internal communications survey - welcome to brookdale community

B r o o k d a l e C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g eT H E C O U N T Y C O L L E G E O F M O N M O U T H

P L A N N I N G , A S S E S S M E N T A ND R E S E A R C H

COMMUNICATIONS

March, 2006

SURVEY

Prepared for the GovernanceCollege Life Committee

INTERNAL

Internal Communications Survey PAR Analysis Page 1

College Life Committee Internal Communications Survey

Overview: The 2005-2006 Charge to the Governance College Life Committee pertained to internal communication at Brookdale. More specifically, the Committee was charged with the following four tasks:

1. Categorize the types of information necessary to be communicated to employees for the effective functioning of the institution.

2. Identify the current delivery methods for communicating internal information. 3. Assess the effectiveness of the current methods, and 4. Recommend guidelines for effective communication.

To address tasks 2 and 3, the Committee identified numerous methods of communicating internal information (e.g., Voice Mail; the Brookdalian) and decided to survey the College community to gauge the effectiveness of each method. On February 10, 2006, one of the co-chairs of the College Life Committee met with Planning, Assessment and Research staff to discuss the survey design. The primary goal of the survey was to assess the effectiveness of different methods of internal communication and to solicit suggestions on how Brookdale employees can communicate most effectively. In addition, the survey was designed to assess how frequently employees used different modes of communication and whether they were aware of, or had access to, each “vehicle” for communicating internally.

Internal Communications Survey. The two-page survey contained a mix of closed-ended (page 1) and open-ended (page 2) items. The first page of the survey contained 25 different methods of communication. On the left side of the page, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they used each form of communication, using a 5-point scale where 1 = Never, 3 = Sometimes, and 5 = Always. Respondents could indicate if they were not aware of a particular communication method or whether they were aware of, but could not access, each type of communication. On the right side of the page, respondents were asked to indicate how effective they found each of the 25 forms of communication, using a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all Effective and 5 = Very Effective. (See the Appendix for the survey and survey cover letter).

The second page of the survey contained three items to assess respondent characteristics: (1) Employee type (Administrator, Faculty, Police, Staff), (2) Number of years employed at Brookdale, and (3) Primary location (e.g., Lincroft, Long Branch Higher Education Center). These were followed by four open-ended items that asked respondents to do the following: (1) Report any current methods of communicating internal information that were not included on the first page, (2) Discuss drawbacks associated with current communication modes, (3) Identify the form of communication that works best for them, and (4) Suggest ways Brookdale can most effectively communicate its internal information.

Survey Administration. On February 17, 2006, the survey was sent as an attachment to the Inside Track via Broadcast E-mail. As an “all employee” broadcast, the survey


was sent to all administrators, staff, full-time and adjunct faculty who have an E-mail address (approximately 1,000 individuals). A day or two later, all employees also received paper copies of the survey via inter-office mail. The dual approach (electronic and paper) was important in order to ensure that all employees had the opportunity to respond. The survey cover letter instructed respondents to return their completed surveys to one of the co-chairs of the College Life Committee by February 28, 2006.

Data Entry & Analysis. Responses to the closed-ended items were entered by Planning, Assessment and Research staff into an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) file. Responses to the open-ended items were entered by College Life Committee members into an Excel spreadsheet. Planning, Assessment and Research staff conducted the statistical analyses for the closed-ended items (frequency and effectiveness ratings) and also provided a brief summary of the open-ended comments.


Internal Communications Survey Results

Section I. Respondent Characteristics

One hundred and eighty-two surveys were returned to the chairs of the College Life Committee. Approximately 1/3rd of the respondents were administrators (35.2%); 1/3rd

were faculty members (33.0%) and 1/3rd were staff members (30.8%). Two respondents did not indicate employee type.

Employee Type

64 35.2 35.6 35.656 30.8 31.1 66.760 33.0 33.3 100.0

180 98.9 100.02 1.1

182 100.0

AdministratorStaffFacultyTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

The overwhelming majority of respondents (92.3%) worked primarily on the Lincroft campus.

Location

168 92.3 93.3 93.32 1.1 1.1 94.41 .5 .6 95.02 1.1 1.1 96.17 3.8 3.9 100.0

180 98.9 100.02 1.1

182 100.0

LincroftAsbury Park HECBayshore HECWall HECWestern Mon Branch CampusTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Respondents have been employed at Brookdale an average of 12 years, although both newcomers and “long-timers” completed the Internal Communications Survey. Years of employment ranged from 3.6 months to 36 years.

Descriptive Statistics

165 .3 36.0 12.227 9.1352

165

Years Employedat BrookdaleValid N (listwise)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation


Section 2. Frequency of Use of 25 Methods of Communication

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they used each of 25 different forms of communication, using a 5-point scale where 1 = Never, 3 = Sometimes, and 5 = Always. Respondents could indicate if they were not aware of a particular communication method or whether they were aware of, but could not access, each type of communication.

What are the Most Frequently Used Forms of Communication? Table 1 contains the distribution of responses for the 25 “Frequency of Use” items on the Internal Communications Survey.

The top five most frequently used forms of communication by Brookdale employees are:

(1) E-mail: 97.2% of respondents indicated that they “often” or “always” use this method of communication.

(2) Voice Mail: 90.4% of respondents reported that they “often” or “always” use this communication tool.

(3) Inter-Office Mail: 83.7% of respondents indicated that they “often” or “always” use inter-office mail.

(4) & (5) Broadcast Voice Mail & Broadcast E-mail: 80.7% of respondents indicated that they “often” or “always” use these methods of communication.

The least frequently used forms of communicating internal information are:

Governance Forums via ITV: 67.4% of survey respondents indicated they “never” or “rarely” use this form of communication.

Brookdale Television (BTV): 64.0% of respondents reported that they “never” or “rarely” use this communication method.

90.5 The Night: 52.0% of survey respondents “never” or “rarely” use this form of communication.

Board of Trustees Minutes: 39.6% of survey respondents do not read the Board of Trustees Minutes.

