The KCKCC Fall 2025 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) captured responses from 196 employees (45.3% response rate), providing a meaningful snapshot across faculty, staff, and administrators. Overall satisfaction stands at 3.35 out of 5.00, significantly below the benchmark of 4.20 (p<.001). The data suggests two distinct narratives: employees express genuine commitment to students and their colleagues (the top-scoring culture items relate to teamwork, information access, and departmental communication), while simultaneously raising serious concerns about interdepartmental communication (2.08/4), leadership accessibility (2.19/4), and whether employee voices are heard (2.15/4). The Enrollment eNPS of +27.6 shows employees believe in the institution's value to students, while the Workplace eNPS of -17.3 signals that the employee experience itself needs attention — 56% have considered leaving in the last six months. The pages that follow provide detailed analysis to inform strategic priorities.
Response Rate
45.3%
196 of 433 employees
(433 based on 2024 available data — click to update)
Overall Satisfaction
3.35/5.00
Benchmark: 4.20 | Gap: -0.85 (p<.001)
Enrollment eNPS
+27.6
43.0% Promoters − 15.4% Detractors
Workplace eNPS
-17.3
17.3% Promoters − 34.6% Detractors
Retention Risk
56%
Considered leaving in last 6 months
Likelihood to Stay
3.26/5.00
Benchmark: 4.01/5.00 (gap: -0.75, p<.001) — 16.6% extremely unlikely to stay, 18.6% somewhat unlikely. Only 28.1% extremely likely to stay vs. 47.9% at benchmark institutions.
Top 5 Strengths
Top 5 Concerns
Overall Satisfaction Metrics
About This Section: Overall satisfaction is measured on a 5-point scale (1 = Extremely Dissatisfied, 5 = Extremely Satisfied). KCKCC's score of 3.35 falls significantly below the peer benchmark of 4.20 (p<.001). The eNPS (Employee Net Promoter Score) is calculated as % Promoters minus % Detractors. A positive eNPS means more promoters than detractors; a negative eNPS means more detractors than promoters. Industry benchmarks for higher education eNPS typically range from +10 to +30 for enrollment and 0 to +20 for workplace.
Overall Satisfaction
3.35/5.00
Benchmark: 4.20 | Gap: -0.85 (p<.001)
Survey Response Rate
45.3%
196 of 433 employees
Enrollment eNPS
+27.6
43.0% Promoters − 15.4% Detractors
Workplace eNPS
-17.3
17.3% Promoters − 34.6% Detractors
Likelihood to Stay
3.26/5.00
"How likely would you be to continue to work at this institution if offered the same job elsewhere?" Benchmark: 4.01 (gap: -0.75, p<.001). KCKCC: 16.6% extremely unlikely, 18.6% somewhat unlikely, 15.1% neither, 21.6% somewhat likely, 28.1% extremely likely. Benchmark: 4.9% extremely unlikely, 10.2% somewhat unlikely, 12.0% neither, 25.0% somewhat likely, 47.9% extremely likely.
Overall Satisfaction Distribution
Retention Risk Assessment
Understanding eNPS: The Enrollment eNPS asks "How likely would you be to recommend this institution to friends or family looking to enroll?" Extremely Likely = Promoters, Somewhat Likely = Passives, Somewhat/Extremely Unlikely = Detractors. The Workplace eNPS asks "How likely would you be to recommend this institution as a good place to work?" Same classification. Both use a 4-point likelihood scale. An eNPS above 0 is considered positive; above +30 is strong. A negative eNPS indicates significant dissatisfaction.
Enrollment eNPS: +27.6
Workplace eNPS: -17.3
Campus Culture Assessment
About This Section: Section 2 of the CESS measures 33 aspects of campus culture (30 standard benchmarked items + 3 KCKCC-custom items) on a 4-point agreement scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree). Items are color-coded: green = 3.00 or above (majority agree), amber = 2.50–2.99 (mixed), red = below 2.50 (majority disagree). Gold bars show peer benchmark means where available. Not all items have benchmark data — items without benchmarks are KCKCC-specific or newly added items. Statistical significance: *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, NS = not significant.
