Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Executive Summary..........................................3
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
II. Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 8
a. Survey Design............................................................................................................ 8
b. Analysis..................................................................................................................... 9
III. Results.................................................................................................................................... 11
a. Section 1: Demographics.......................................................................................... 11
b. Section 2: Organizational Analyses ......................................................................... 13
i. Job Classification and Gender………………………..…………………... 14
ii. Job Classification and Race……………………………………………..... 14
iii. Supervise and Gender…………………………………………...……….. 15
a. Section 3: Average Scores by Demographic Subgroup............................................ 16
i. Department……………………………………………………………...…. 16
ii. Education………………………………………….……………………….. 17
iii. Employment Status ….……………………………………………………. 18
iv. Gender……………………………………………………………………. 19
v. Job Classification…….……………………………..……………………. 19
vi. Race……………………………………………...……………………….. 21
vii. Residence…………………………………………..…………………….. 21
viii. Supervise………………………………………………………………….. 22
ix. Tenure……………………………………………………………………. 23
a. Section 4: Composite Scores by Demographic Subgroup........................................ 24
i. Overall Composite Scores……………………………..………………….. 24
ii. Department…………………………………………………………………. 24
iii. Education………………………………………………………………….. 25
iv. Employment Status ….……………………………………………………. 26
v. Gender……………………………………………………………………. 27
vi. Job Classification…………………………………………………………. 27
vii. Race……………………………………………………………………….. 28
viii. Residence……………………………………………..………………….. 28
ix. Supervise.………………………………………………..……………….. 28
x. Tenure……………………………………………………………………. 28
a. Section 5: Results of Specific Questions ................................................................. 30
i. Awareness of Compensation Policy.............................................................. 30
ii. Annual Performance Evaluations.................................................................. 30
iii. Job Classification........................................................................................... 31
1. Morale……………………………………………………………… 31
2. Competitive Wage…………………………………………………. 32
3. Pay is Fair…………………………………………………………. 33
4. Benefits Package…………………………………………………... 34
1
iv. Department..................................................................................................... 35
1. Morale……………………………………………………………. 35
2. Competitive Wage……………………....……………………….. 36
3. Pay is Fair………………………………………………………….. 37
4. Benefits Package………………………………………………….. 38
5. Additional Pay and Benefits Questions............................................. 38
v. Tenure............................................................................................................ 39
1. Morale……………………………………………………………... 39
2. Competitive Wage……………………………………………….... 39
3. Pay is Fair………………………………………………………..... 40
4. Benefits Package………………………..………………………..... 41
IV. Longitudinal Comparison of Scores...................................................................................... 43
a. Overall Score............................................................................................................. 44
b. Two-way Communication......................................................................................... 44
c. Top-down Communication........................................................................................ 46
d. Public Service Motivation..........................................................................................47
e. Core Values & Trust.................................................................................................. 48
f. Career Development.................................................................................................. 49
g. Teamwork.................................................................................................................. 50
h. Resource Adequacy .................................................................................................. 51
i. Relationships with Co-workers.................................................................................. 51
V. Research on Management Drivers......................................................................................... 53
VI. Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 57
a. Engagement Scores, Performance Management, and Organizational Maturity........ 60
b. Financial Constraints................................................................................................. 62
c. Impact on Public Service Motivations....................................................................... 62
VII. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 63
a. Recommendations...................................................................................................... 64
VIII. Appendices............................................................................................................................. 65
IX. References............................................................................................................................. 109
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a report on workforce engagement behavior and attitudes in the City of Columbia for the year 2015.
It is designed to complement five years of observation in which three surveys of the workforce have been
undertaken. Previous surveys were administered in 2011 and 2013. A City of Columbia management team
consisting of the City Managers staff, the Human Resources Department, and the Journey 2 Excellence (J2E)
committee exercised oversight. Ongoing City Hall discussions acknowledge that managing in the public
sector is different from managing in the private sector and that the environments in which government
managers operate can make it comparatively more difficult to succeed than in the private sector.
The report is intended to provide data in support of the City’s desire to create an environment that supports
engaged high-performing employees; enables the city to recruit, retain, and compete for talent; and ensures
retention of institutional knowledge. Over the five years of observation, we tested the presence of eight
variables found in the relevant scholarly literature to be associated with workforce engagement.
In addition, the 2015 survey assesses recent changes in human resources policies. The city has developed
strategic objectives that emphasize enhancement of the workplace environment, put in place a
communications plan, installed a rewards and recognition system, and instituted training and career
development. These initiatives were designed to ensure high performance and accountability among city
employees. In the fall of 2013, the city adopted a decision-based job classification system along with a total
compensation system. These initiatives were intended to facilitate an internally fair and externally
competitive compensation with the long-range goal of reducing pay disparities within the organization and
among similar public sector city governments in the region. Collectively, these initiatives hope to cultivate a
culture that will improve job performance, enhance capacity and leadership skills, find innovative ways to
recognize high performing employee’s, improve employee satisfaction, and strengthen employee
engagement.
3
The complete findings of the survey are provided in five sections. The first section details demographic
information on the 2015 workforce that participated in the survey. Section two introduces a preliminary
analysis through the use of select contingency analysis regarding eight variables that were generated from
a review of related literature. Section three shows the average overall scores of each demographic
subgroup. The discussion in section three is limited to an examination of any statistical significant
differences between the subgroups. Section Four details an analysis of the composite scores by
demographic subgroup, including a test for statistical significance. Section five takes a closer look at a few
select questions and compares results across job classification, department, and tenure.
Following the review of the survey results, a longitudinal analysis is conducted. Scores are benchmarked
from each of the five years of observation and compared with Engagement studies conducted by the
International Personal Management Association (IPMA) and Meta studies conducted by the Gallup
organization. From the findings of the surveys we suggest that the City’s strategic objectives intended to
emphasize enhancement of the workplace environment coupled with the communications plan and the
decision-based job classification system and total compensation system need time to generate changes in
organizational behavior that reflect the value of these investments.
We believe that one of the most important investments is the new performance appraisal system and that
performance appraisal is not only inherently connected to performance management (PM), but that PM is
likely a stronger predictor than performance appraisal for enhanced workforce engagement. Therefore, we
believe, City efforts should enhance PM to enhance desired workforce engagement behaviors. Our
recommendations are detailed at the end of the report.
4
INTRODUCTION
This is a report on workforce engagement behavior in the City of Columbia for the year 2015. It is designed
to complement five years of observation in which three surveys of the workforce have been undertaken. A
City of Columbia management team consisting of the City Manager’s staff, the Human Resources
Department, and a special committee exercised oversight. The Human Resources Department, along with
the City Manager’s Office Staff, and other working groups are part of a continuing dialogue that
acknowledges that managing in the public sector is different from managing in the private sector and that
the environments in which government managers operate can make it comparatively more difficult to
succeed than in the private sector. Oversight of local government for a middle size city is not unlike running
a midsize Fortune 500 company – except that the stakes are much higher. The vast and varied cast of
stakeholders, who scrutinize management's every move, challenges those leaders to adopt meaningful
performance metrics. In such highly visible environments, managers need government workforces to be
highly engaged if they are to succeed. Success requires that public sector leaders understand and address
the factors that make increasing engagement in the public sector a special challenge.
The city has developed strategic objectives that emphasize enhancement of the workplace environment,
put in place a communications plan, installed a rewards and recognition system, and instituted training and
career development. These initiatives were designed to ensure high performance and accountability among
city employees. In the fall of 2013, the city adopted a decision-based classification system along with a total
compensation system. These initiatives were intended to facilitate an internally fair and externally
competitive compensation with the long-range goal to reduce pay disparities within the organization and
among similar public sector city governments in the region. Collectively, these initiatives hope to cultivate a
culture that will improve job performance, enhances capacity and leadership skills, find innovative ways to
recognize high performing employees, improve employee satisfaction, and strengthen employee
engagement. The survey is intended to provide data in support of the City of Columbia’s desire to achieve
these stated goals. Over the five years of observation, we tested the presence of eight variables found in the
relevant scholarly literature to be associated with workforce engagement.
