From Insight to Action: A glimpse of feedback from TAMU Staff

This report provides a single glimpse into staff experiences at Texas A&M University. Staff feedback throughout this University Staff Council (USC) initiative is consistent with recent findings associated with ongoing and formal university-wide efforts designed to develop insights into staff engagement. The strategic value that findings align cannot be understated. This USC report aims to provide a transparent glimpse of timebound insights while also promoting the USC’s desire that such collaborative dialogues and actions continue. Doing so can truly make Texas A&M University a great place to work.

In October 2025, Chairman Albritton invited the USC to provide the Board of Regents with a white paper of staff issues and potential solutions. Over the next three months the USC membership mobilized to conduct listening sessions, gather and thematically organize the anonymous staff input, before iteratively and co-creating this report.

Thank you to the Texas A&M University Board of Regents, and especially Chairman Albritton, for supporting and seeking additional insights into the staff experience. Thank you to interim President Williams for also supporting and engaging with the University Staff Council (USC). We appreciate how President Williams and other administrators co-facilitated a university-wide listening session during a December 2025 USC program.

This is neither a report associated with the 2025 Employee Engagement Survey, nor the upcoming 2026 survey (February 16-27, 2026). Both efforts are conducted by Strategy and Business Services and Korn Ferry, and the USC stands ready to encourage university employees to respond. Instead, this is a separate enterprise that includes anonymous feedback of staff experiences through a process entirely designed and facilitated by the USC. Although the overall process was appropriately supported by administration, the USC experienced full autonomy to embark on listening session exchanges and prepare the final document.

Seven themes emerged based on the anonymous staff responses:

1. Communication, Transparency, and “The Why”
2. Operational Inefficiency—Processes, Systems, and Central Services Bottlenecks
3. Workload, Staffing Gaps, Burnout, and Well-being Supports
4. Staff Value, Culture, and Trust
5. Career Development, Professional Development Access, and Career Ladders
6. Supervisor Quality, Training, and Management Accountability
7. Compensation, Classification, and Cost-of-Working Pressures

This listening effort represented a significant undertaking and mobilization of the USC, which occurred within the ever-demanding season when academic semesters transition and the winter holiday. The feedback confirmed that each division, college and school has a unique workplace culture, yet systemic challenges persist across all of them. Most importantly, this initiative illuminated a clear opportunity: by leveraging our partnerships and embracing our role, the USC can effectively advocate for solutions that strengthen campus trust and join with other stakeholders to build a better Texas A&M.

Workplace context varies significantly across Texas A&M. Each division, college, and school has its own culture—shaping operations, programs, and day-to-day staff interactions. Because collaboration is fundamentally relational, trust, communication, shared understanding, and autonomy within each context strongly influences how well campus partners work together.

Based on this experience, the USC should internally charge itself to strategically conduct and disseminate a white paper that is informed by anonymous staff member feedback. This is aligned with the USC mission. Continual pursuit of transparency about emerging staff issues, challenge identifications, potential solutions, and connections to initiatives is important. When paired with description of the USC involvement, it can be transformative. The USC remains grateful to campus partners such as the Office of the President, Division of Human Resource Organizational Effectiveness (HROE), Division of Strategy and Business Services (SABS), Office of Staff Advocacy and Support (OSAS), and the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE).

Methodology

White Paper Timeline: October 2025 – February 2026

• Mid-October: Chairman Albritton invites the USC to write a white paper
• Early-November: USC members created a listening session template draft
• Late-November: USC discussed white paper invitation and listening sessions
• December – January: USC members conducted listening sessions and anonymous feedback opportunities with their representative unit and peer staff
• Late January – USC members reflect on early draft before collaboratively discussing and iterating the white paper
• Early February – USC shares the white paper with Chairman Albritton and disseminates on the USC website

A single university-wide listening session and 15 division-focused listening sessions occurred. Three divisions enabled an anonymous survey. Around 500 staff employees (approximately 5% of staff) contributed feedback and/or engaged in the sessions.

