Committees and strategy implementation are generally seen as effective—committee accountability and strategic planning support received strong positive ratings (committees 92%; strategic planning 87%) and multiple comments praised clear committee roles and the research committee.
Role clarity and leadership approachability have improved for many staff—several comments noted clearer reporting, an organizational role map, and appreciation for the Vice Dean and accessible leaders (aligned with overall leadership rating of 82%).
Operational communication and practical supports are functioning for non-academic areas—non-academic staff frequently reported knowing who to contact and feeling responsibilities are delineated (consistent with their high ratings on leadership clarity and processes ~93%).

Simplify and clarify reporting lines and supervisory roles—multiple comments describe reporting to multiple supervisors or unclear lines, matching lower agreement on lines of reporting for some groups (overall 76%; non-academic 80%; academic faculty 64%).
Increase transparency of decisions, minutes, finances, and role descriptions—several faculty and staff asked for published minutes, job descriptions, and clearer rationale for decisions despite generally positive ratings for process transparency (overall 84%), indicating uneven experience.
Address fairness, inclusive representation, and accountability in appointments and committee composition—comments call for clearer succession planning, EDI representation, and more equitable opportunities, aligning with lower scores on fairness for some groups (overall 74%; academic faculty 50%).

Top priority: simplify reporting lines and reduce redundant supervisory layers to make decision routing and accountability clearer (matches their lowest-rated item: lines of reporting and governance support efficient operations — 80%).

Top priority: clarify roles and reporting relationships (stream leads, directors, and position descriptions) to improve operational consistency and fair access to opportunities (aligns with one of their lower-rated areas: organizational fairness and lines of reporting — 83%).

Top priority: strengthen leadership accountability and transparency (faculty comments emphasize opacity in decision-making, minutes, and resource allocation; this corresponds to one of their lowest-rated statements: leadership clarity/accountability — 50%).

There is a mismatch between generally positive overall/process ratings and strong faculty concerns about opacity and fairness: academic faculty ratings are low on leadership and fairness (50%), and their comments reflect significant dissatisfaction with transparency—this contrasts with higher overall/process ratings.
The high overall committee and strategic-planning scores (committees 92%; strategic planning 87%) are consistent with many supportive comments, but several respondents still request better cross-committee transparency and published minutes, indicating uneven implementation.