5
The detailed findings of the survey are provided in five sections. Section one details demographic
information on the 2015 workforce that participated in the survey. Section two reports on job category and
number of employees supervised by race and gender. Section three is an expansion of section two, and
shows the average overall engagement scores by demographic and organizational subgroup. The
discussion in section three is limited to an examination of any statistically significant differences within the
subgroups. Section four analyzes the composite scores by demographic and organizational subgroup,
including a test for statistical significance. Section five takes a closer look at a few select questions and
compares results across job classification, department, and tenure. Following the review of survey results
is a longitudinal elaboration with benchmarks that demonstrate progress and remaining challenges.
Finally, there is an examination and discussion of current research on ‘management drivers,’ and how it
relates to the results of the City of Columbia’s employee survey.
The concept of “employee engagement” has continued to garner attention in the public sector and private
sector organizational literature. Employee engagement is present in an organization when employees feel
vigor, dedication, and immersion in their work duties; engaged employees demonstrate enthusiasm,
commitment to success, and persistence in duties (Bakker et al., 2006). Employee engagement is one of
the top drivers for organizational success.
The overall intent of this project is to observe and analyze data that help the City of Columbia to create an
environment that supports engaged high-performing employees to recruit, retain, and compete for talent,
and ensure retention of institutional knowledge. In support of the 2012 strategic initiatives adopted by the
City, a vision and mission statement were developed that embraced three priorities—one of which is
workforce enhancement. In the fall of 2013, the city adopted a decision-based classification system along
with a total compensation system. Once successfully implemented, these initiatives would facilitate
internally fair and externally competitive compensation. They are key features of a long-range plan to
reduce pay disparities within the organization and among similar public sector city governments in the
region. The desired consequence is to cultivate a culture that will improve job performance, enhance
capacity and leadership skills, recognize high performing employees, improve employee satisfaction, and
strengthen employee engagement.
The most recent survey was administered in the spring of 2015, and it replicated efforts conducted in 2011
and 2013. The 2011 and 2013 surveys provide benchmarks that measure progress toward goal attainment
on select organizational behaviors that bridge the path to workforce engagement. The surveys collected
6
empirical data on one of the city’s seven strategic priorities: the workforce strategic priority. Careful
analysis of the results can move the city in the direction of assessing the extent to which a culture of
engagement is perceived to exist among city employees. Such analysis can also identify the level of employee
engagement and job satisfaction present in city employees. Additionally, the results provide a point of
departure for the city and the Department of Human Resources as they develop strategies to meet the
challenges uncovered by the responses to the surveys.
7
METHODOLOGY
Survey Development
The 2015 survey was conducted in three distinct phases. The first phase consisted of the review of previous
surveys by the director and staff of the city’s human resources office and the Journey 2 Excellence
Committee in consultation with the principal investigator. The Journey 2 Excellence Committee (J2E) and
the City HR unit provided vision and leadership that reflects the support for improving employee
engagement from supervisors and upper management of the city. Since 2011, the J2E has assisted with
strategic planning, which lead to the identification of the city’s core values. This vision and core value
identification process was a deliberate and carefully designed exercise that resulted from a series of
retreats and meetings. 1 The work of J2E, in concert with members of the city council and the city manager,
brought about the language that became the updated mission and vision statement for the city. In 2015,
each of the six decision bands represented in the new classification architecture became the focal point for
focus groups that assisted the development of the 2015 survey instrument.
The second phase was the work of master’s degree students at the University of Missouri2 whose
contribution consisted of a review of the literature in the area of workforce/employee engagement. The
class drew from research published in peer-reviewed journals for the purpose of determining present day
practices, theories, and concepts that shed light on the topic of employee engagement. Review of the
academic literature was coupled with targeted research conducted by International Personnel
Management Administration (IPMA) and the Gallup Organization (Gallup’s Q12R). Each of these
concerns/enterprises collect, catalog, and report on management and leadership trends in the public,
1. The first focus group consisted of middle managers, department heads and office of city manager representatives
who formed a Journey to Excellence committee (J2E) for the city of Columbia
2. The survey instrument and literature review were the work of students in at the University of Missouri
enrolled in the spring 2013 and spring 2015 course of Human Resource Development and Management, a
master’s level course in the Truman School of Public Affairs.
8
private, and non-profit sectors). The academic contributions were weighed in consideration of the
contributions from the focus groups—valuable interactions that generated insight from the actual world of
work. From these multi-sector observations about engagement practices came the framework for our
analysis. The term “Engagement” was operationalized to convey a “heightened level of ownership where
each employee wants to do whatever they can for the benefit of their internal and external customers and
the success of the organization as a whole.” The graduate students in the Truman School of Public Affairs
HR course developed a survey instrument reflective of the literature and insights of the focus groups.
A survey instrument consisting of 85 items and an additional ten demographic variables with a 1 - 7
response Likert scale was developed. Respondents could indicate varying degrees of agreement with each
question or statement in the survey. Responses ranging from 1 to 3 indicated mild to strong disagreement
or dissatisfaction; 4 indicated a neutral response; while responses ranging from 5 to 7 indicate mild to
strong agreement or satisfaction.
The survey was electronically uploaded by the Institute of Public Policy at the Truman School at MU.
Electronic and paper copies were made available during the period April 1, 2015 through April 15, 2015.
The rate of return is satisfactory, 55 percent (710 of 1309) of City of Columbia employees returned the
survey instruments.
Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis identified sets of factors or common themes in the responses to the 85 survey
items. Eight factors/themes emerged. 1) Two-way (supervisor-employee) communications: the extent
to which employees believe supervisors listen to them, the extent to which there are processes in place for
employees to interact with co-workers, and the extent to which responses to employee concerns generate
clear, compassionate, and timely communication to build awareness, share information, and innovative
solutions. 2) Top-down communications: the existence of written and verbal directives intended to
convey directions for communicating city policies and guidelines. 3) Public Service Motivation: the extent
to which city employees take their work as a “calling” (Perry, 1990). 4) Core Values and trust: the ideals
that characterize the City’s dedication to fairness and become elements of workforce democracy that
effectuate public service delivery via a viable workforce—and the extent to which City employees expect
superiors, colleagues, and themselves to be ethical, reliable, and dependable, also referred to as employee
trust in leadership. 5) Teamwork: the work is done by several associates with each employee doing a part
and all subordinating personal committing to the efficiency of the whole. 6) Career Development
Opportunities: the extent to which employees perceive opportunities for professional growth and
development. 7) Resource Adequacy: the extent to which the City provides tools to employees to get the
9
City’s work done and, in so doing, develops and empowers employees to serve the community to the best of
their ability. 8) Relations with co-workers: the extent to which members of the workforce value
colleagues as crucial to successful work goal attainment. The survey items that did not correspond to any of
themes are included in the analysis.3
There is at least one noteworthy limitation: The absence of viable external validity, i.e., what other (a)
municipal governments, (b) similar size workforces, (c) treatment variables, and (d) measurement
variables leading to enhanced and/or alternative understandings of these findings. This study was
specifically designed according to the organizational composition of the City of Columbia and specified
even more by the information gleaned from focus groups in the data collection period.
3 A common approach with factor analysis is to exclude the survey items that do not correspond with any of the latent
factors at a .5 level or higher.
10
RESULTS
There are 1359 employees in the 2015 city workforce. This section includes census data which describe the
jurisdiction in which the city is located. The workforce is described in terms of race, gender, age, job family
membership, employment status, educational accomplishment, department in which the respondent is
employed in 2015, level of supervisory responsibility, and place of residence. These data begin to provide a
close-up of the workforce and allow comparison with public sector workforces of similar size and mission.
