/Support Staff
Yes No Not applicable
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Have you received adequate mentoring?
Faculty
48%
54%
65%
66%
51%
58%
SAP
SHASS
Sloan
SOE
SOS
Overall
Yes No Not applicable
Coefficient Std. Error Coefficient Std. Error Coefficient Std. Error
My supervisor/chair/dean is open to
flexible work arrangements.
(Somewhat or Strongly Agree)
0.158 0.060 0.166 0.017 0.142 0.025
While at MIT, do you feel as though
you have received adequate
mentoring? (Yes)
0.066 0.047 0.084 0.016 0.060 0.020
How many hours is your typical work
week?
-0.006 0.002 -0.008 0.001 -0.011 0.001
I have colleagues in my DLC who are
my personal friends. (Somewhat or
Strongly Agree)
0.058 0.060 0.027 0.017 0.069 0.023
I have colleagues at MIT outside my
DLC who are my personal friends.
(Somewhat or Strongly Agree)
0.113 0.051 0.000 0.016 -0.015 0.021
MIT Medical (Have Used)
-0.036 0.056 -0.023 0.016 0.018 0.020
getfit@mit (Have Used)
-0.171 0.070 0.021 0.016 0.026 0.021
MIT Tuition Assistance Plan (Have
Used)
0.117 0.064 0.016 0.017 0.005 0.021
Years at MIT (<7 years)
-0.060 0.055 -0.017 0.017 -0.001 0.021
Female
-0.024 0.055 -0.025 0.016 -0.025 0.023
Minority
-0.009 0.060 0.007 0.033 -0.064 0.251
White
. . 0.004 0.026 -0.093 0.250
Spouse/Partner
-0.022 0.078 0.008 0.018 0.010 0.026
Children under 13 years of age
-0.046 0.052 -0.027 0.018 0.000 0.023
Children 13 years of age or older
0.017 0.060 0.066 0.018 0.026 0.022
Constant
0.813 0.166 0.965 0.054 1.195 0.258
Mean of Dependent Variable
0.639 0.782 0.840
Observations
539 3941 1934
Notes: Models estimated using data from the 2012 Quality of Life Surveys, Number of observations corresponds to
the number of observations with non-missing values for the work flexibility question.
Campus Staff Lincoln Lab
Dependent Variable: Answered Somewhat or Very Satisfied to the question: Please indicate the degree to which you
are satisfied with your ability to integrate the needs of your work with those of your personal/family life.
Appendix Table: Predictors of Ability to Integrate Needs of Work & Family
(Estimates underly Figure 1)
Faculty
