Recruiting and Retaining Individuals in State Transportation Agencies (2003)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

32 CHAPTER SIX PROFILE OF STATE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES PROFILE Understanding the characteristics of state employees helps in designing recruitment and retention programs that will be effective in achieving an agency’s goals and objectives. Accordingly, in addition to the demographic questions in the employee survey, a series of additional questions were included to assess employee attitudes and beliefs about a variety of subjects. The results gathered from three states will be presented in this chapter, as well as totals as appro- priate. Agency-specific feedback has been shared with the respective administrators as appropriate and is not included in this report. Work Hours Understanding the work week and finding out how many hours employees work was the first inquiry made. Tables 25–27 contain these data. The majority of professional em- ployees (63%) work a 40-h week. Almost 29% work be- tween 40 and 50 h per week, and approximately 8% work more than 50 h. A large number (65%) take work home. Of the group taking work home, almost 32% described doing so daily or weekly, and another 32% report this practice at least monthly. TABLE 25 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK State Hours Utah Maryland Nebraska Fewer than 40 1% 1% 1% 40 61% 60% 67% 40+ 16% 14% 16% 45+ 14% 14% 12% 50+ 8% 10% 5% 55+ 1% 1% 0% TABLE 26 EMPLOYEES TAKING WORK HOME State Utah Maryland Nebraska No 34% 30% 41% Yes 66% 70% 59% TABLE 27 FREQUENCY OF TAKING WORK HOME State Utah Maryland Nebraska Daily 7% 9% 6% Weekly 27% 27% 19% Monthly 32% 30% 33% Contribution and Value The next series of questions were intended to assess an employee’s feelings about their contributions to their agen- cies and the communities and to determine whether or not they felt their contributions were valued. A scale of 1 to 10 was given, with 10 being the highest possible ranking for each question. Tables 28–32 summarize the data for these questions for three states. TABLE 28 I MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MY AGENCY State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 2% 2% 1% 2 1% 1% 1% 3 1% 2% 0% 4 3% 3% 1% 5 4% 5% 7% 6 3% 6% 2% 7 9% 12% 11% 8 21% 27% 28% 9 34% 18% 22% 10 22% 24% 26% Average 8.14 7.86 8.15 TABLE 29 I MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MY COMMUNITY State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 2% 2% 1% 2 0% 2% 2% 3 3% 2% 1% 4 2% 3% 1% 5 4% 7% 6% 6 4% 8% 5% 7 11% 16% 13% 8 24% 22% 29% 9 29% 17% 22% 10 21% 21% 21% Average 8.02 7.57 7.96 Most employees reported that they felt good about their contributions to their agencies. Table 28 shows that the vast majority give this a 6 or better rating, with the overall average being 8.05. Not surprising was the response these employees gave concerning their community contributions, as shown in Table 29. This point was rated at 7.85—quite close to the previous response about their contributions to the agencies. Although the evidence is anecdotal, there is a sense from these surveys, and in interacting with many state employees, that they have a refreshingly strong feel-

33 ing about public service. This is reflected in the high rating for community contribution. TABLE 30 M Y WORK IS VALUED BY MY SUPERVISOR State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 1% 2% 3% 2 4% 3% 3% 3 3% 3% 1% 4 4% 3% 3% 5 6% 5% 6% 6 9% 9% 8% 7 14% 12% 12% 8 20% 23% 23% 9 24% 21% 23% 10 17% 19% 17% Average 7.53 7.56 7.55 TABLE 31 M Y WORK IS VALUED BY MY CUSTOMERS State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 1% 8% 3% 2 4% 8% 3% 3 2% 4% 3% 4 7% 4% 6% 5 7% 10% 10% 6 12% 11% 14% 7 22% 15% 18% 8 21% 23% 25% 9 17% 16% 11% 10 7% 14% 6% Average 6.94 7.20 6.68 TABLE 32 M Y WORK IS VALUED BY MY AGENCY State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 2% 3% 4% 2 2% 1% 3% 3 7% 4% 2% 4 5% 5% 3% 5 9% 11% 8% 6 10% 12% 11% 7 15% 13% 16% 8 22% 24% 26% 9 16% 16% 14% 10 10% 12% 13% Average 6.87 7.05 7.10 Next, employees were asked to rate how their supervi- sors valued their work, how the customers valued their work, and how they were valued as employees in the agency. Most employees reported that they feel valued by their supervisors, as reflected in the 7.55 average rating they gave this question (Table 30). This is a slightly lower score than the 8.0 given for their contributions, so there seems to be a perception by a portion of these employees that their work is not valued as much as they believe it should be. When asked how they rated customers’ valua- tion of their work, scores were even lower at an average of 6.94 (Table 31). This is probably a reflection of state em- ployees feeling underappreciated for the service they ren- der to their communities and the sacrifices they make on behalf of their customers. Many services performed by state employees go relatively unnoticed by the citizens un- til for some reason they are not delivered. Employees were also asked to indicate how significant their work was within their agencies. As shown in Table 32, this rating at 7.01 was a little higher than for the ques- tion on customers. In the previous discussion, it was shown that these employees reported a 7.55 rating for the level of value recognition by the supervisor. The difference be- tween that rating and the one on the agency may indicate that employees believe they are more important to the su- pervisor most familiar with their work, but less valued on the whole because others do not appreciate their contribu- tions to the agency. Pay and Promotion Opportunities Chapter five showed that current and future pay and pro- motion opportunities ranked as the top three factors influ- encing an employee’s decision to leave a DOT for the pri- vate sector. The next two questions in the survey related to employee feelings about these factors. Table 33 contains the responses, for the three states, to the statement, “Em- ployees who are more effective get higher pay raises in my agency.” The results show a significant decline from the other ratings in this part of the survey, with an average of 3.8 for this question, indicating that employees do not think that effectiveness is necessarily tied to pay raises. This inquiry registered the lowest rating of all the ques- tions asked in the employee survey. TABLE 33 E FFECTIVE EMPLOYEES GET HIGHER PAY RAISES State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 15% 23% 37% 2 15% 11% 14% 3 17% 11% 13% 4 9% 12% 7% 5 11% 15% 8% 6 10% 12% 8% 7 11% 7% 7% 8 7% 5% 3% 9 3% 2% 1% 10 1% 2% 1% Average 4.23 4.00 3.16 Next, employees were asked for their rating of the statement, “Employees at my agency are promoted based on their performance.” The results for the three states are provided in Table 34. Here the rating, 4.58, is slightly higher than the previous one, although an assessment of