The information allows the City to better engage in succession planning, employee development and
observe patterns that may be problematic in the future, such as discrepancies between pay and gender. In
Appendix A, there are tables that provide empirical information such as number and percent, etc.
11
Age Number Percentage
Younger than 20 1 0.1%
Age 20-31 319 23.5%
Age 32-41 380 28.0%
Age 42-51 352 25.9%
52 and older 307 22.6%
Total 1359 100.0%
These data suggest a young workforce, i.e., >64% have tenure of 10 years or less. A workforce of this
characteristic presents opportunities for growth and development and unrest as well.
The most recent demographics for the City of Columbia appear in the Table below.
Contingency analysis provides an opportunity to describe important facets of the organization. In this
instance, we take a look at where women are employed in the organization. One can see the beginning of
connections between job role and possible opportunities for targeting advancement in job families where
women may be under-represented. Specifically, one observes that male employees account for greater than
sixty-five percent of the workforce, and that women employees are more frequently found in female-
dominated job families and that within female job families—from elementary and middle school teachers,
to computer programmer’s—women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced,
and male-dominated occupations, according to the AAUM (2015). See Appendix B for the further detail on
job classification and gender.
A similar analysis is associated when we observe the category of “race and job family”. In 2015 respondents
who identified themselves as belonging to a racial minority or non-white category accounted for ten
percent of the employees in the city. There was no single job family where these employees were
concentrated. However a claim of under-representation, in general, could be meritoriously raised.
Finally, for the issue of “gender and supervision”, sixty-nine percent of the supervisory positions are held
by males. This situation could be a source for claims of under-representation in the future.
13
Cross-tabulation of Job Classification and Gender
Race Total
American Indian /
Hispanic / Asian Black White Other
Technician Count 2 2 66 3 73
14
Admin Support Count 3 2 58 3 66
Gender
20 or more Count 33 4 37
15
Section Three: Average Scores by Demographic Subgroup
The analysis shows that the overall score for all departments is about 5.0, which indicates most
employees do not register robust engagement scores >5.5. Those departments which are below
the overall average include Public Works (4.84), Public Communications (4.79), Finance (4.70),
Water & Light (4.68), and the Police Department (4.19). The most notable result was the Police
Department’s average score was significantly lower than 10 other departments. Water & Light
scored significantly lower than 6 other departments, and Public Works scored lower than 4.
Results for Economic Development, Clerk’s Office, and Cultural Affairs were dropped from the
analysis because there were only 1 or 2 responses from those departments.
Benchmark data for this section show the five-year trend over the implementation of three
surveys. See section 6 for the comparisons.
For results of the significance test, please refer to Appendix C.
16
2015 Average Engagement Score by Department
7.00 5.87 6.15 6.23
6.00 5.14 5.18 5.20 5.37 5.41 5.48 5.52
4.68 4.70 4.79 4.84 4.95
5.00 4.19
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
While the literature argues that education level is positively related to creativity and citizenship, the
differences in average scores by education level in the 2015 study were not statistically significant.
17
Descriptives
Average Score
less than high school 4 4.7620 1.38819 .69409 2.5531 6.9710 3.70 6.77
HS or GED 124 4.7616 .95644 .08589 4.5915 4.9316 1.69 6.60
Some College 153 4.8609 .89616 .07245 4.7177 5.0040 2.71 6.81
Associate Degree 64 4.7701 1.00013 .12502 4.5203 5.0200 2.08 6.46
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.0625 1.04749 .07127 4.9220 5.2030 1.83 6.81
Master’s Degree or Higher 70 5.1455 1.08072 .12917 4.8878 5.4032 1.27 6.80
Total 631 4.9321 1.00231 .03990 4.8538 5.0105 1.27 6.81
The differences in averages between full-time, part-time, and temporary employees were not statistically
significant.
5 4.94 4.94
4.86
4.9
4.8
4.7
Temporary/Seasonal Full-time Overall Part-time
Descriptives
Average Score
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
18
Average Scores By Gender
The average score for men was significantly lower than women.
Group Statistics
Equal variances
-4.348 432.574 .000 -.35000 .08050 -.50821 -.19178
not assumed
The job classification of Officials and Administrators scored significantly higher than most other job
classifications. Professional also scored higher than several other classifications. There were no other
differences that showed as statistically significant.
19
Average Scores by Job Classification
5.75 5.55
5.5 5.23 5.25
5.25 4.94
5 4.76 4.77 4.83 4.84
4.67
4.75
4.5
4.25
4
Descriptives
Average Score
Official and Admin 65 5.5513 .76249 .09457 5.3623 5.7402 2.84 6.81
Professional 104 5.2510 .99654 .09772 5.0572 5.4448 2.02 6.78
Technician 73 4.7739 .82744 .09684 4.5808 4.9669 3.18 6.59
Protective Service 81 4.6693 1.10560 .12284 4.4248 4.9137 1.83 6.52
Paraprofessional 7 5.2306 .92107 .34813 4.3788 6.0825 3.98 6.31
Admin Support 68 4.8341 .90783 .11009 4.6144 5.0539 2.69 6.69
Skilled Craft 123 4.7626 .94473 .08518 4.5940 4.9312 1.27 6.60
I don't know 92 4.8407 1.03039 .10743 4.6274 5.0541 1.69 6.77
Total 613 4.9431 .99082 .04002 4.8645 5.0217 1.27 6.81
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average Score
Hochberg
(I) My job is classified as which of the (J) My job is classified as Difference Std. Lower Upper
following? which of the following? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
20
*
Skilled Craft .78866 .14653 .000 .3301 1.2472
*
I don't know .71052 .15483 .000 .2260 1.1951
Professional Official and Admin -.30027 .15108 .738 -.7731 .1726
*
Technician .47712 .14590 .031 .0205 .9337
*
Protective Service .58172 .14160 .001 .1386 1.0249
Paraprofessional .02035 .37311 1.000 -1.1474 1.1881
Admin Support .41684 .14902 .138 -.0495 .8832
*
Skilled Craft .48838 .12729 .004 .0900 .8868
I don't know .41024 .13676 .076 -.0178 .8383
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Descriptives
Average-Score
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max
There were no statistically significant differences in the average scores based on where the employee lives.
Descriptives
Average Score
In the city of Columbia 278 4.9565 1.05280 .06314 4.8322 5.0808 1.69 6.81
In Boone County 236 4.9247 .97214 .06328 4.8001 5.0494 1.27 6.81
None of the above 106 4.9940 .86341 .08386 4.8277 5.1602 3.08 6.78
Total 620 4.9508 .99087 .03979 4.8727 5.0290 1.27 6.81
21
Average Scores by number of employees supervised
The one significant result from this analysis is that those employees that do not supervise anyone scored
lower than those who supervise between 1 and 5 employees and those who supervise more than 20.
5.8 5.61
5.6
5.4 5.16 5.24
5.13
5.2 4.95
5 4.80
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
None Overall Between 1 Between 6 Between 10 20 or more
and 5 and 10 and 19
Descriptives
Average Score
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average Score
Hochberg
22
Average Scores by tenure
The results below show that employees who have worked for the city for less than a year had slightly
higher scores. The difference is only borderline statistically significant when compared to those who have
worked for 6 to 10 years.
5.2
4.93 4.94 4.96
5 4.86 4.89
4.84
4.8
4.6
21+ years 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 Overall 1 to 5 Less than
years years years years 1 year
Descriptives
Average Score
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max
Less than 1 year 57 5.3144 .99820 .13221 5.0496 5.5793 2.70 6.78
1 to 5 years 178 4.9609 .92126 .06905 4.8246 5.0972 1.27 6.73
6 to 10 years 138 4.8598 1.03501 .08811 4.6856 5.0340 2.02 6.78
11 to 15 years 89 4.8860 1.00459 .10649 4.6744 5.0977 2.24 6.81
16 to 20 years 81 4.9318 1.09796 .12200 4.6891 5.1746 1.69 6.81
21+ years 84 4.8389 .95665 .10438 4.6313 5.0465 1.83 6.80
Total 627 4.9401 .99846 .03987 4.8617 5.0184 1.27 6.81
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average Score
Hochberg
(I) How many years have you been you been employed by the Difference Std. Upper
employed by the City of Columbia? City of Columbia? (I-J) Error Sig. Lower Bound Bound
23
Section Four: Composite Scores by Demographic Subgroup
The graph below shows the average score for each question category. The lowest scoring category was
‘Teamwork’ and the highest was ‘Public Service Motivation.’