Fifteen university areas provided anonymous staff feedback including: Athletics, Bush School, College of Arts & Sciences, College of Education and Human Development, College of Maritime Sciences and Maritime Studies, College Station-based AgriLife employees, Division of Finance, Division of Information Technology, Division of Student Affairs, Naresh K. Vashist College of Medicine, Office of the President, Office of the Provost-Center for Teaching Excellence, and the Office of the Provost-Libraries, School of Public Health, and the School of Law

Unfortunately, the themes cannot be considered generalizable because the fifteen represented units do not include every area at the institution. Similarly, the individual employee responses should not be considered for universal understanding of the nearly 11,000 staff members at Texas A&M University. However, this process provides insight into shared staff experiences, which can then empower staff to become advocates and partners in their workplace environment. It is also notable that multiple USC members are conducting listening sessions in the coming weeks and within a time frame more suitable for their workplaces.

Six themes emerged from over a majority of the 15 sources of staff feedback, with only the seventh theme being associated with less than half the feedback received. Staff feedback points to very strong overlap for academic context (i.e., colleges and schools) and non-academic context. The challenges appear to be systemic and university-wide rather than isolated to specific types of units. Accompanying each theme is identified challenges and potential solutions. Each theme then briefly describes the USC’s role and responsibility to positively contribute.

Two Appendices follow the thematic descriptions. In the first, each theme is further situated with associated university-level examples of current initiatives and their implementation status. The second appendix describes how this staff feedback process elicited lessons learned and organizational development-focused considerations for the USC and its future.

Acknowledgement of “Good Bull” and Appreciation

Mission-driven purpose and pride in serving students (and patients)

• Staff repeatedly describe satisfaction from helping students and being part of a student-centered institution and mission.
• In clinical settings, purpose is also tied to quality patient care.

Strong local teams, collegiality, and supportive day-to-day relationships

• Many staff cited positive local team culture, collaborative colleagues, and supportive supervisors as key drivers of satisfaction.
• New employees specifically noted kind/helpful teammates who helped them “learn the lay of the land”.

Leadership that models respect, professionalism, and work-life balance (where it exists)

• Staff identified units where supervisors respect boundaries, provide autonomy/trust, and encourage well-being and work-life balance.
• Staff value being part of a student‐centered institution. A shared commitment to this mission is seen as part of what makes working at Texas A&M special.

Benefits and wellness resources are valued and used

• Staff express appreciation for benefits broadly, including specific programs (e.g., ComPsych; health insurance and other benefits) and wellness offerings.
• Staff also value Wellness Time and wellness initiatives when they are known and accessible.

Positive culture and Aggie values/traditions

• Staff describe a welcoming environment, campus-wide friendliness, and alignment with Texas A&M traditions and values as meaningful aspects associated with the university community.
• Staff express a fondness for the Aggie Core Values, which can become a positive indicator to address the 2025 Employee Engagement Survey action to live out the Aggie Core Values.

Recognition and morale boosters (when practiced)

• Where they exist, staff value recognition practices, such as timely “kudos,” effort acknowledgement, and appreciation events. These can be meaningful supports.
• Some staff also value brief “time” perks (e.g., impromptu early release/half-days around holidays) as small but meaningful gestures.

Mentoring/community-building structures that create connection

• Staff mentoring groups and check-ins are mentioned as helpful for connection and well-being, including for more remote or distributed work.
• There is support for more structured opportunities to engage with leadership and USC representatives through forums and engagement events.

Theme 1: Communication, Transparency, and “The Why”

Identified challenges

• Trickle-down gaps: Staff report that key updates about changes (process, staffing, pay decisions, initiatives) do not reliably reach frontline employees, creating uneven awareness and confusion.
• Missing “why” context: Staff want clearer explanations of rationale, tradeoffs, timelines, and impacts—even when they do not expect to be decision-makers.
• Feedback distrust: Survey fatigue and concerns about anonymity/retaliation reduce participation and confidence that feedback leads to action.
• “You said / we did”: Instances when requested staff feedback was provided by administration appeared to move forward without taking into consideration.

Potential solutions

• Predictable cadence: Establish recurring, multi-channel updates so staff know when and where to find authoritative information.
• Standard change briefs: Require short “what/why/impact/timeline/who-to-contact” briefs for major changes (policy, staffing, systems).
• Close the loop: Streamline surveys, strengthen anonymity, and publish “you said / we did” outcomes. Encourage clearer dialogue about decision-making factors when the final decision is different than the staff received input, especially when staff feedback was requested.

To address the critical need for transparency, the USC can partner with the shared efforts of Strategy and Business Services and Marketing and Communication to purposefully develop and strategically implement an effective university-wide communication framework. The USC can advocate for leadership to consistently and clearly explain the ‘why’ behind major decisions. The USC will collaborate with key stakeholders to co-develop predictable, multi-channel updates and then monitor their effectiveness to ensure information is reaching all staff. By tracking these efforts and informing the broader staff community of outcomes, USC will help close the feedback loop and rebuild trust in the process.