34 less than 5 indicated strong disagreement with this concept, representing an employee feeling that promotions are not based on performance but rather on favoritism or some other subjective factor. TABLE 34 E FFECTIVE EMPLOYEES GET PROMOTED State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 14% 12% 23% 2 6% 8% 10% 3 12% 9% 14% 4 12% 12% 8% 5 15% 17% 11% 6 12% 15% 13% 7 13% 11% 12% 8 13% 9% 5% 9 1% 4% 3% 10 1% 2% 1% Average 4.77 4.84 4.12 Morale Employees were asked to rank their assessment of morale at their agencies. Results of this ranking are found in Ta- bles 35 and 36. The average for the three states was 4.58, signifying a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the overall state of affairs in the agencies. When asked to respond to the statement, “Morale is higher at my agency today than it was five years ago,” employees gave this an almost identi- cal rating (4.57). The lack of contrast between the two rankings indicates progress or the lack thereof in improv- ing morale in these DOTs—a finding that perhaps may be extrapolated nationwide. TABLE 35 M ORALE IS HIGH IN MY AGENCY State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 6% 13% 20% 2 6% 11% 13% 3 10% 15% 14% 4 9% 12% 15% 5 8% 16% 15% 6 24% 12% 12% 7 24% 13% 8% 8 13% 6% 3% 9 1% 2% 0% 10 0% 1% 1% Average 5.44 4.45 3.86 The final question of the survey asked for employees’ responses concerning their pride in being a state employee. Table 37 gives the results, with an average of 7.24. OBSERVATIONS Overall, the responses to these questions on employee atti- tudes offer some interesting observations. First is the con- trast in the attitudes toward morale found in Tables 35–37. Generally, one would expect responses on pride to have about the same ranking as did those on morale. Yet the em- ployees are relatively proud of what they do, which is also reflected in the responses about their contributions to their agencies and communities. TABLE 36 MORALE IS HIGHER IN MY AGENCY THAN IT WAS 5 YEARS GO A State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 12% 16% 29% 2 5% 11% 12% 3 11% 13% 13% 4 7% 7% 11% 5 14% 16% 12% 6 7% 12% 8% 7 11% 9% 9% 8 16% 11% 4% 9 13% 3% 2% 10 3% 3% 1% Average 5.49 4.58 3.64 TABLE 37 I AM PROUD TO BE A STATE EMPLOYEE State Ranking 1–10 Utah Maryland Nebraska 1 3% 3% 4% 2 2% 3% 3% 3 4% 4% 5% 4 1% 5% 3% 5 6% 13% 8% 6 7% 10% 8% 7 17% 13% 14% 8 21% 21% 18% 9 19% 12% 15% 10 19% 17% 23% Average 7.48 6.96 7.28 A further observation about these last three survey ques- tions is that the respondents are the educated professionals at the agencies, with more than 60% in supervisory or management positions. It might be expected those in posi- tions of leadership and trust would have a higher level of morale than perhaps the rank-and-file employees. In addi- tion, if these individuals hold supervisory positions, then why do they rank their promotion and pay opportunities as only average? They have obviously been promoted to their current positions and would seem to be able to look for- ward to further such opportunities. Of concern may be the possible impact that the morale of leaders or supervisory personnel has on subordinates, or the impact of their mo- rale or attitude toward the employer. Still, in spite of per- ceived problems and the other elements they might be un- happy about, these professionals are still committed to their public service roles and proud of the contributions they make.

35 With overall morale ratings in the 4.5 to 5.0 range, one could expect a steady exodus to the private sector. How- ever, such is not the case with Nebraska and Utah, which show turnover rates at an average of 6%. In addition, sur- vey results indicate that 68% of the respondents noted that there was a “Good” or “High” probability they would con- tinue in state service until retirement (see Table 20). Some of the results are related to the concept that once an indi- vidual passes a certain point in his or her length of state service, he or she is more likely to stay on until retirement, so as not to jeopardize an excellent retirement program. The issue of morale is clearly complex and influenced by many factors. In some agencies employees are not highly regarded by elected officials. In the last 15 years, one western governor believed that if individuals remained in state service through retirement, then the state was probably offering benefits that were too generous for the public good. It is not uncommon for state legislatures to balance budgets by not giving state employees pay raises. In addition, there is the dimension of morale that is re- flected in the responses to the survey questions concerning whether or not employees feel appreciated for their work. Often unseen by the public is the level of pride and commitment that state employees demonstrate in the perform- ance of their duties. For example, there is a feeling of owner- ship by maintenance crews for their sections of roadway. They are a part of their communities and often feel a deeper obli- gation to their neighbors than staff from a private firm might feel. In spite of how they are often perceived by the public or treated by elected officials, state employees con- tinue to offer valued service to their customers and are proud of their contributions to their communities.