Culture Items — KCKCC Scores with Peer Benchmarks (33 items)
Detailed Culture Items
Reading This Table: Row color indicates performance level (green = 3.00+, amber = 2.50–2.99, red = below 2.50). "SD" (Standard Deviation) measures how spread out responses are — a low SD (under 0.85) means strong consensus; a high SD (over 1.00) means opinions are divided. "Gap" is KCKCC minus Benchmark — negative values mean KCKCC is below benchmark. "Significance" indicates how statistically meaningful the difference is: *** = very high confidence (p<.001), ** = high confidence (p<.01), * = moderate confidence (p<.05), NS = not statistically significant. A dash (—) means benchmark data is not available for that item.
Item
KCKCC
SD
Benchmark
Gap
Significance
Response Distribution: Bottom 5 Culture Items
Why This Matters: Mean scores can mask the intensity of responses. These stacked bars show the full 4-point distribution for the 5 lowest-scoring culture items. Notice that for "Effective communication between departments," 36.3% Strongly Disagree — meaning over a third of employees feel the most negative option best describes their experience.
Employee Experience & Satisfaction Drivers
About This Section: Section 4 of the CESS captures two types of employee experience data. First, 20 experience statements are rated on a 4-point agreement scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Strongly Agree). Second, 7 key factors are rated on paired 4-point scales for both Importance and Satisfaction, producing a "gap" that identifies where employee needs are not being met. The larger the negative gap, the more urgent the improvement opportunity. The gap chart below breaks this out by Faculty vs. Staff/Admin.
Importance vs. Satisfaction Gap (Negative = Unmet Need)
Reading the Quadrant Chart: Each dot represents one of the 7 paired factors, shown separately for Faculty (blue) and Staff/Admin (gold). The X-axis shows satisfaction (how fulfilled employees feel) and the Y-axis shows importance (how much it matters to them). Items in the upper-left quadrant (high importance, low satisfaction) are the most critical areas for improvement. Items in the upper-right (high importance, high satisfaction) are strengths to maintain.
Importance-Satisfaction Quadrant Analysis
Employee Experience Agreement Items
Reading This Table: These 24 items are rated on a 4-point agreement scale. Row colors: green = 3.00+ (majority agree), amber = 2.50–2.99, red = below 2.50. "SD" (Standard Deviation) measures response spread — low SD means consensus, high SD means divided opinions. Benchmark comparisons are available for items that appear in the standard CESS instrument across all institutions. Note: "I plan to leave this institution in next 6 months" is reverse-scored — a higher KCKCC score relative to benchmark indicates greater intent to leave.
Item
KCKCC
SD
Benchmark
Gap
Significance
Response Distribution: Critical Experience Items
Why This Matters: These stacked bars reveal the full response distribution for the most concerning experience items. For "I plan to leave this institution in the next 6 months," 47% Strongly Disagree (meaning they strongly plan to stay) — but 8% Strongly Agree they plan to leave soon. For "I have opportunities for advancement," 35% Strongly Disagree — the largest strong disagreement of any experience item.
Institutional Goals Alignment
About This Section: Section 3 of the CESS asks employees to rate how important it is that the institution pursues each of 14 goals on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = not important, 5 = somewhat important, and 10 = critical. This includes 11 standard goals (benchmarked against 6 peer institutions) and 3 KCKCC-custom goals. Higher scores indicate goals employees believe the institution should prioritize. Use the filters below to compare perspectives between Faculty (N=63) and Staff/Administrator (N=127). The survey groups Staff and Administrator responses together; separate breakdowns are not available in the published results.
Reading This Table: Scores represent average importance ratings on a 0-10 scale. Faculty and Staff/Admin columns show group-specific means. Benchmark column shows the average across 6 peer institutions (where available — 3 KCKCC-custom goals have no peer benchmark). All 14 goals are shown for each group.
Goal
Overall
Benchmark
Faculty
Staff/Admin
Benchmark Comparison Analysis
About This Section: KCKCC's CESS results are benchmarked against 6 peer institutions in the "2 Year Public and 4 Year Primarily Associates" category: Daytona State College, Enterprise State Community College, Fort Hays Technical College Northwest, Illinois Central College, Prairie State College, and Savannah Technical College. Only items with available benchmark data are shown below. Gap = KCKCC score minus Benchmark score. Green = KCKCC exceeds benchmark, Red = KCKCC below benchmark. All gaps shown below are statistically significant unless marked NS.