Theme 2: Operational Inefficiency—Processes, Systems, and Central Services Bottlenecks

Identified challenges

• Slow bottlenecks: Staff report slow contracts, procurement, reimbursements, and limited follow-up that delays work and creates downstream consequences.
• Tool sprawl: Staff describe duplicative work across many unconnected systems, with limited visibility into where items are in the queue.
• Unclear ownership: Staff often do not know the correct point-of-contact or who has authority, especially when processes cross departments or centralized units.
• Cascading complexities: The level of complexity increases as collaborations and systems expand. Tools, technologies, and processes influence workflow.

Potential solutions

• Service catalog/Service Learning Agreements: Define and publish owners, service standards, escalation paths, and contacts for major central services.
• Workflow toolkits: Provide clear workflows, job aids, tracking expectations, and a “toolbox” of resources and contacts.
• Systems integration: Invest in “enter once, reuse often” integrations and reduce redundant portals where possible.
• Technological complexity: Review current operations and when appropriate, implement a unified strategy that combines centralized governance, integration-first technology, and human-centered process design to create a more coherent and efficient digital environment for all staff.

Early efforts by Strategy and Business Services are already underway to address systemic operational inefficiencies. The USC is an invited partner for a formal, university-level review of the administrative systems and processes causing the most significant bottlenecks. The USC can then join central units and campus partners to ensure solutions, such as workflow toolkits and system integrations, are designed with the end-user in mind. Finally, the USC is positioned to collaboratively follow the implementation of these improvements and report on their effectiveness back to the staff community.

Theme 3: Workload, Staffing Gaps, Burnout, and Well-being Supports

Identified challenges

• Chronic understaffing: Staff report vacancies not being filled and high performers absorbing additional duties, leading to burnout and after-hours work.
• Meeting overload: Too many meetings (and especially lunch-hour meetings) erode recovery time and make sustained productivity difficult.
• Resource constraints: Budget cuts and staffing limitations compound workload pressures and reduce capacity to do work well.

Potential solutions

• Workload analysis: Conduct structured workload/staffing reviews and define what work pauses or deprioritizes when vacancies persist.
• Protected time: Implement “no-meeting windows,” protect lunch where feasible, and establish focus hours for deep work.
• Well-being awareness: Increase promotion, normalization, and wellness benefits in supervisor trainings so staff are aware of and use available supports.

To address widespread burnout, the USC will champion a sustainable work environment by advocating for systemic solutions, such as formal workload audits and more efficient hiring processes to relieve chronic understaffing. In parallel, the USC will monitor the campus-wide adoption of initiatives to aid and encourage effective and consistent application. Furthermore, the USC can proactively inform the staff community about underutilized well-being resources that can provide immediate support.

Theme 4: Staff Value, Culture, and Trust

Identified challenges

• Low visibility: Staff report their contributions are not consistently visible or represented in institutional decision-making.
• Uneven standards: Employees describe inconsistent expectations and fairness across units (workload, time off, evaluation metrics, professional development access).
• Psychological safety: Some staff report reluctance to disagree or speak openly due to fear of negative consequences and concerns about favoritism.

Potential solutions

• Staff representation and agency: Expand structured engagement between staff, leadership, and USC so staff input is part of normal governance and staff have agency to improve their work environment.
• Develop guardrails: Clarify standards and role expectations (including SOPs for shared titles) and how workload/opportunities are distributed.
• Trust rebuilding: Pair communications with consistent follow-through; when plans change, explain them transparently and promptly.

To address feelings of low staff visibility, USC’s primary responsibility is to champion for greater staff representation in university planning and decision-making. The USC acknowledges and appreciates the increasing instances that administration has formalized staff participation in various committees across university divisions to ensure fairness, equity, and staff representation. To rebuild trust and psychological safety, the USC will serve as an accountability partner, tracking commitments and informing staff on progress. The USC can explore opportunities to lean into university-wide and/or divisional communication mechanisms to amplify staff experiences and workplaces. For example, the USC can partner with SABS to ensure every division and college has a staff recognition/awards program.