Composite Scores
5.64
6.00 4.78 4.87 4.93 5.14 5.16 5.21
5.00 4.29
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
The output for the significance tests is not included because it is such a large amount of data. However, it
was reviewed for any significant results. To see the full list of composite score averages by department
please refer to Appendix D.
The one department that scored significantly higher than other departments in many of the question
categories was the Human Resources Department. It scored significantly higher than at least 3 other
departments in Two-way Communications, Top-Down Communications, Core Values & Trust, Teamwork,
Public Service Motivation, and Career Development.
The Police Department consistently scored the lowest of all departments. The lowest scoring categories
were Teamwork and Resources where it scored significantly lower than all other departments. The Police
Department also scored lower than 11 departments in Core Values & Trust, and lower than 8 in Public
24
Service Motivation. Finally, it scored lower than at least 4 other departments in Two-way Communications,
Top-Down Communications, Relations with Co-workers, and Career Development.
Another consistently low-scoring department was Water & Light. It scored significantly lower than at least
3 other departments in Top-Down Communications, Core Values & Trust, Teamwork, and Public Service
Motivation.
Public Works scored lower than several other departments in Top-Down Communications and Relations
with Co-workers. Lastly, Finance also scored lower than 3 other departments in Top-Down
Communications.
The only statistically significant difference among those with different education levels was in regard to
Relations with Co-workers. Employees with a high school degree or GED and also those with some college
scored significantly lower than employees with a baccalaureate degree or master's degree. To see the full
list of composite score averages by education level please refer to Appendix E.
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable (I) Education (J) Education Difference (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
RelationWithCowork HS or GED less than high school -.00154 .61246 1.000 -1.8012 1.7982
Some College -.12486 .14568 .999 -.5529 .3032
Associate Degree -.18100 .18556 .997 -.7263 .3643
*
Baccalaureate Degree -.63145 .13584 .000 -1.0306 -.2323
Master’s Degree or *
-.68929 .18024 .002 -1.2189 -.1597
Higher
Some College less than high school .12333 .61064 1.000 -1.6710 1.9177
HS or GED .12486 .14568 .999 -.3032 .5529
Associate Degree -.05614 .17948 1.000 -.5835 .4713
*
Baccalaureate Degree -.50659 .12739 .001 -.8809 -.1322
Master’s Degree or *
-.56443 .17397 .018 -1.0756 -.0532
Higher
25
Composite Score Differences by Employment Status
Descriptives
Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error
TwoWayComm Full-time 605 5.1306 1.28135 .05209
Part-time 18 5.4132 .73188 .17251
Temporary/Seasonal 4 5.0667 .81650 .40825
Total 627 5.1383 1.26656 .05058
TopDownComm Full-time 606 4.9370 1.03219 .04193
Part-time 18 5.0602 .69092 .16285
Temporary/Seasonal 4 4.6875 .64952 .32476
Total 628 4.9390 1.02168 .04077
CoreValueTrust Full-time 606 4.8036 1.08869 .04423
Part-time 18 5.0016 .91848 .21649
Temporary/Seasonal 4 4.7917 .66580 .33290
Total 628 4.8092 1.08155 .04316
Teamwork Full-time 606 4.2778 1.29755 .05271
Part-time 18 4.4061 1.07609 .25364
Temporary/Seasonal 4 4.2143 .78680 .39340
Total 628 4.2810 1.28818 .05140
PublicServiceMotiv Full-time 606 5.6422 1.12474 .04569
Part-time 18 5.7667 1.12981 .26630
Temporary/Seasonal 4 5.7000 1.16046 .58023
Total 628 5.6462 1.12346 .04483
RelationWithCowork Full-time 606 5.1589 1.23906 .05033
Part-time 18 5.0238 1.24371 .29315
Temporary/Seasonal 4 5.5000 .93678 .46839
Total 628 5.1572 1.23645 .04934
CareerDev Full-time 606 4.8392 1.35363 .05499
Part-time 18 4.7750 1.07187 .25264
Temporary/Seasonal 4 4.4500 .95743 .47871
Total 628 4.8349 1.34336 .05361
Resources Full-time 604 5.2119 1.51108 .06149
Part-time 18 5.2778 1.80866 .42630
Temporary/Seasonal 4 5.0000 2.16025 1.08012
Total 626 5.2125 1.52144 .06081
26
Composite Score Differences by Gender
The analysis shows that there are significant differences between men and women in all question
categories with the average scores for men being lower throughout. The three areas with the largest
differences were Resources, Core Values & Trust, and Public Service Motivation. To see the results of the
significance test by gender, please refer to Appendix F.
Group Statistics
Results show that there are significant differences between job families within each question category. The
most notable and consistent result was those who reported being in the job classification of Officials and
Administrators scored higher in most all question categories. The job classifications it most often scored
significantly higher than were Technician, Protective Services, Administrative Support, and Skilled Craft.
Professional employees scored higher than 2 or 3 other classifications in Top-Down Communication, Core
Values & Trust, Teamwork, and Relations with Co-workers.
27
Protective Services scored lower than 3 other classifications in Resources.
To see the full list of composite score averages by job classification and the results of the significance test
please refer to Appendix G.
The analysis shows no significant differences in any of the question categories based on race. The American
Indian, Hispanic, and Asian samples were small enough that significant differences could not be identified.
To see the full list of composite score averages by race please refer to Appendix H.
The analysis shows no significant differences in any of the question categories based on where the
employee lives. To see the full list of composite score averages by race please refer to Appendix I.
The one result from this analysis is that those employees who do not supervise anyone scored significantly
lower in all question categories compared to those who supervise 20 or more people. To see the full list of
composite score averages and results of the significance test based on the Supervise variable, please refer
to Appendix J.
The analysis shows that those respondents who have worked for the city for less than a year had scores for
Top-Down Communication and Core Values & Trust that were significantly lower than those who have
worked for the city for more than 21 years. They also had a significantly lower score in Career
Development than those who have worked for 6-10 years.
To see the full list of composite score averages based on Tenure, please refer to Appendix K.
28
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
(I) How many years have have you been Mean Interval
you been employed by employed by the City Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable the City of Columbia? of Columbia? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
TopDownComm Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .36290 .15516 .257 -.0930 .8188
6 to 10 years .45196 .16052 .073 -.0197 .9237
11 to 15 years .50235 .17296 .056 -.0059 1.0106
16 to 20 years .41446 .17626 .249 -.1035 .9324
*
21+ years .54549 .17495 .028 .0314 1.0596
CoreValueTrust Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .39698 .16438 .214 -.0861 .8800
6 to 10 years .48494 .17006 .065 -.0148 .9847
11 to 15 years .51960 .18323 .068 -.0188 1.0580
16 to 20 years .45013 .18673 .217 -.0986 .9989
*
21+ years .67927 .18535 .004 .1346 1.2239
CareerDev Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .49416 .20483 .216 -.1077 1.0961
*
6 to 10 years .64418 .21191 .036 .0215 1.2669
11 to 15 years .62000 .22832 .097 -.0509 1.2909
16 to 20 years .59750 .23268 .146 -.0863 1.2812
21+ years .62876 .23096 .095 -.0499 1.3074
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
29
Section 5: Results of Specific Questions
This section features respondent knowledge of a number of innovations introduced by Human Resources
since the 2013 survey. City Council approved a compensation plan, and philosophy and HR implemented a
new performance appraisal plan.