Gap Analysis: KCKCC vs. Peer Benchmarks (Sorted by Gap)
Detailed Benchmark Comparison
Reading This Table: Items are sorted from largest negative gap (biggest concern) to smallest. Significance levels: *** = p<.001 (very high confidence the difference is real), ** = p<.01, * = p<.05, NS = not statistically significant. KCKCC falls below benchmark on every item with available comparison data, with most differences highly significant (p<.001).
Item
KCKCC
SD
Benchmark
Gap
Significance
Faculty vs. Staff/Administrator Comparison
About This Section: The CESS provides separate results for Faculty (N=65) and Staff/Administrator combined (N=129). This section highlights where these two groups' perspectives diverge on critical dimensions. Significant differences may indicate different needs, concerns, or working conditions that should be addressed through targeted strategies.
Important Data Note: The Ruffalo Noel Levitz CESS publishes results for Faculty and Staff/Administrator as a combined group. The survey instrument does not provide separate breakdowns for Staff (N=110) vs. Administrator (N=19) individually. While the demographic section identifies these as separate roles, all quantitative results for this group are reported together. If KCKCC obtains the raw data file from Ruffalo Noel Levitz, a separate Staff-only vs. Administrator-only analysis could be performed.
Faculty: Recommend as Workplace
2.92/4.00
Staff/Admin: Recommend as Workplace
2.57/4.00
Faculty: Overall Satisfaction
3.60/5.00
Staff/Admin: Overall Satisfaction
3.23/5.00
Faculty: Likely to Stay
3.53/5.00
Staff/Admin: Likely to Stay
3.12/5.00
Faculty: Highly Engaged
3.79/4.00
Staff/Admin: Highly Engaged
3.47/4.00
Radar Comparison: Faculty vs. Staff/Admin on Key Dimensions
Faculty consistently score higher across all dimensions, with the largest gaps in Paid Fairly (Faculty 2.81 vs Staff/Admin 2.39, difference 0.42) and Likelihood to Stay (3.53 vs 3.12, difference 0.41). All dimensions use a 4-point scale except Overall Satisfaction (5-point) and Likelihood to Stay (5-point); the radar chart normalizes these to a common visual scale.
Importance-Satisfaction Gap by Group
This chart shows the gap between how important each factor is to employees vs. how satisfied they are. Larger bars = bigger unmet needs. Pay is the largest gap for both groups: Faculty -1.25, Staff/Admin -1.08. Faculty show larger gaps than Staff/Admin in Work-Life Balance (-0.85 vs -0.67), Advancement (-0.78 vs -0.39), and Benefits (-0.66 vs -0.37). Both groups show similar gaps in Flexible Work (Faculty -0.56, Staff -0.40). Note: these gap values come from Section 4 of the CESS where respondents rate both importance and satisfaction on 4-point scales.
Employee Voice & Open-Ended Comments
About This Section: The CESS included three open-ended questions: (A) "What is this institution doing well?" (Strengths), (B) "How can this institution improve the employee experience?" (Improvements), and (C) "What other institutional goals do you think are important?" (Goals). All 226 unique verbatim comments are shown below. Comments are labeled by the respondent's role (Faculty or Staff). Note: The survey instrument labels responses as either "Faculty" or "Staff" type — Administrator responses are included within the "Staff" category. Some comments may appear truncated due to PDF extraction limitations from the source document.
Comment Count Note: The CESS report contains 226 unique comments across the three appendices (227 total entries minus 1 exact duplicate). Breakdown by sentiment-based classification: 87 Strengths, 97 Improvements, 42 Goals. By role: 75 Faculty, 151 Staff/Admin. Note: 13 responses to the "strengths" survey question were reclassified as "improvements" because they expressed sarcastic, negative, or non-responsive content (e.g., "Nothing really stands out," sarcastic criticisms). 1 response to the "improvements" question was reclassified as a strength because it expressed positive sentiment. A separate verification document has been prepared with the full analysis.