Listservs: 38.3% of survey respondents indicated they “never” or “rarely” use Listservs for internal communication purposes.


Table 2 contains the mean or average frequency ratings for each of the 25 different forms of communication. Only the data for those respondents who were aware of, and who could access each form of communication were used in the calculation of average frequency. Higher numbers indicate greater frequency of use. More specifically, an average rating of 4.0 or higher indicates that respondents “often” or “always” use that form of communication. A rating of 2.0 or below indicates that employees “rarely” or “never” use that particular method of communicating internal information.

As one might expect, the average use ratings are consistent with the frequency distribution data. The highest means were obtained for E-mail (4.91), followed by Voice Mail (4.76), Broadcast Voice Mail (4.50), Inter-office Mail (4.48), and Broadcast E-mail (4.47).

The lowest means were obtained for Governance Forums via ITV (1.29), followed by Brookdale Television (BTV; 1.85), Board of Trustees Minutes (2.44), 90.5 The Night radio (2.45), and Listservs (2.55).

Are there some forms of communication that employees are not aware of?

Table 1 indicates that approximately 1 out of 5 respondents were not aware of the Daily News Clips (22.5%), Board of Trustees Minutes (20.9%), Listservs (20.3%), and Governance Forums via ITV (20.0%).

Table 3 provides a breakdown of those respondents who were not aware of particular communication modes by respondent type (Administrator, Faculty, Staff).

Of those who were unaware of the Daily News Clips, almost half (48.7%) were faculty, 38.5% were staff, and 10.3% were administrators.

Of those unaware of Board of Trustees Minutes, 40.5% were faculty, 40.5% were staff, and 16.2% were administrators.

Of those unaware of listservs, the majority (62.9%) were staff; 20% were administrators, and 14.3% were faculty.

Of those unaware of Governance Forums via ITV, 28.6% were administrators, 22.9% were faculty, and 45.7% were staff.

Are there some forms of communication that employees cannot access?

For the most part, access does not appear to be a major problem at Brookdale. Table 1indicates that 10.3% of respondents are aware of Brookdale Television (BTV) but do not have access to it. Division / Department meetings are inaccessible to 8.5% of respondents and 7.9% do not have access to Board of Trustees minutes. Just over 6% do not have access to Broadcast Voice Mail.

Table 4 helps to clarify some of the access findings. More specifically, this table provides a breakdown of those respondents who cannot access particular communication modes by respondent type (Administrator, Faculty, Staff).


Of those employees who cannot access Brookdale Television, 38.9% are administrators, 44.4% are faculty, and 16.7% are staff.

Employees who responded that they could not access Division / Department meetings were either administrators (71.4%) or staff members (28.6%).

Of those who cannot access Board of Trustees minutes, 21.4% were administrators, 14.3% were faculty, and 64.3% were staff members.

Of those who cannot access Broadcast Voice Mail, 27.3% were administrators, 27.3% were faculty, and 36.4% were staff.

Are some methods of communication used more frequently by some employee groups than others?

To address this question, Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) models were calculated to determine group differences on all 25 methods of communication. When the F-valueassociated with the ANOVA model was significant for a particular item, post-hoc tests were conducted to determine significant differences between respondent groups (Administrators, Faculty, Staff). Table 5 indicates the level of significance for the overall model or F-value as well as an indication of which groups differed significantly from each other. Significant F-values were obtained on 12 of the 25 items, suggesting possible differences in the frequency with which certain groups of employees use particular forms of communication.

Consistent with the “awareness” data described previously, administrators were significantly more likely (than staff and faculty) to use the Daily News Clips, Board of Trustees Minutes, and the College Annual Report for internal communications.

Administrators and staff were significantly more likely than faculty to read the Inside Track.

Administrators and faculty were significantly more likely to use all forms of e-mail (E-mail; Broadcast E-mail; Squirrel Mail) compared to staff members.

As might be expected, faculty members (compared to administrators and staff) were significantly more likely to use Faculty Days and Division / Department Meetings to communicate internal information. Faculty were also more likely to use Governance Forums than the other employee groups. In addition, faculty were more likely to use Voice Mail compared to staff members.

Finally, administrators were significantly more likely to use Listservs to communicate internal information when compared to staff members.


Section 3. Effectiveness of 25 Methods of Communication

Respondents were asked to indicate how effective they found each of 25 different forms of communication, using a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all Effective and 5 = Very Effective.

What are the Most Effective Forms of Communication? Table 6 contains the distribution of responses for the 25 “Effectiveness” items on the Internal Communications Survey. It is not surprising that the most effective forms of communication are those that are also used most frequently.

The top five most effective forms of communication are:

(1) E-mail: 94.7% of respondents found this form of communication either “quite a bit” or “very” effective.

(2) Broadcast E-mail: 90.2% of respondents indicated that Broadcast E-mail was either “quite a bit” or “very” effective.

(3) Voice Mail: 88.9% of survey respondents reported that Voice Mail was either “quite a bit” or “very” effective.

(4) Broadcast Voice Mail: 88.4% of survey completers found Broadcast Voice Mail to be either “quite a bit” or “very” effective.

(5) Inter-office Mail: 86.7% of respondents feel that inter-office mail is still a “quite a bit” or “very” effective way to communicate with others at the College.

The least effective forms of communicating internal information are:

Governance Forums via ITV: 65.6% of survey respondents indicated that this form of communication was only “a little bit” effective or was “not at all” effective.

Brookdale Television (BTV): 58.0% reported that BTV was only “a little bit” effective or was “not at all” effective for communicating internal information.

Board of Trustees Minutes: 43.2% of respondents find Board of Trustees Minutes only “a little bit” effective or “not at all” effective.

The Stall: 41.4% of survey respondents reported that the Stall was either “a little bit” effective or was “not at all” effective in terms of internal communication.

90.5 The Night: 39.8% of survey respondents indicated that our radio station was only “a little bit” effective or was “not at all” effective.