No
46%
Yes
54%
The pie graph indicates that the majority of respondents (54%) were aware of the new policy.
No
6%
Yes
94%
Respondents (98%) strongly affirmed that performance evaluations are annually performed.
30
Perception of Morale by Job Classification
Morale appears to be significantly higher among Officials and Administrators compared to Technicians,
Administrative Support, and Skilled Craft.
Descriptives
Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
Hochberg
95% Confidence
(I) My job is classified as which of the classified as which Difference Std. Lower Upper
following? of the following? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
31
Perception of wage Competitiveness by Job Classification
Employees who are Officials and Administrators rated the competitiveness of their wage higher than all
other job classifications. However, the only statistically significant difference was in comparison to Skilled
Craft employees (Technicians were borderline significant).
Descriptives
I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Hochberg
32
Perception of fairness of pay by Job Classification
Officials and Administrators scored their pay fairness significantly higher than Technicians, Protective
Service, and Skilled Craft. Professional employees also scored higher than Skilled Craft for pay fairness.
Descriptives
I feel that my pay is fair.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I feel that my pay is fair.
Hochberg
(I) My job is classified (J) My job is classified Mean 95% Confidence Interval
33
Perception of benefits package by Job Classification
Once again, Officials and Administrators score the benefits package higher than the other job classifications
and significantly higher than Protective Services and Skilled Craft. However, the more notable result is that
Protective Services scored benefits significantly lower than all other classifications except
Paraprofessional.
Descriptives
Multiple Comparisons
34
Perception of Morale by Department
For morale, the Fire Department scored higher than 8 other departments. The Police Department scored
lower than 10 departments, and Water & Light scored lower than 3. To see the results of the significance
test for the Morale question, please refer to Appendix L.
Descriptives
Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
95% Confidence
35
Perception of wage Competitiveness by Department
The two main results of this analysis showed Water & Light significantly lower than 7 other departments
and the Police Department lower than 5. To see the results of the significance test for the wage
competitiveness question, please refer to Appendix M.
Descriptives
I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
95% Confidence
36
Perception of fairness of pay by Department
The Police Department and Water & Light both scored lower than 3 other departments. To see the results
of the significance test for the fair pay variable, please refer to Appendix N.
Descriptives
I feel that my pay is fair.
95% Confidence
37
Perception of benefits package by Department
Water & Light scored this lower than 8 other department the Police Department scored it lower than 10. To
see the results of the significance test for the benefits package variable, please refer to Appendix O.
Descriptives
I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.
95% Confidence
In terms of base pay, there were two departments that had statistically significant results. Water & Light
and the Police Department scored this question lower than 4 other departments (City Manager’s Office,
Parks and Rec., Human Resources, and Law).
When asked about satisfaction with the City’s retirement plan, the Police Department once again scored
lower than 4 other departments (Fire, Parks and Rec, Community Development, and Human Resources).
When asked specifically about the health benefits provided, Water & Light and Police scored it lower than 3
other departments (Parks and Rec, Community Development, and HR).
38
For the question about satisfaction with the paid time off, the Police Department scored lower than 2 other
departments (Fire, and Parks and Rec).
Finally, employees were asked whether they felt the pay and benefits allowed them to support a family.
Results showed the Police Department scored it significantly lower than 6 other departments.
To see the average scores for the additional pay and benefits questions, please refer to Appendix P.
Descriptives
Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
The perception of wage competitiveness among those who have been employed less than 1 year was
significantly higher than those who have been employed for 6-10 years and those employed more than 21
years.
Descriptives
39
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Hochberg
(I) How many years have you been (J) How many years have you been Mean Std.
employed by the City of Columbia? employed by the City of Columbia? Difference (I-J) Error Sig.
Employees who have been employed less than a year scored significantly higher than all other groups
except those employed 16-20 years.
Descriptives
I feel that my pay is fair.
40
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
(I) How many years have you been employed by (J) How many years have you been Mean Std.
the City of Columbia? employed by the City of Columbia? Difference (I-J) Error Sig.
*
Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .967 .299 .019
*
6 to 10 years 1.185 .310 .002
*
11 to 15 years 1.100 .334 .015
*
21+ years 1.444 .339 .000
Those who have been employed with by the city for more than 21 years scored the benefits package much
lower than those with less than a year and those with 1-5 years.
Descriptives
I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.
41
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.
Hochberg
(I) How many years have (J) How many years have
you been employed by the you been employed by the Mean Difference
City of Columbia? City of Columbia? (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
42
LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON OF SCORES
The themes identified from the factor analysis were used to compare responses from 2011, 2013, and
2015. This longitudinal comparison increases the reliability of the estimates of employee perceptions,
engagement, and job satisfaction obtained from each survey, allowing us to more confidently suggest an
appropriate direction for the City.
Comparing the 2015 survey responses to the 2011 and 2013 findings provides additional insights into
engagement and job satisfaction. The analysis below is based on the categories identified by the 2013
factor analysis. Survey items from each iteration, (2011, 2013, and 2015) are grouped together based on
the eight themes discussed in greater detail above. These categories are (1) two-way communications, (2)
top-down communications, (3) public service motivation, (4) core values, (5) career development, (6)
teamwork, (7) relationships with coworkers, and (8) resources. Not all questions asked in 2013 and 2015
were asked in 2011. Suggestions based on these scores are provided in a summary paragraph below.
The analysis shows that there are not significant differences in the average engagement scores over the five
years of observation which included three surveys. This undergirds our confidence in the reliability of our
results and ability to identify the areas of engagement where the City of Columbia excels and the areas in
which the City of Columbia needs to improve in order to harness the full potential of the workforce and
meet the goals of the organization.
43
Overall Scores
Two-way Communications
44
Neutral 12.79% 12.64% 13.03%
Dissatisfied 28.94% 23.86% 25.18%
My immediate supervisor listens to me. N 744 704 683
Satisfied 79.17% 80.82% 76.72%
Neutral 9.14% 8.66% 9.81%
Dissatisfied 11.69% 10.51% 13.47%
My immediate supervisor has talked to me about my career path. N 735 680 670
Satisfied 36.05% 35.00% 40.27%
Neutral 23.67% 28.24% 22.02%
Dissatisfied 40.27% 36.76% 37.71%
45
Neutral 17.48% 17.79% 12.18%
Dissatisfied 10.43% 8.38 % 5.02%
Top-down Communications
46
Top-Down Communications
2011 2013 2015
In my department training on customer service is N 736 689 669
provided.
Satisfied 42.12% 76.20% 67.56%
Neutral 23.23% 13.50% 17.79%
Dissatisfied 34.65% 10.30% 14.65%
47
Dissatisfied 8.14% 5.34% 7.16%
I feel satisfied when completing my daily duties. N 734 673 654
Satisfied 83.24% 82.47% 82.11%
Neutral 10.63% 10.70% 11.01%
Dissatisfied 6.13% 6.84% 6.88%
48
my family and friends. Satisfied 69.88% 69.08% 67.79%
Neutral 13.70% 16.57% 14.81%
Dissatisfied 16.42% 14.35% 17.40%
I receive a competitive wage for the work I do. N N/A 684 666
Satisfied 34.65% 38.74%
Neutral 14.62% 10.96%
Dissatisfied 50.73% 50.30%
I feel that my pay is fair. N N/A 668 654
Satisfied 40.12% 42.81%
Neutral 11.38% 9.48%
Dissatisfied 48.50% 47.71%
Career Development
49
There is someone at work who encourages my development. N N/A 680 664
Satisfied 58.38% 59.34%
Neutral 21.32% 18.83%
Dissatisfied 20.29% 21.84%
Teamwork
Teamwork
2011 2013 2015
My department uses goal setting processes that I helped N 734 667 654
shape.