Key Themes Word Cloud
Word size indicates frequency of use across all comments. Color indicates sentiment: blue = positive themes, grey = neutral themes, red = negative themes. Darker shades indicate stronger sentiment intensity.
About This Section: Section 5 of the CESS captures respondent demographics. Of 196 respondents, 194 provided position data and 195 provided employment status data. Tenure data was provided by all 196 respondents. Each person icon below represents 1 respondent, colored by their demographic group. Benchmark percentages from 6 peer institutions are shown for comparison.
■ <1 year (23 — 11.7%)■ 1-5 years (69 — 35.2%)■ 6-10 years (31 — 15.8%)■ 11-20 years (49 — 25.0%)■ 20+ years (24 — 12.2%)
Key Demographic Observations: KCKCC's respondent pool skews slightly more toward Staff (56.7% vs 50.4% at benchmark) and less toward Faculty (33.5% vs 37.8%). The tenure distribution shows that 35.2% of respondents have been at KCKCC for 1-5 years (compared to 40.0% at benchmark), while 25.0% have been there 11-20 years (vs 19.0% at benchmark) — suggesting KCKCC retains a strong core of mid-career employees. Full-time employees make up 87.7% of respondents (vs 83.1% at benchmark), meaning part-time voices are slightly under-represented relative to peer institutions.
Recommendations & Action Planning
About This Section: The following recommendations are based on analysis of the CESS Fall 2025 data. They are organized by priority level, with specific data points supporting each recommendation. Timelines are recommended starting points and should be adjusted based on institutional capacity and resources. Projected outcomes assume full implementation of recommended actions and are estimates based on typical improvement trajectories observed in higher education employee engagement initiatives.
Data-Driven Priority Recommendations
1. Communication & Leadership Transparency (CRITICAL)
The data suggests communication is the single largest systemic issue. The lowest-scoring culture items are: effective communication between departments (2.08/4.0), institution involves employees in planning (2.11/4.0), safe to take risks and share ideas (2.15/4.0), and employee suggestions used to improve (2.15/4.0). Leadership-to-staff communication scores 2.19/4.0 vs. 2.88 benchmark (gap: -0.69, p<.001). Open-ended comments overwhelmingly cite communication as the top improvement area, with specific references to delayed email responses, lack of transparency around decisions, and disconnection between leadership and frontline staff.
2. Compensation & Pay Equity (CRITICAL)
The data suggests pay is the most important employee need that is not being met. Pay shows the largest importance-satisfaction gap of any factor: Faculty -1.25 (importance 3.81/4.0 vs. satisfaction 2.56/4.0) and Staff/Admin -1.08 (importance 3.79/4.0 vs. satisfaction 2.71/4.0). Faculty report a somewhat larger pay gap than Staff/Admin. Comments frequently cite salary inequity between new hires and tenured employees, lack of merit-based pay increases, and unfavorable comparisons to peer institutions. "I am paid fairly for the work I do" scores 2.53/4.0 vs. 2.73 benchmark (p<.05).
The data suggests a significant retention risk. 56% of employees have considered leaving in the past six months. Likelihood to stay scores 3.26/5.0 vs. 4.01 benchmark (gap: -0.75, p<.001). The Workplace eNPS of -17.3 (34.6% Detractors vs. 17.3% Promoters) contrasts sharply with the Enrollment eNPS of +27.6, indicating employees believe in KCKCC's mission but not its employment experience. Staff/Admin are more at risk (3.12/5.0 likelihood to stay) than Faculty (3.53/5.0).
4. Career Advancement & Recognition (HIGH PRIORITY)
The data suggests employees feel stuck and unseen. Advancement opportunities score 2.10/4.0 (vs. 2.60 benchmark, gap: -0.50, p<.001) — the lowest experience item after "plan to leave." Recognition for great work scores 2.28/4.0 (vs. 2.89 benchmark, gap: -0.61, p<.001). Comments describe a flat organizational structure with no clear promotion pathways, a merit system perceived as meaningless, and frustration that tenure and effort are not rewarded.
5. Organizational Culture & Teamwork (STRATEGIC)
The data suggests that while departmental teamwork is relatively strong (3.20/4.0), cross-institutional collaboration is weak. Spirit of teamwork and cooperation scores 2.30/4.0 vs. 3.04 benchmark (gap: -0.74, p<.001). Employee morale was rated the #2 institutional priority at 8.74/10.0, underscoring that employees themselves recognize this need. Comments describe a culture of "every man for himself" and silos between departments.