Theme 5: Career Development, Professional Development Access, and Career Ladders

Identified challenges

• Missing ladders: Staff cite limited or unclear career ladders, making growth pathways difficult to understand.
• Unequal PD access: Training is not always well advertised, may cost money, and is inconsistently supported with time/funding across units.
• Innovation barriers: Staff want clearer ways to propose new responsibilities aligned with strengths but lack guidance on how to do so.

Potential solutions

• Career ladders: Build and publish career ladders with transparent criteria, including dual tracks where needed.
• PD funding & IDPs: Expand staff development funding, opportunities, and normalizes individual development plans so staff (supervisors and supervisees alike) contribute to a work environment that promotes professional development.
• Mentorship pathways: Scale mentorship, cross-training, and a centralized hub so opportunities are visible and easier to access.

The USC’s role is to promote the creation of clear, university-wide career ladders and dedicated professional development funding. The USC can collaborate with key partners like HROE to design the templates and frameworks for these programs, ensuring they meet the needs expressed by staff. Additionally, the USC is positioned to inform staff of all available staff professional development opportunities and monitor the implementation of these initiatives to ensure they are effective and accessible to staff.

Theme 6: Supervisor Quality, Training, and Management Accountability

Identified challenges

• Inconsistent supervision: Staff report variability in supervisor effectiveness and how issues are handled at the unit level.
• Training gaps: Supervisors need stronger preparation to manage equitably and support complex team dynamics (including remote supervision).
• Accountability unclear: Staff question whether supervisors are evaluated and held accountable consistently for leadership quality and culture.

Potential solutions

• Required training: Implement and scale required supervisor training emphasizing communication, workload management, and performance practices.
• Remote supervision support: Provide targeted resources and communities of practice for supervisors managing remote teams.
• 360 feedback tools: Pilot broader feedback mechanisms to strengthen accountability and continuous improvement.

The Office of Staff Advocacy and Support previously gathered USC input to help shape the upcoming university-wide supervisor training content, an initiative charged by the President following the 2025 Employee Engagement Survey. The USC can continue to advocate for new accountability measures, such as the implementation of universal 360-degree feedback tools, to ensure leadership quality is consistently evaluated. Similarly, the USC can partner in monitoring the rollout and effectiveness of these solutions to ensure they are creating a more positive and equitable work environment.

Theme 7: Compensation, Classification, and Cost-of-Working Pressures (Less than majority overlap)

Identified challenges

• Market misalignment: Staff describe concerns about pay competitiveness and salary ranges not keeping pace with labor markets and inflation.
• Opaque decisions: Staff report frustration when compensation-related market study reports, actions, and rationales are not clearly communicated.
• Classification rigidity: Some staff describe increased responsibilities without compensation due to inflexible titles/descriptions.

Potential solutions

• Pay plan review: Revisit pay plans and clarify how market benchmarking informs ranges and offers, including the TAMUS system-wide pay plan.
• Transparent outcomes: Communicate what actions are taken (or not taken) from market reviews and why, including phased approaches.
• Flexible job families: Improve classification and reclassification pathways to recognize evolving duties and credentials.
• Expand benefit awareness: Increase staff awareness of existing benefits, while also exploring financial assistance.

The USC can advocate on behalf of staff by identifying systemic issues like pay misalignment and formally pushing university leadership for a comprehensive review of compensation and classification practices. The USC can then collaborate directly with partners like the Division of Human Resources and Organizational Effectiveness (HROE) to help co-develop solutions, such as more flexible career ladders and transparent reclassification pathways. Finally, the USC is positioned to monitor the implementation of any new compensation strategies and inform staff of the outcomes to ensure accountability and rebuild trust.

Appendices

Examples of Implemented University-level Resources or Activities

USC Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead

This USC undertaking revealed a wide variety of member experiences and lessons learned, which can become organizational development considerations designed to improve the USC and its campus impact.

Divisional Council Model and Local Partnerships

• The Office of Staff Advocacy and Support is helping create college, division, and school-level Staff Councils (e.g., Staff Advisory Councils or SACs). The USC can partner to ensure each university staff area has a local SAC. It is important to empower each workplace while also respecting the unique features and context. Developing a divisional staff network (unit staff, unit’s SAC, and USC/Office of Staff Advocacy and Support) can strengthen synergy so local issues can be resolved locally and systemic issues can be appropriately elevated.
• Forge a strategic collaboration with existing efforts like listening sessions to align priorities, amplify the collective staff voice, and effectively address within unique workplace contexts.