Satisfied 31.06% 30.73% 29.66%
Neutral 27.79% 31.18% 29.97%
50
Resource Adequacy
Resource Adequacy
2011 2013 2015
I have adequate materials and equipment I need to do my job. N 734 672 656
Satisfied 76.29% 79.46% 75.15%
Neutral 5.59% 6.99% 7.93%
51
My co-workers are committed to doing quality work. N 737 691 672
Satisfied 68.93% 76.70% 73.81%
Neutral 16.28% 12.01% 12.95%
Dissatisfied 14.79% 11.29% 13.24%
I believe my co-workers are committed to the goals of my N 736 678 660
department.
Satisfied 65.49% 70.35% 67.73%
Neutral 15.90% 17.40% 16.67%
Dissatisfied 18.61% 12.25% 15.61%
52
RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT DRIVERS
We were able to compare worker perceptions with what other meta-studies term “management drivers.”
These studies argue that employee engagement increases when the daily experiences of employees include
positive relationships with their direct supervisors or managers. We compare responses over time based
the International Personnel Management Association (IPMA) “key drivers of engagement.” We also report
results from the survey based on factors that drive engagement which are cited by Gallup’s “Q12” as the 12
core elements that link strongly to key organizational outcomes. These elements relate to what the
employee gets (e.g., clear expectations, resources), what the employee gives (e.g., the individual
contributions), whether the individual fits the organization (e.g., based on the organization’s mission and
co-workers) and whether the employee has opportunity to grow (e.g., by getting feedback about work and
opportunities to learn). These items also capture whether employees enjoy a good relationship with their
supervisor, have the necessary equipment to do the job well, the authority necessary to accomplish their
job well, and freedom to make work decisions. The comparison of findings appears below and reflects
generally high levels of satisfaction among the City workforce for each of the three intervals that were
observed.
53
I understand how my work contributes to the good of the City of Satisfied 88.99% 89.51% 88.92%
Columbia.
Neutral 7.34% 7.09% 6.22%
Dissatisfied 3.67% 3.40% 4.86%
I have clearly defined goals and objectives. N 734 667 657
My department uses goal setting processes that I helped shape.
Satisfied 31.06% 30.73% 29.66%
Neutral 27.79% 31.18% 29.97%
Dissatisfied 41.14% 38.08% 40.37%
I am proud to work here. N 739 699 675
I am proud to work for the City of Columbia.
Satisfied 73.07% 76.97% 76.30%
Neutral 13.80% 11.30% 12.44%
Dissatisfied 13.13% 11.73% 11.26%
I feel valued here. N 743 704 683
At work, my opinions seem to count
Satisfied 58.28% 63.49% 61.79%
Neutral 12.79% 12.64% 13.03%
Dissatisfied 28.94% 23.86% 25.18%
My department uses goal setting processes that I helped shape. 31% 31% 30%
I understand how my work contributes to the good of the City
89% 90% 89%
of Columbia.
I like my job because it serves the public interest. 76% 80% 77%
54
Gallop’s Q12® Management Drivers
In addition to the key drivers of engagement, we can compare the City’s comparison with Gallup’s
management drivers. The data below demonstrates the five-year trend among City employees.
Gallop’s Q12®
Gallop Item
City of Columbia Survey Item 2011 2013 2015
I know what’s expected of me at work. N 742 699 690
Satisfied 83.96% 85.55% 86.09%
Neutral 7.14% 6.01% 6.38%
55
City of Columbia Survey Item
At work, my opinions seem to count. N 743 704 683
Satisfied 58.28% 63.49% 61.79%
Neutral 12.79% 12.64% 13.03%
Dissatisfied 28.94% 23.86% 25.18%
The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is N 737 674 656
important.
Satisfied 76.26% 79.82% 76.83%
I like my job because it serves the public interest.
Neutral 15.60% 14.84% 16.01%
56
DISCUSSION
Our study has revealed that there are not significant differences in the average engagement scores over the
five years that included three surveys. The finding is significant because it complements our confidence in
the reliability of our results and ability to identify the areas of engagement where the City of Columbia
excels and the areas in which the City needs to improve in order to harness the full potential of the
workforce and achieve enhanced productivity meet. In order to understand the challenge the City faces, we
revisit four areas previously discussed: 1) the International Personnel Management Association (IPMA)
“Key Drivers of Engagement”, 2) Gallup’s “Q12”, “Key Drivers of Engagement” i.e., the 12 core elements that
link strongly to key organizational outcomes, 3) Core Values and Trust, and 4) Public Service Motivation
(PSM) scores.
One of the IPMA key drivers: “clearly defined goals and objectives” was rated satisfactory by 30.48% of the
respondents over the five years in the survey. It was the only non-positive response among the six drivers.
Among the Gallup’s “Q12”, “Key Drivers of Engagement” the item which gauges employee participation and
“ownership” of departmental goal setting, which is captured in the survey item “my department uses a goal
setting process that I helped to shape” revealed an average satisfaction score was 30% over the five years
that were observed. Among the Core Values and Trust variables, there were three areas of dissatisfaction:
1) pay was rated 41% as an average in 2013 and 2015 (not assessed in 2011). 2) Promotion policies were
felt to be satisfactory by 36% over the five years of observation, and 3) Morale was rated satisfactory by
34% of the respondents.
Perhaps these findings from individual items help to explain the results in the table below which depicts
Engagement Scores for each of the years in which there were surveys.
1 Regression analysis was used to examine where there were differences in average engagement scores or average levels of
engagement between departments and test whether these differences were statistically significant. Regression results are
similar to calculating the average scores for each department in each year. However, some departments and years are
excluded from the analysis because of the small number of observations. The test of statistical significance on differences in
average engagement across department and year is calculated relative to an omitted category. In the case of the overall score,
the omitted department is the City Manager’s Office. In the case of the means in each year, the omitted category is the City
Manager’s Office in 2011 of observations for the average. When these means are statistically significantly at the 95% level of
confidence they are marked with an asterisk.
57
Table1. Average Level of Engagement in City of Columbia Departments, 2011, 2013, and 2015
58
AVERAGE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT CONT’D
Department 2011 2013 2015 Total
Convention & Visitors Mean 6.27 5.87 6.37 6.18
Bureau St. Dev 0.39 0.51 0.38 0.45
N 6 5 5 16
Economic Development Mean 6.70 5.94 6.53 6.29
St. Dev 0.42 0.90 - 0.72
N - - - 6
Finance Department Mean 5.11 5.19 4.73* 5.00*
St. Dev 0.98 0.81 1.35 1.08
N 30 32 33 95
Public Health Mean 5.61 5.56 5.26* 5.49
St. Dev 0.67 0.92 0.93 0.86
N 44 54 38 136
Human Resources Mean 5.03 5.74 6.32 5.90
St. Dev 0.43 0.90 0.51 0.80
N - 10 12 26
Law Department Mean 5.68 5.41 5.42 5.53
St. Dev 0.68 1.51 1.02 1.01
N 10 6 8 24
Police Department Mean 4.73 4.60 4.40* 4.57*
St. Dev 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.06
N 61 52 60 173
Public Communications Mean 4.82 5.66 4.90 5.15*
St. Dev 0.83 0.55 0.58 0.73
N 7 9 9 25
Public Works Mean 4.95 4.82 4.96 4.91
St. Dev 1.05 0.92 1.03 1.01
N 228 171 178 577
Neighborhood Services Mean 5.86 . . 5.86
St. Dev 1.04 . . 1.04
N 7 - - 7
Total Mean 5.11 5.08 5.05 5.08
St. Dev 0.99 0.98 1.08 1.01
N 690 633 594 1917
The analysis shows that the overall score for all departments is about 5.0, which indicates most employees
do not register strong engagement scores. Those departments which are below the overall average include
Public Works (4.84), Public Communications (4.79), Finance (4.70), Water & Light (4.68), and the Police
Department (4.19).
The most notable result was the Police Department’s average score was significantly lower than 10 other
departments. Water & Light scored significantly lower than 6 other departments, and Public Works scored
lower than 4.