Table 7 contains the mean or average effectiveness ratings for each of the 25 different forms of communication. Higher numbers indicate greater effectiveness. More specifically, an average rating of 4.0 or higher indicates that respondents find the method of communication either “quite a bit” or “very” effective A rating of 2.0 or below indicates that employees feel the type of communication is only “a little bit” effective or is “not at all” effective.

The average effectiveness ratings are extremely consistent with the frequency distribution data rating the effectiveness of each communication vehicle. The highest means were obtained for E-mail (4.72), followed by Voice Mail (4.57), Broadcast E-mail (4.52), Broadcast Voice Mail (4.51), and Inter-Office Mail (4.40).

The lowest means were obtained for Governance Forums via ITV (2.05), followed by Brookdale Television (BTV; 2.40), The Stall (2.71), Board of Trustees Minutes (2.84), and 90.5 The Night radio (2.86).

Are some methods of communication considered more effective by some employee groups than others?

To address this question, Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) models were calculated to determine group differences on all 25 methods of communication. When the F-valueassociated with the ANOVA model was significant for a particular item, post-hoc tests were conducted to determine whether significant differences exist between respondent groups (Administrators, Faculty, Staff). Table 8 indicates the level of significance for the overall model or F-value as well as an indication of which groups differed significantly from each other. Significant F-values were obtained on 7 of the 25 items, suggesting possible group differences in the effectiveness of particular forms of communication.

Administrators and staff found the Inside Track and the Daily News Clips significantly more effective for communicating internal information than faculty did.

Administrators rated the Brookdalian significantly more effective than faculty members did.

Administrators found Listservs more effective than did staff members. Compared to faculty and staff, administrators consider the Board of Trustees

Minutes a more effective tool for communicating internal information. Administrators found the College Annual Report significantly more effective than

staff members did. Staff members, in turn, found the College Annual Report significantly more effective than faculty members did.

Faculty members found Division / Department meetings significantly more effective than administrators and staff did.


Impressions from Open-Ended Comments

(1) Have we left out any important methods for communicating internal information?

Respondents were very comprehensive in identifying potentially important communication vehicles that had not been included on the survey. Responses ranged from unlikely and probably infrequent (although very creative) ways of communicating (e.g., Carrier Pigeon, smoke signals and telepathy) to the more common or frequent methodologies listed below:

Bi-monthly Calendar HR Job Openings Town Hall Meetings & BluesNet Leadership Brookdale Presidential Roundtables College Catalog Committee Meetings (e.g.,

Master Schedules Mentors

Union Meetings Workshops

Governance Standing Committees)

E-Mails / White Papers from

Microsoft Outlook Public Folders and Calendar

New Employee Orientation Dr. Burnham

Faculty Roundtables Student Handbook Student Life Center Calendar

Governance Retreats Teleconferencing

In addition, quite a few respondents also took the opportunity to emphasize that certain forms of communication are critical to their jobs but they do not currently have access to these communication modes. For example, several noted the need for Brookdale’s phone system to include the Branch Campus and the Higher Education Centers. A few respondents in a very mobile department felt strongly that cell-phones are necessary in order for them to communicate with each other and stay coordinated, thereby decreasing response time and increasing productivity.

(2) What are some of the drawbacks associated with current forms of communication?

College employees had a lot to say about some of the ways we currently communicate at the College. This feedback is roughly categorized below by type of communication.In many cases, verbatim comments appear after the category name.

Inside Track. There were quite a few negative comments about this method of communicating internal information. Some employees feel that the Inside Track is a “venue for administration to pat themselves on the back.” Other comments include, “Why not highlight classroom achievements instead of some OBCD Yahoo?”, “Clubby in-crowd tone,” “Inside Track seems to address some few ‘insiders’ – it does not seem relevant to the rest of us.” “Jokes & innuendos are not appropriate.” “The last line of the Inside Track is stupid and only applies to a certain ‘few.’” Inside Track is “too caustic, not serious, too sassy, too too too.”


Despite the fact that this item asked respondents to consider “drawbacks” associated with current forms of communication, several respondents spoke very highly of the Inside Track electronic newsletter. For example, respondents wrote the following: “I like the Inside Track. It has great information and I always read it.” “I love the InsideTrack because it is breezy, fun and informative and SHORT!” “It’s great to breeze through it for important information as you can do it very quickly.” “Short & to the point.”“I believe the Inside Track / Brookdalian / Daily News are three great ways to effectively communicate internal information to employees.” “Inside Track is timely and quite well read.” “Great news source.” “Inside Track is great for updates.”

E-mail. Although the closed-ended survey data revealed that E-mail is the most frequently used communication method and is perceived as being the most effective, there is obviously room for improvement, particularly when it comes to spam and junk mail. Respondents said: “Eudora doesn’t work.” “E-mail sometimes does not reach recipients in time.” “Too much spam and junk mail.” “E-mail system gets overloaded easily.” “Too much junk mail coming through.” “Need better junk filters or new email addresses!”

Survey respondents had the following to say about Squirrel Mail: “Squirrel Mail times out.” “Squirrel Mail randomly deletes messages.” “Adjuncts often have problems with Squirrel Mail – sending messages, especially with attachment.” “I do not like the service from Squirrel Mail- it fills up fast and then cannot be deleted. Creates a problem that also affects Eudora by then duplicating those emails.” “Squirrel Mail is not workable.”“Squirrel Mail is not powerful enough.”

Voice Mail. Respondents also felt that our current Voice Mail system was in need of a few improvements: “Phone system is down a lot.” “Some employees do not have access to direct phone extensions.” “Not all employees have a direct phone extension so printed materials must continue to be used.” “Hate emergency voicemail messages.Never heard one that was real emergency.” “We do not have Broadcast Voice Mails at the Higher Education Centers and miss out on valuable information.” “Regional locations are not on same phone system – inhibits efficient and inclusive communication.” “Broadcast Voice Mail not available at the HECs.”

The College Website elicited many comments and a few suggestions for improvement, including: “Could benefit from a facelift,” “Information is out of date,” “Poorly designed,” “Boring,” “Broken links,” “Search Engine doesn’t work / Difficult to search effectively,” “Very difficult to locate information on website / intranet,” “Too time consuming to find what is needed,” “Embarrassment,” “Department web pages are out of date,” and “Make more friendly.”