Succession Planning and Operational Efficiency

• Enhance USC’s internal operations by updating bylaws and clarifying roles to optimize Executive Committee effectiveness and committee responsibilities.
• Establish a formal succession plan to ensure leadership continuity and maintain institutional knowledge, while preparing USC members for leadership.
• Streamline operations and communications so USC can mobilize quickly, respond effectively, and strategically align when critical issues arise.

USC Member Development and Training

• Create an innovative and dedicated professional development program for USC members to build core competencies in advocacy, leadership, strategic planning, communication, and collaborative problem-solving.
• Provide training on the university's organizational structure, budget processes, and how to effectively influence change without direct authority.

Strategic Communication and Engagement

• Develop and implement a formal communication plan to keep USC members and university staff members informed of the USC’s priorities, activities, and progress.
• Create clear communication protocols for USC engagement with internal committees and campus partners.
• Establish predictable communication channels (i.e., regular newsletter, briefings, website) as a centralized, authoritative source for information. Continue collaboration with campus partners as appropriate.

Benchmarking and Best Practices

• With Human Resources & Organizational Effectiveness (HROE), conduct a formal benchmarking analysis of staff councils at peer and aspirant universities.
• Use analysis to identify governance and committee best practices, strengthen engagement strategies, establish impact measures, and guide the USC’s ongoing evolution.

Strategic Alliance and Key Partner Development

• Formally define and strengthen partnerships with key administrative units like the Office of the President, Human Resources & Organizational Effectiveness (HROE), Strategy and Business Services (SABS), and the Office of Student Advocacy and Support (OSAS).
• Clearly outline how the USC will collaborate with these partners on specific initiatives, such as co-developing training with HROE, monitoring strategic initiatives with SABS, or aligning emergent staff issues with OSAS.
• Maintain and improve effective support pathways with HROE that can contribute to USC administrative responsibilities; continue applied learning experiences (as appropriate) with human resources-focused academic programs.

2025-2026 University Staff Council Officers and Members

• Clint Patterson, EdD – Chair, Center for Teaching Excellence
• Tracey Posey – Vice-Chair, Health Sciences
• Daniel Roberts – Secretary, Athletics
• Catherine Halverson – Treasurer, Division of Student Affairs
• Jamie Norgaard – Parliamentarian, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
• Katie St. Clair – Past Chair, Texas A&M at Galveston
• Maggie Abrigo – Irma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy
• John Abi-Najm – College of Performance, Visualization, and Fine Arts
• Spring Basey – Mays Business School
• Melissa Bohnsack – Office of the Provost
• Justin Brown – Human Resources and Organizational Effectiveness
• Sean Cargo – Technology Services
• Chelsey Cooke – Marketing and Communications
• Derek DeYonge – Division of Student Affairs
• Shelley Drgac – School of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
• Jennifer Enloe – Texas A&M University Police
• Carli Fenner – School of Law
• Maddy Garcia – Academic Accounting Business Services
• Mark Gleason – Graduate and Professional School
• Lisa Groce – College of Medicine
• Noeline Gunasekara, PhD – College of Education and Human Development
• Laura Hollingsworth – Division of Research
• Gregory Jackson Jr. – Transportation Services
• Nicole Latham – College of Engineering
• Jeff Lowry – School of Dentistry
• Rebecca Luckey – Division of Research
• Eva Magallan – School of Nursing
• Stephanie Martinez – Texas A&M University at Qatar
• Cindy McCasland – College of Arts and Sciences
• Sharli Nucker – College of Engineering
• Galen Pahl – School of Veterinary Medicine
• Maddie Pappoe – Bush School of Government and Public Service
• Dannah Pembelton – Finance and Business Services
• Serge Razafindrakoto – Information and Technology
• Willow Ruffino – Human Resources and Organizational Effectiveness
• Angela Sanchez – Office of the President
• Emily Schultz – College of Arts and Sciences
• Janina Siebert – University Libraries
• Steven Sisk – College of Architecture
• James Swanson – Higher Education Center at McAllen
• Michaela Thomas – Facilities and Energy Services
• Fawne Toler – School of Public Health
• Stacy Wright – Undergraduate Recruitment and Outreach
• Wendy Wright – Division of Research

The USC acknowledges and appreciates the many campus partnerships, including the Office of the President, Strategy and Business Services, Human Resources and Organization Effectiveness, Office of Staff Advocacy and Support, and countless others.

We acknowledge that the TAMU AI Chat was utilized in the brainstorming phases of this report.