59
Ten departments have consistently scored above the mean in each year of observation: 1) Convention and
Visitors Bureau, 2) Human Resources, 3) City Manager’s Office, 4) Parks and Recreation, 5) Information
Technologies, 6) Law, 7) Fire, 8) Public Health, 9) Municipal Court, and 10) Community Development. The
challenge is to understand what may be occurring in the departments that score the highest engagement
scores that are different in those that display less engagement. Considering the importance of IPMA’s
Engagement Indicators, “Gallup’s 12”, and Core Values/Trust scores; is there a connection between
variations in departmental and performance management practices? Relevant research observes those
organizations with the most mature performance management processes were more likely to have strong
engagement scores (Bersin, 2013).
Performance management (PM) is undergoing change due in part to the public sector organizations
adaptation of New Public Management principles. This adaptation transforms traditional performance
appraisals into a management approach that matches the quick pace of today’s public sector workforce.
Public sector organizations demonstrate different levels of alignment with the principles of New Public
Management maturity in this journey.
1. The purpose of Performance Management clarifies. Managers and supervisors become more
sophisticated and adept at identifying and communicating why they have performance management
and what they expect to get from it. Most importantly, they can connect PM to workforce engagement.
Organizations with a clear PM purpose and philosophy are able to design their PM practices, so they are
consistent and reinforce the same message about what it takes to succeed.
2. There is consistency of PM processes. Organizations en route to higher levels of maturity focus heavily
on increasing the consistency of the PM process. Public sector workforces that consistently deliver
services that draw customer satisfaction have enough consistency in processes that they can
strategically customize elements of PM, so the process is more responsive to departmental and
employees’ needs.
3. Manager coaching is increasingly effective. Organizations that are great at performance management
understand that managers’ ability to coach and give feedback is the most critical linchpin in the whole
process. As a result, it becomes an increasingly large focus as maturity increases.
60
4. PM practices are more focused, frequent, and flexible. Mature organizations simplify PM processes
and focus employees on the highest-value PM activities. They also recognize the need for a continuous
focus on performance and implement lightweight, flexible processes that make it easier for managers to
give more frequent feedback.
5. Integration with talent management increases. As organizations mature, they strategically integrate
performance management with other talent processes. This integration pertains to both software and
processes, resulting in an increasingly seamless and consistent PM experience for employees and
managers.
In a recent survey of private sector companies, fewer than 7 percent of those in the study performed at the
highest maturity level (Bersin, 2012). Seventy-six of those organizations observed studied demonstrated
PM characteristics associated with limited maturity. The City has recently (August, 2014) revamped its
performance evaluation system, and in so doing, made a distinction between supervisory and non-
supervisory personnel. For both groups there is an opportunity for self-evaluation and ample opportunity
for supervisors to begin a program of coaching, incorporate meaning, variety, autonomy and co-worker
respect into jobs and tasks, so that employees view their role more broadly and become willing to take on
duties beyond their job description. These new practices can become the foundation for enhancing
engagement culture and adopting metrics that demonstrate engagement action plans, monitoring progress,
adjusting strategies and recognizing and celebrating progress. The City’s human resource initiatives have
the distinct advantage of ensuring “mature management practices” in the upcoming years. Based on the
benchmarks described earlier in the report, movement in that direction is justified.
Within the City of Columbia, a number of departments within the full organization are located in
units/departments where past performance evaluation and performance management practices could have
been characterized by approaches that were inconsistent and compliance-focused. The outcomes in the
present engagement study have the advantage of institutionally installing comparatively more responsive
performance management practices that help employees perform better. The compelling research finds
that this difference in maturity matters, as those departments with the most mature performance
management processes, are likely to contain employees that score higher on workforce engagement
surveys.
It is possible that in an organization with as many departments and service delivery responsibilities as the
City, variations exist across departments as they relate to performance management practices. Those
departments that produce the lower engagement scores arguably have less sophisticated approaches to
performance management. It is vital that “performance management” does not become synonymous with
61
“performance appraisal,” meaning there is little or no effort put into developing a holistic approach to PM
that includes goal-setting, coaching, development planning, and recognition.
The means by which there is an establishment of employee goals; the ongoing management of progress
through coaching, feedback, and recognition; and the assessment of employee performance, may differ and
may, therefore, account for the longitudinal differences observed among City departments. The
combination of such practices provides a rationale for the engagement indicator scores in this study which
reveal that employees do not participate in departmental goal setting. However, there are other elements,
such as the strategy, the audience, and the technology, that also need to be factored into the task of
managing and improving performance management. Recent initiatives are timely and over time
engagement scores should begin to reflect the outcomes of these innovations.
In each of the years, respondents have stated their dissatisfaction with their pay. Although, in the 2015
survey, respondents have stated they are generally satisfied with benefits offered by the City. Most
government agencies usually can’t provide performance incentives like large pay raises and bonuses, or
perks such as stock options, fitness center club memberships, and car services. Faced with limited ways to
reward and recognize performance, government managers need to focus on agency mission and impact
and also provide nonfinancial recognition. This includes adopting workplace flexibility practices and
providing non-financial recognition that sometimes means simply saying “thank you” and praising good
performance.
The fact of high public service motivation scores may mask the milieu of performance management within
the city. In each of the years when there has been a survey of employee attitudes, we have observed high
public service motivation scores. These scores suggest that employees view their work as a “calling.” Public
servants find meaning in their work by making a positive difference in the lives of the citizens they serve.
This is an advantage in building engagement. Many employees enter public service because they are
already committed to the mission of government. The resulting challenge is that the public sector in
general needs to find, aggressively recruit and hire job candidates who are motivated by public service.
Managers must then leverage public-service motivation by involving employees in decisions and helping
them see and appreciate their individual contributions.
62
CONCLUSION
The above data reflects favorably with Meta studies, however, greater confidence in our findings could be
gained were we able to make regional comparisons to similar middle-size Midwestern cities. Never-the-
less, this report suggests appropriate directions for human resources practices in the public sector. City of
Columbia public sector managers can begin to identify what constitutes a culture of engagement and
ensure that cultural conditions are optimal for employees to be engaged and satisfied. The dimensions of a
culture of engagement provide a starting point, but there may be other elements that promote employee
engagement depending on the organization. Ultimately, a culture of engagement can lead to positive and
fulfilling outcomes for public servants and the populations they serve.
All the respondents in this survey are public servants who provide voices from various vantage points that
that tell of the culture of engagement in the workforce. They tell us that the city has a workforce that prides
itself in its public service motivation, has healthy supervisor – employee communications, and effective
strategic communications. Most employees believe that there are opportunities for career development.
They value teamwork and relations with co-workers and have the resources needed to perform their jobs
are adequate. Most, however, do not believe the city’s core values have been realized. The majority of the
workforce questions whether their pay is fair and competitive and whether the promotion process is fair.
Never-the-less, the findings of this study indicate that a culture of engagement is developing within the City
of Columbia as indicated by Likert scores that locate at the lower levels ( 5 ) on the satisfaction scale for
each of the variables crucial to a culture of engagement. What continues to be a highlight is that average
public service motivation is high among all job families while core values and trust, teamwork, and career
development opportunities need improvement for among all job families. The latter suggests that the City
faces a challenge related to the provision of career development opportunities. Arguably, this perceived
“lack” of opportunities serves as a barrier to improving the culture of engagement within the workforce.
Such a finding would be menacing were it not for the practices HR institutionalized as described earlier.
63
Recommendations
The City should continue enhancing their strategic management practices as they will likely in time
demonstrate an advancement in organization culture and an undeniable path to enhanced employee
engagement and the value added possibilities of performance management (PM). This differs from seeing
performance management primarily as a compliance exercise. Instead, we recommend a continuation of
standardizing PM practices, such as goal-setting, the appraisal process (in particular, the appraisal rating
scale), and employee competencies. We further believe the City should encourage the review of employee
goals on a semi-annual basis so managers and employees will be sure to redirect behavior as appropriate.