Information Overload. Some employees did not mention drawbacks associated with any particular types of communication, but they noted that there is too much information available in too many forms and that they would like one centralized location for communicating important College information. A few examples of respondent comments are as follows: “Too many types of communication,” “Too much


communication; wish it were more centralized.” “Overload; Too many ways to publish important information.” “I want to check in one place.” “Need one central location for everything.” “Too many. Overkill – too much paper!”

Employee Responsibilities: Some respondents feel that the amount and forms of communication at Brookdale are fine, but employees need to take greater responsibility for their role in being informed. A few comments illustrate this concept: “It comes to people informing their colleagues. We have many forms of communication. We need to take the time to read and listen.” “There are no consequences for NOT accessing information.” “I believe the most significant issue is simply accountability. If employees and students are responsible and accountable, they have many modes of communication from which to choose.”

(3) What forms of communication work best for you? Why?

The majority of respondents noted that E-mail worked best for them. They find E-mail accessible from work and home. Employees like that they have control over their E-mail and can reply at a time that is convenient to them.

Many people also like the “archival” nature of Eudora. They use their E-mail as a communication warehouse or file cabinet and like the fact that they have a “permanent” record of E-mails sent and received. A few comments illustrate this important concept: “Email takes less time and large amounts of information can be saved and stored in electronic folders for quick reference.” “Email because I get information continuously and I have a record of my information.” Email (ironically) because there is a record of the communication and something to refer back to if needed.” “Email. I can check it anytime from anywhere & easily archive.” “Email – fast & permanent!” “Email – I can read it at my convenience and save it and go back to it at a later time if needed.” “Email – online filing system capability vs. having to print out.” “Email – it is a record and can be forwarded.” “Email also provides a detailed, dated log of my written communication from yesterday to several years ago – who owes me a response on an issue? To whom do I owe an answer, a report, a phone call, etc? I find it very valuable to scan back through both my in and out boxes.”

A Heads-Up. The fact that many employees appear to be using the College E-mail system as a filing / storage / memory tool highlights the importance of having very clear College-wide communication should Brookdale explore the possibility of switching to a new E-mail system, such as Outlook.


(4) We would appreciate your thoughts on how Brookdale can most effectively communicate its internal information.

This question elicited numerous responses, some of which appear below by general category.

Email: Need faster email Better Spam filters Would help if we could block the junk mail (many people feel this is important)

Improve / Revamp the College website: Be willing to budget for personnel to update college and related web pages. Important events should be displayed boldly on website. Need one central website for everything. Update more often (many times the information is obsolete or incorrect). Need a BCC News Website / Need a News Forum on the BCC website.

One Stop Communication Center: Get to the point; streamline communication There should be ONE medium to communicate the essentials. Develop a communication Hub to easily access all information in one spot. A weekly email message with categories of information and topics listed in each

category. Intranet Home Page with access restricted to Brookdale faculty and staff. Post

announcements, updates, events calendar, etc. with hyperlinks to more detailed information. Comparable in concept to news network sites for current news.

Create a functional, password-protected INTRANET for college business processes. An effective, collegially developed INTRANET with information prioritized toward

audiences, type of content, urgency of message. A centralized source of information / updates that can be accessed by all. Maybe a

hotline of updates webpage.

More Top-down Communication: “Top management needs a lesson in how to effectively communicate within their

division.” “More from the horse’s mouth – Dr. B. I appreciate his info …. I would like to hear

more from VP Ed Services & VP A&O. Just updates on progress, direction, etc.” “Cabinet level people should communicate a brief blurb each week to the entire

community. They are the hub and need to do a better job at letting all of us know what’s going on at the College.”

“Have those in leadership positions talk to their people.“ “Formal Senior Management emails, monthly, of major external and internal

updates.”


“I think they are good at advertising events, but the information of real substance by department heads and managers does not trickle down to everyone. There seems to be a lot of hearsay.”

“The top needs to trickle down the information. As it comes down…we need to take the time to be informed.”

Employee Accountability: “Make people responsible for accessing information. Communication is a 2-way

street.” “Encourage people to be proactive.” “Division chairs need to do a better job of transmitting information.” “We have made tremendous strides. Individuals need to be more accountable and

responsible for seeking out information which is important to them and their students.“

“Given the human imperfections, the overall communication at BCC is good. We have many ways of communicating. It’s up to the individual to use them.”

Employee Access to E-mail and Voicemail: “All community members must have access and be given time (paid time) to access

information.” “Lowest staff levels (e.g., food service staff) aren’t given time to get informed.” “Give each employee a phone number and an email address. Work into the

workday a time to check phone and email.” “Bring Broadcast Voice Mails to the Higher Education Centers.” “Common phone system for all employees.”

When the College closes…. Would like a telephone chain reactivated when the College is closed. “Brookdale does a very poor job communicating to its staff and public when the

College decides to close due to bad weather. People must travel long distances or take mass transit. I usually call our College’s Main number since information on the radio is pathetic. Some people may not have internet access.”

Tota

lM

etho

d of

Com

mun

icat

ion

N

%N

%

N

%N

%

N

%N

%

N

%N

(01)

The

Sta

ll26

14.8

4022

.764

36.4

2212

.517

9.7

42.

33

1.7

176

(02)

Insi

de T

rack

126.

75

2.8

2916

.326

14.6

104

58.4

21.

10

0.0

178

(03)

The

Bro

okda

lian

116.

211

6.2

2111

.837

20.8

9251

.74

2.2

21.

117

8

(04)

Dai

ly N

ews

Clip

s31

17.9

158.

723

13.3

2514

.538

22.0

3922

.52

1.2

173

(05)

Hap

peni

ngs

126.

936

20.6

5229

.725

14.3

4425

.14

2.3

21.

117

5

(06)

Gov

erna

nce

Gaz

ette

1810

.223

13.1

4425

.030

17.0

5531

.35

2.8

10.