Recommended Quick Wins (Immediate Actions)
Recommended Action
Recommended Timeline
Suggested Owner
Expected Impact
Host first all-employee town hall to share survey results and acknowledge concerns
Recommended: within 2-3 weeks
President/Cabinet
Demonstrates listening; begins rebuilding trust with the 34.6% workplace detractors
Share this complete survey analysis with all employees transparently
Recommended: within 3-4 weeks
HR/Communications
Addresses communication concern (2.19/4.0); models the transparency employees are requesting
Launch compensation equity review process with clear timeline communicated
Recommended: within 1 month
HR/Finance
Signals action on the #1 unmet need (pay gap: -1.25); reduces uncertainty driving attrition
Form employee advisory committee with representatives from all groups
Recommended: within 2-3 weeks
President's Office
Addresses "employee suggestions used to improve" (2.15/4.0) and shared governance concerns
Establish 24-hour email response expectation for all leadership
Recommended: immediately
Cabinet
Directly addresses repeated comments about unanswered emails and slow response times
Address pay satisfaction gap from -1.25 toward -0.60; reduce new-hire vs. tenured pay inequity
Communication Infrastructure Overhaul
Cross-departmental liaison roles, structured communication cadence, feedback loop mechanisms
Recommended: 3-6 months
Improve interdepartmental communication from 2.08 toward 2.50+; improve leadership communication from 2.19 toward 2.60+
Career Pathways & Recognition Program
Career ladder framework, promotion criteria, peer recognition program, revised evaluation system
Recommended: 6-12 months
Improve advancement from 2.10 toward 2.50; improve recognition from 2.28 toward 2.70
Work-Life Balance & Flexibility Initiative
Remote/hybrid work policy review, flexible scheduling options, wellness program expansion
Recommended: 6 months
Address work-life balance gap from -0.85 toward -0.40; support retention of the 56% considering leaving
Organizational Culture Development
Cross-departmental collaboration projects, team-building, leadership development, psychological safety training
Recommended: 12-18 months
Improve teamwork/cooperation from 2.30 toward 2.70; improve safety to share ideas from 2.08 toward 2.50
Projected Outcome Trajectory (If All Recommendations Are Implemented)
Note: The following projections are estimates based on typical improvement patterns observed in higher education institutions that implement comprehensive employee engagement strategies. Actual results will depend on the depth and consistency of implementation. These projections assume a follow-up CESS survey is administered at each milestone to measure progress.
Metric
Current (Fall 2025)
12 Months
18 Months
24 Months
36 Months
Overall Satisfaction (5-pt scale)
3.35
3.55–3.65
3.65–3.80
3.80–3.95
3.95–4.10
Workplace eNPS
-17.3
-8 to -3
-3 to +5
+5 to +12
+10 to +20
Likelihood to Stay (5-pt scale)
3.26
3.45–3.55
3.55–3.70
3.70–3.85
3.85–4.00
Considered Leaving (%)
56%
45–50%
38–42%
30–35%
25–30%
Pay Satisfaction Gap
-1.25
-0.95 to -0.85
-0.75 to -0.65
-0.55 to -0.45
-0.40 to -0.30
Communication (Leadership-Staff, 4-pt)
2.19
2.40–2.50
2.55–2.65
2.70–2.80
2.80–2.90
Teamwork & Cooperation (4-pt)
2.30
2.45–2.55
2.60–2.70
2.75–2.85
2.85–3.00
Key Success Factors
Based on the data, the most impactful actions will be those that address the fundamental trust and communication gap between leadership and employees. The open-ended comments make clear that employees care deeply about KCKCC and its students (Enrollment eNPS of +27.6 confirms this), but feel unheard, undervalued, and uncertain about their future at the institution. The path from a Workplace eNPS of -17.3 to positive territory requires sustained, visible action — not just announcements, but follow-through that employees can see and feel. The 56% who have considered leaving represent both the urgency of the challenge and the opportunity: they haven't left yet, which means the window for meaningful change is still open.