617

6

(07)

Boa

rd o

f Tru

stee

s M

inut

es49

27.7

2111

.927

15.3

105.

619

10.7

3720

.914

7.9

177

(08)

Col

lege

Ann

ual R

epor

t36

20.6

3017

.138

21.7

2011

.437

21.1

105.

74

2.3

175

(09)

Voi

ce M

ail

42.

31

0.6

84.

56

3.4

154

87.0

10.

63

1.7

177

(10)

Bro

adca

st V

oice

Mai

l13

7.3

00.

09

5.1

137.

313

073

.41

0.6

116.

217

7

(11)

Bro

adca

st E

-Mai

l12

6.8

10.

612

6.8

137.

412

973

.35

2.8

42.

317

6

(12)

Bro

okda

le p

hone

ope

rato

rs24

13.7

3821

.752

29.7

2112

.037

21.1

21.

11

0.6

175

(13)

Bro

okda

le T

elev

isio

n (B

TV)

7442

.539

22.4

2514

.49

5.2

31.

76

3.4

1810

.317

4

(14)

90.

5 Th

e N

ight

5832

.834

19.2

4324

.318

10.2

1910

.72

1.1

31.

717

7

(15)

Col

lege

Web

site

2

1.1

105.

632

18.1

4022

.692

52.0

10.

60

0.0

177

(16)

Intra

net

179.

918

10.5

3721

.636

21.1

3922

.821

12.3

31.

817

1

(17)

E-m

ail

10.

60

0.0

21.

18

4.6

162

92.6

10.

61

0.6

175

(18)

Squ

irrel

Mai

l23

13.3

158.

729

16.8

2715

.675

43.4

31.

71

0.6

173

(19)

Lis

tser

vs52

30.2

148.

128

16.3

179.

921

12.2

3520

.35

5.0

172

(20)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

via

ITV

109

62.3

95.

113

7.4

10.

60

0.0

3520

.08

4.6

175

(21)

Fac

ulty

Day

s33

20.8

85.

019

11.9

1710

.767

42.1

74.

48

5.0

159

(22)

Div

isio

n / D

epar

tmen

t Mtg

s.36

21.8

95.

514

8.5

159.

170

42.4

74.

214

8.5

165

(23)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

3218

.622

12.8

3419

.835

20.3

4325

.03

1.7

31.

717

2

(24)

Inte

r-of

fice

Mai

l2

1.1

31.

724

13.6

2715

.312

168

.40

0.0

00.

017

7

(25)

Bul

letin

Boa

rds

3922

.027

15.3

7441

.819

10.7

1810

.20

0.0

00.

017

7

Col

lege

Life

Com

mitt

eeSp

ring

2006

Inte

rnal

Com

mun

icat

ions

Sur

vey

Tabl

e 1:

Fre

quen

cy o

f Use

of 2

5 D

iffer

ent F

orm

s of

Com

mun

icat

ion

Nev

er(R

arel

y)So

met

imes

(Ofte

n)A

war

e of

Not

A

war

e of

:C

an't

Acc

ess

Alw

ays

Method of Communication Average Frequency Rating

(01) The Stall 2.79

(02) Inside Track 4.16

(03) The Brookdalian 4.09

(04) Daily News Clips 3.18

(05) Happenings 3.31

(06) Governance Gazette 3.48

(07) Board of Trustees Minutes 2.44

(08) College Annual Report 2.95

(09) Voice Mail 4.76

(10) Broadcast Voice Mail 4.50

(11) Broadcast E-Mail 4.47

(12) Brookdale phone operators 3.05

(13) Brookdale Television (BTV) 1.85

(14) 90.5 The Night 2.45

(15) College Website 4.19

(16) Intranet 3.42

(17) E-mail 4.91

(18) Squirrel Mail 3.69

(19) Listservs 2.55

(20) Governance Forums via ITV 1.29

(21) Faculty Days 3.53

(22) Division / Department Mtgs. 3.51

(23) Governance Forums 3.21

(24) Inter-office Mail 4.48

(25) Bulletin Boards 2.72

1 = Never; 3 = Sometimes; 5 = AlwaysHigher Average Ratings indicate greater frequency of use.Average Ratings were only calculated for those who are aware of,and can access each form of communication.

for 25 Different Forms of Communication

College Life CommitteeSpring 2006 Internal Communications Survey

Table 2: Average Frequency of Use Ratings

Total:Not Aware of

Method of Communication N N % N % N %

(01) The Stall 4 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0

(02) Inside Track 2 0 0.0 1 50.0 1 50.0

(03) The Brookdalian 4 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0

(04) Daily News Clips 39 4 10.3 19 48.7 15 38.5

(05) Happenings 4 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0

(06) Governance Gazette 5 1 20.0 1 20.0 2 40.0

(07) Board of Trustees Minutes 37 6 16.2 15 40.5 15 40.5

(08) College Annual Report 10 1 10.0 4 40.0 5 50.0

(09) Voice Mail 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

(10) Broadcast Voice Mail 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

(11) Broadcast E-Mail 5 1 20.0 1 20.0 3 60.0

(12) Brookdale phone operators 2 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0

(13) Brookdale Television (BTV) 6 0 0.0 2 33.3 4 66.7

(14) 90.5 The Night 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

(15) College Website 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

(16) Intranet 21 2 9.5 9 42.9 10 47.6

(17) E-mail 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

(18) Squirrel Mail 3 1 33.3 0 0.0 2 66.7

(19) Listservs 35 7 20.0 5 14.3 22 62.9

(20) Governance Forums via ITV 35 10 28.6 8 22.9 16 45.7

(21) Faculty Days 7 1 14.3 0 0.0 5 71.4

(22) Division / Department Mtgs. 7 2 28.6 0 0.0 4 57.1

(23) Governance Forums 3 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 33.3

(24) Inter-office Mail 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(25) Bulletin Boards 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Row percentages do not always add to 100% because the employee status of some respondentsis unknown.

istrators Faculty Staff

Table 3: Respodents Who Were Not Aware

Admin-

Spring 2006 Internal Communications SurveyCollege Life Committee

of Particular Modes of Communication

Total:Aware of:

Can't AccessMethod of Communication N N % N % N %

(01) The Stall 3 2 66.7 0 0.0 1 33.3

(02) Inside Track 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(03) The Brookdalian 2 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0

(04) Daily News Clips 2 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0

(05) Happenings 2 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0

(06) Governance Gazette 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

(07) Board of Trustees Minutes 14 3 21.4 2 14.3 9 64.3

(08) College Annual Report 4 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 50.0

(09) Voice Mail 3 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 33.3

(10) Broadcast Voice Mail 11 3 27.3 3 27.3 4 36.4

(11) Broadcast E-Mail 4 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0

(12) Brookdale phone operators 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(13) Brookdale Television (BTV) 18 7 38.9 8 44.4 3 16.7

(14) 90.5 The Night 3 2 66.7 0 0.0 1 33.3

(15) College Website 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(16) Intranet 3 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3

(17) E-mail 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0

(18) Squirrel Mail 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(19) Listservs 5 1 20.0 0 0.0 4 80.0

(20) Governance Forums via ITV 8 3 37.5 2 25.0 3 37.5

(21) Faculty Days 8 3 37.5 0 0.0 5 62.5

(22) Division / Department Mtgs. 14 10 71.4 0 0.0 4 28.6

(23) Governance Forums 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0

(24) Inter-office Mail 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(25) Bulletin Boards 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Row percentages do not always add to 100% because the employee status of some respondentsis unknown.

Spring 2006 Internal Communications SurveyCollege Life Committee

Particular Modes of Communication

istrators Faculty Staff

Table 4: Respodents Who Are Aware of, but do not Have Access to,

Admin-

Gro

ups

That

Res

onde

d A

dmin

-Si

gnifi

cant

ly D

iffer

ent

Met

hod

of C

omm

unic

atio

nis

trat

ors

Facu

ltySt

aff

from

Eac

h O

ther

(01)

The

Sta

ll2.

792.

612.

872.

91

(02)

Insi

de T

rack

4.16

***

4.57

3.74

4.19

Adm

in &

Sta

ff >

Facu

lty

(03)

The

Bro

okda

lian

4.09

4.30

3.93

4.00

(04)

Dai

ly N

ews

Clip

s3.

18**

3.65

2.59

3.09

Adm

in >

Sta

ff &

Fac

ulty

(05)

Hap

peni

ngs

3.31

3.37

3.02

3.58

(06)

Gov

erna

nce

Gaz

ette

3.48

3.60

3.63

3.17

(07)

Boa

rd o

f Tru

stee

s M

inut

es2.

44**

*3.

231.

652.

16A

dmin

> S

taff

& F

acul

ty

(08)

Col

lege

Ann

ual R

epor

t2.

95**

*3.

712.

462.

58A

dmin

> S

taff

& F

acul

ty

(09)

Voi

ce M

ail

4.76

*4.

794.

934.

56Fa

culty

> S

taff

(10)

Bro

adca

st V

oice

Mai

l4.

504.

604.

654.

20

(11)

Bro

adca

st E

-Mai

l4.

47*

4.63

4.65

4.12

Adm

in &

Fac

ulty

> S

taff

(12)

Bro

okda

le p

hone

ope

rato

rs3.

052.

952.

843.

35

(13)

Bro

okda

le T

elev

isio

n (B

TV)

1.85

1.96

1.64

1.98

(14)

90.

5 Th

e N

ight

2.45

2.47

2.74

2.12

(15)

Col

lege

Web

site

4.

194.

374.

074.

13

(16)

Intra

net

3.42

3.64

3.31

3.27

(17)

E-m

ail

4.91

***

5.00

4.96

4.74

Adm

in &

Fac

ulty

> S

taff

(18)

Squ

irrel

Mai

l3.

69**

3.79

4.00

3.17

Adm

in &

Fac

ulty

> S

taff

(19)

Lis

tser

vs2.

55*

2.94

2.50

1.96

Adm

in >

Sta

ff

(20)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

via

ITV

1.29

1.27

1.15

1.50

(21)

Fac

ulty

Day

s3.

53**

*2.

924.

682.

53Fa

culty

> A

dmin

& S

taff

(22)

Div

isio

n / D

epar

tmen

t Mtg

s.3.

51**

*2.

894.

712.

45Fa

culty

> A

dmin

& S

taff

(23)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

3.21

***

3.21

3.75

2.58

Facu

lty >

Adm

in >

Sta

ff

(24)

Inte

r-of

fice

Mai

l4.

484.

474.

474.

53

(25)

Bul

letin

Boa

rds

2.72

2.77

2.67

2.76

Par

ticip

ants

Res

pond

ed U

sing

a 5

-Poi

nt S

cale

whe

re 1

= N

ever

and

5 =

Alw

ays.

Hig

her n

umbe

rs in

dica

te g

reat

erfre

quen

cy o

f use

. R

espo

nden

ts w

ho w

ere

not a

war

e of

, or c

ould

not

acc

ess

a pa

rticu

lar m

ode

of c

omm

unic

atio

n w

ere

not i

nclu

ded

in th

ese

anal

yses

.A

NO

VA

s w

ere

perfo

rmed

to id

entif

y an

y si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

the

resp

onde

nt g

roup

s.

*F-

valu

e is

sig

nific

ant a

t the

.05

leve

l; **

F-va

lue

is s

igni

fican

t at t

he .0

1 le

vel;

***F

-val

ue is

sig

nific

ant a

t the

.001

leve

l.

All

Res

pond

ents

Col

lege

Life

Com

mitt

ee S

prin

g 20

06 In

tern

al C

omm

unic

atio

ns S

urve

y

Tabl

e 5:

Ave

rage

Fre

quen

cy o

f Use

Rat

ings

for 2

5 D

iffer

ent F

orm

s of

Com

mun

icat

ion

by E

mpl

oyee

Gro

up: A

dmin

istr

ator

s, F

acul

ty a

nd S

taff

Met

hod

of C

omm

unic

atio

nN

%

N

%N

%

N

%N

%

N%

(01)

The

Sta

ll23

14.6

4226

.856

35.7

2918

.57

4.5

157

100.

0

(02)

Insi

de T

rack

106.

011

6.5

3118

.548

28.6

6840

.516

810

0.0

(03)

The

Bro

okda

lian

105.

911

6.5

3420

.153

31.4

6136

.116

910

0.0

(04)

Dai

ly N

ews

Clip

s20

15.9

1310

.331

24.6

2620

.636

28.6

126

100.

0

(05)

Hap

peni

ngs

95.

517

10.4

4728

.750

30.5

4125

.016

410

0.0

(06)

Gov

erna

nce

Gaz

ette

106.

120

12.1

3722

.448

29.1

5030

.316

510

0.0

(07)

Boa

rd o

f Tru

stee

s M

inut

es32

27.1

1916

.128

23.7

1411

.925

21.2

118

100.

0

(08)

Col

lege

Ann

ual R

epor

t28

18.3

2919

.044

28.8

2617

.026

17.0

153

100.

0

(09)

Voi

ce M

ail

42.

32

1.2

137.

626

15.2

126

73.7

171

100.

0

(10)

Bro

adca

st V

oice

Mai

l4

2.4

42.

411

6.7

3118

.911

469

.516

410

0.0

(11)

Bro

adca

st E

-Mai

l1

0.6

10.

614

8.5

4426

.810

463

.416

410

0.0

(12)

Bro

okda

le p

hone

ope

rato

rs15

9.2

116.

727

16.6

3320

.277

47.2

163

100.

0

(13)

Bro

okda

le T

elev

isio

n (B

TV)

3528

.237

29.8

2822

.616

12.9

86.

512

410

0.0

(14)

90.

5 Th

e N

ight

2819

.928

19.9

4129

.124

17.0

2014

.214

110

0.0

(15)

Col

lege

Web

site

2

1.2

2414

.041

24.0

5230

.452

30.4

171

100.

0

(16)

Intra

net

1410

.112

8.6

4028

.834

24.5

3928

.113

910

0.0

(17)

E-m

ail

00.

02

1.2

74.

127

15.9

134

78.8

170

100.

0

(18)

Squ

irrel

Mai

l18

11.2

2113

.028

17.4

2817

.466

41.0

161

100.

0

(19)

Lis

tser

vs26

23.2

1513

.424

21.4

1614

.331

27.7

112

100.

0

(20)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

via

ITV

4548

.416

17.2

1920

.48

8.6

55.

493

100.

0

(21)

Fac

ulty

Day

s19

14.3

1712

.841

30.8

3224

.124

18.0

133

100.

0

(22)

Div

isio

n / D

epar

tmen

t Mtg

s.21

16.0

107.

622

16.8

3224

.446

35.1

131

100.

0

(23)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

1711

.316

10.7

3422

.739

26.0

4429

.315

010

0.0

(24)

Inte

r-of

fice

Mai

l3

1.7

31.

717

9.8

5028

.710

158

.017

410

0.0

(25)

Bul

letin

Boa

rds

2414

.539

23.5

6639

.819

11.4

1810

.816

610

0.0

Very

Tota

l Res

pons

es

Col

lege

Life

Com

mitt

eeSp

ring

2006

Inte

rnal

Com

mun

icat

ions

Sur

vey

Tabl

e 6:

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

25

Diff

eren

t For

ms

of C

omm

unic

atio

n

Not

at a

ll(A

Litt

le b

it)(M

oder

atel

y)(Q

uite

a b

it)

AverageMethod of Communication Effectiveness Rating

(01) The Stall 2.71

(02) Inside Track 3.91

(03) The Brookdalian 3.85

(04) Daily News Clips 3.36

(05) Happenings 3.59

(06) Governance Gazette 3.65

(07) Board of Trustees Minutes 2.84

(08) College Annual Report 2.95

(09) Voice Mail 4.57

(10) Broadcast Voice Mail 4.51

(11) Broadcast E-Mail 4.52

(12) Brookdale phone operators 3.90

(13) Brookdale Television (BTV) 2.40

(14) 90.5 The Night 2.86

(15) College Website 3.75

(16) Intranet 3.52

(17) E-mail 4.72

(18) Squirrel Mail 3.64

(19) Listservs 3.10

(20) Governance Forums via ITV 2.05

(21) Faculty Days 3.19

(22) Division / Department Mtgs. 3.55

(23) Governance Forums 3.51

(24) Inter-office Mail 4.40

(25) Bulletin Boards 2.81

1 = Not at all Effective; 5 = Very EffectiveHigher Average Ratings indicate greater effectiveness ofmethod of communication.

College Life CommitteeSpring 2006 Internal Communications Survey

Table 7: Average Effectiveness Ratingsof 25 Different Forms of Communication

Gro

ups

That

Res

onde

d A

dmin

-Si

gnifi

cant

ly D

iffer

ent

Met

hod

of C

omm

unic

atio

nis

trat

ors

Facu

ltySt

aff

from

Eac

h O

ther

(01)

The

Sta

ll2.

712.

702.

492.

94

(02)

Insi

de T

rack

3.91

***

4.31

3.22

4.22

Adm

in &

Sta

ff >

Facu

lty

(03)

The

Bro

okda

lian

3.85

**4.

163.

463.

88A

dmin

> F

acul

ty

(04)

Dai

ly N

ews

Clip

s3.

36**

*3.

882.

623.

36A

dmin

& S

taff

> Fa

culty

(05)

Hap

peni

ngs

3.59

3.53

3.49

3.77

(06)

Gov

erna

nce

Gaz

ette

3.65

3.83

3.72

3.36

(07)

Boa

rd o

f Tru

stee

s M

inut

es2.

84**

*3.

632.

002.

52A

dmin

> F

acul

ty &

Sta

ff

(08)

Col

lege

Ann

ual R

epor

t2.

95**

*3.

532.

352.

87A

dmin

> S

taff

> Fa

culty

(09)

Voi

ce M

ail

4.57

4.66

4.65

4.37

(10)

Bro

adca

st V

oice

Mai

l4.

514.

584.

524.

45

(11)

Bro

adca

st E

-Mai

l4.

524.

634.

554.

40

(12)

Bro

okda

le p

hone

ope

rato

rs3.

903.

893.

674.

08

(13)

Bro

okda

le T

elev

isio

n (B

TV)

2.40

2.63

2.06

2.41

(14)

90.

5 Th

e N

ight

2.86

2.75

3.15

2.62

(15)

Col

lege

Web

site

3.

753.

823.

653.

74

(16)

Intra

net

3.52

3.72

3.32

3.43

(17)

E-m

ail

4.72

4.84

4.74

4.62

(18)

Squ

irrel

Mai

l3.

643.

863.

743.

33

(19)

Lis

tser

vs3.

10*

3.48

3.10

2.38

Adm

in >

Sta

ff

(20)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

via

ITV

2.05

2.11

1.93

2.12

(21)

Fac

ulty

Day

s3.

193.

093.

323.

06

(22)

Div

isio

n / D

epar

tmen

t Mtg

s.3.

55**

*2.

984.

243.

12Fa

culty

> A

dmin

& S

taff

(23)

Gov

erna

nce

Foru

ms

3.51

3.61

3.47

3.43

(24)

Inte

r-of

fice

Mai

l4.

404.

284.

474.

43

(25)

Bul

letin

Boa

rds

2.81

2.79

2.62

3.04

Par

ticip

ants

Res

pond

ed U

sing

a 5

-Poi

nt S

cale

whe

re 1

= N

ot a

t All

Effe

ctiv

e an

d 5

= V

ery

Effe

ctiv

e. H

ighe

r num

bers

indi

cate

grea

ter r

epor

ted

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

mod

e of

com

mun

icat

ion.

AN

OV

As

wer

e pe

rform

ed to

iden

tify

any

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n th

e re

spon

dent

gro

ups.

*

F-va

lue

is s

igni

fican

t at t

he .0

5 le

vel;

**F-

valu

e is

sig

nific

ant a

t the

.01

leve

l; **

*F-v

alue

is s

igni

fican

t at t

he .0

01 le

vel.

All

Res

pond

ents

Col

lege

Life

Com

mitt

ee S

prin

g 20

06 In

tern

al C

omm

unic

atio

ns S

urve

y

Tabl

e 8:

Ave

rage

Effe

ctiv

enes

s R

atin

gs o

f 25

Diff

eren

t For

ms

of C

omm

unic

atio

nby

Em

ploy

ee G

roup

: Adm

inis

trat

ors,

Fac

ulty

and

Sta

ff

Appendix:

Internal Communications Survey

Inside TrackCollege Relations

SPECIAL ISSUE - COLLEGE LIFE SURVEY February 16, 2006

Dear Brookdale Employee,

The College Life Committee of Governance has been charged with assessing the effectiveness of current delivery methods for communicating internal information. The methods vary from publications to specific types of meetings.

Your feedback will be very helpful in our review process.

Please print out the attached survey, fill it out, and mail it to one of the co-chairs of the College Life Committee:

Roseanne Alvarez (English Department)

Eileen Ford (Nursing Department)

Please return the survey by Tuesday, February 28.

One important factor that we would like to know more about is whether all groups of employees have access to each of the types of communication identified in the survey (e.g., E-mail). Therefore, it is important to us to get a representative sample of all College employees.

If you know someone who may not receive this electronic invitation, please print out the instructions and the survey and pass along a copy to that person.

Or contact Roseanne (ext. 2684) or Eileen (ext. 2641) and they will forward a copy through campus mail.

Thank you!

The College Life Committee

Internal Communications Survey Each item below describes a current method of communicating internal information at Brookdale. On the left, tell us how frequently you use each method of communication. If you are not aware of, or cannot access a particular form of communication, please darken the appropriate circle on the left and skip to the next item. On the right, tell us how effective you feel each method of communication is. Please indicate your choice for each item in both the left and right columns.

Frequency of Use Effectiveness Not

Awareof

Aware of: CannotAccess

Never Some- Always times

Not at all Very Effective Effective

1 2 3 4 5 (1) The Stall 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (2) Inside Track 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (3) The Brookdalian 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (4) Daily News Clips 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (5) Happenings 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (6) Governance Gazette 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (7) Board of Trustees Minutes 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (8) College Annual Report 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (9) Voice Mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (10) Broadcast Voice Mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (11) Broadcast E-Mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (12) Brookdale phone operators 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (13) Brookdale Television (BTV) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (14) 90.5 The Night 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (15) College Website 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (16) Intranet 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (17) E-mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (18) Squirrel Mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (19) Listservs 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (20) Governance Forums via ITV 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (21) Faculty Days 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (22) Division / Department Mtgs. 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (23) Governance Forums 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (24) Inter-office Mail 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 (25) Bulletin Boards 1 2 3 4 5

Please continue on page 2

Please check the response that best applies to you:

Employee Type:

_____ Administrator _____ Staff _____ Faculty _____ Police

Years of Employment at Brookdale: __________

At which location do you do most of your work?

_____ Lincroft _____ Long Branch Higher Education Center _____ Asbury Park Higher Education Center _____ Wall Higher Education Center _____ Bayshore Higher Education Center _____ Western Monmouth Branch Campus _____ Other: Please Indicate ____________________________________________________________

For Questions #1 - #4 below, feel free to attach additional pages if you need more room to write your response.

(1) With the exception of directly talking to others, have we left out any important current methods for communicating internal information? Please specify: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(2) What are some of the drawbacks associated with current forms of communication? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(3) What forms of communication work best for you? Why? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(4) We would appreciate your thoughts on how Brookdale can most effectively communicate its internal information.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your feedback! Please mail your completed survey to College Life co-chairs

Roseanne Alvarez (English Department) or Eileen Ford (Nursing Department)

internal communications survey - welcome to brookdale community

Documents