To further help managers give accurate guidance to employees, it may be appropriate to integrate multi-
rater feedback into their performance management practices. This could occur during the appraisal
process or at another designated time during the year when development / career planning may also occur.
The purpose of this emphasis is to heighten employee engagement via a set of practices designed to enforce
the belief that the purpose of performance management is to improve employee enhancement, improve
employee performance and enhance organizational maturity within all departments. In order to move in
that direction we suggest the following activities:
1. Continue the conversation between department heads about the desired outcomes of
performance management.
2. Enhance collaboration with department heads to develop a standardized process for goal-
setting and performance appraisal.
3. Provide all managers and employees with resources to assist them in providing coaching
and feedback.
4. Implement a process by which employees can assess their own performance and receive
feedback on their performance from peers.
6. Integrate performance management with compensation and at least one other talent
management process, such as learning or succession planning.
64
Appendix A: Demographics
Race
Race
Asian 3 .4 .5 97.3
65
Gender
Gender
66
Age
Age
67
Education
Education
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
68
Job Classification
69
Department
70
Employment Status
71
Supervise
72
Residence
I live....
73
74
Appendix B: Crosstab of Job Classification and Gender
Gender
Technician Count 59 14 73
Paraprofessional Count 1 6 7
75
Appendix C: Results for the Average Score by Department
Descriptives
AverageScore
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
City Manager's Office 9 5.8690 .40390 .13463 5.5585 6.1794 4.99 6.23
Fire Department 52 5.3695 .75906 .10526 5.1581 5.5808 2.69 6.52
Information Technologies 14 5.4798 .71339 .19066 5.0679 5.8917 4.36 6.58
Municipal Court 5 5.1788 .52212 .23350 4.5305 5.8271 4.72 6.07
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.5245 .80254 .12851 5.2643 5.7846 3.37 6.80
Community Development Department 28 5.1361 .86319 .16313 4.8014 5.4708 3.37 6.78
Water & Light 100 4.6808 .99433 .09943 4.4835 4.8781 1.69 6.46
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.2313 .31446 .14063 5.8409 6.6218 5.87 6.60
Finance Department 33 4.7040 1.17778 .20503 4.2863 5.1216 2.02 6.78
Public Health and Human Services 38 5.1951 .84232 .13664 4.9182 5.4719 3.54 6.58
Human Resources Department 12 6.1545 .54035 .15598 5.8112 6.4978 4.87 6.81
Law Department 8 5.4119 .79387 .28068 4.7482 6.0755 4.42 6.44
Police Department 60 4.1949 1.03112 .13312 3.9286 4.4613 1.83 6.25
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.7939 .57049 .19016 4.3554 5.2324 3.81 5.65
Public Works Department 178 4.8353 .94891 .07112 4.6949 4.9756 1.27 6.81
Total 594 4.9517 1.00426 .04121 4.8708 5.0326 1.27 6.81
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: AverageScore
Hochberg
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
(I) In what department Difference Std. Lower Upper
are you employed? (J) In what department are you employed? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
Water & Light City Manager's Office -1.18817 .31936 .023 -2.3079 -.0685
*
Fire Department -.68865 .15690 .001 -1.2387 -.1386
Information Technologies -.79895 .26187 .220 -1.7171 .1192
Municipal Court -.49801 .42054 1.000 -1.9724 .9764
*
Parks and Rec Department -.84367 .17325 .000 -1.4511 -.2363
Community Development Department -.45533 .19621 .879 -1.1432 .2326
*
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.55052 .42054 .026 -3.0249 -.0761
Finance Department -.02315 .18423 1.000 -.6691 .6228
76
Public Health and Human Services -.51427 .17488 .298 -1.1274 .0989
*
Human Resources Department -1.47368 .28036 .000 -2.4566 -.4907
Law Department -.73105 .33718 .956 -1.9132 .4511
Police Department .48586 .14986 .123 -.0395 1.0113
Public Communications Dept. -.11310 .31936 1.000 -1.2328 1.0066
Public Works Department -.15446 .11469 1.000 -.5566 .2476
*
Police Department City Manager's Office -1.67403 .32804 .000 -2.8241 -.5239
*
Fire Department -1.17451 .17387 .000 -1.7841 -.5649
*
Information Technologies -1.28481 .27238 .000 -2.2398 -.3298
Municipal Court -.98387 .42716 .891 -2.4815 .5138
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.32953 .18876 .000 -1.9913 -.6677
*
Community Development Department -.94119 .21003 .001 -1.6776 -.2048
Water & Light -.48586 .14986 .123 -1.0113 .0395
*
Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.03638 .42716 .000 -3.5340 -.5387
Finance Department -.50901 .19889 .669 -1.2063 .1883
*
Public Health and Human Services -1.00013 .19026 .000 -1.6672 -.3331
*
Human Resources Department -1.95954 .29020 .000 -2.9770 -.9421
*
Law Department -1.21691 .34541 .047 -2.4279 -.0059
Public Communications Dept. -.59896 .32804 .999 -1.7491 .5511
*
Public Works Department -.64032 .13699 .000 -1.1206 -.1600
Public Works City Manager's Office -1.03370 .31353 .103 -2.1330 .0656
Department *
Fire Department -.53419 .14466 .025 -1.0414 -.0270
Information Technologies -.64448 .25473 .699 -1.5376 .2486
Municipal Court -.34355 .41613 1.000 -1.8025 1.1154
*
Parks and Rec Department -.68921 .16225 .003 -1.2581 -.1204
Community Development Department -.30086 .18657 1.000 -.9550 .3533
Water & Light .15446 .11469 1.000 -.2476 .5566
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.39605 .41613 .085 -2.8550 .0629
Finance Department .13131 .17393 1.000 -.4785 .7411
Public Health and Human Services -.35981 .16399 .947 -.9348 .2152
*
Human Resources Department -1.31921 .27370 .000 -2.2788 -.3596
Law Department -.57659 .33166 1.000 -1.7394 .5862
*
Police Department .64032 .13699 .000 .1600 1.1206
Public Communications Dept. .04136 .31353 1.000 -1.0579 1.1406
77
Appendix D: Composite Scores by Department
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
TwoWayComm City Manager's Office 9 6.0958 .48575 .16192 5.7224 6.4691 4.93 6.53
Community Development
28 5.2714 1.27204 .24039 4.7782 5.7647 1.40 6.93
Depart
Water & Light 100 4.9645 1.26532 .12653 4.7135 5.2156 1.25 6.93
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.4400 .31833 .14236 6.0447 6.8353 6.13 6.80
Human Resources Department 12 6.3389 .68606 .19805 5.9030 6.7748 4.53 7.00
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.1111 .72419 .24140 4.5545 5.6678 3.80 6.13
Public Works Department 178 5.0472 1.28203 .09609 4.8576 5.2368 1.00 7.00
78
Human Resources Department 12 6.1979 .58499 .16887 5.8262 6.5696 5.13 6.75
Law Department 8 5.3490 .43754 .15469 4.9832 5.7147 4.88 6.17
Police Department 60 4.4577 .95059 .12272 4.2122 4.7033 2.00 6.38
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.6448 .71821 .23940 4.0928 5.1969 3.38 5.43
Public Works Department 178 4.8484 1.03368 .07748 4.6955 5.0013 1.25 7.00
Total 590 4.9393 1.03710 .04270 4.8555 5.0232 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust City Manager's Office 9 5.7639 .54566 .18189 5.3445 6.1833 4.88 6.50
Fire Department 52 5.1867 .83222 .11541 4.9550 5.4184 2.92 6.58
Information Technologies 14 5.1300 .92005 .24589 4.5988 5.6613 3.70 6.63
Municipal Court 5 4.8560 .65877 .29461 4.0380 5.6739 4.00 5.63
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.4461 .87621 .14031 5.1621 5.7302 2.67 6.75
Community Development
28 5.0428 .94140 .17791 4.6777 5.4078 2.79 6.75
Department
Water & Light 100 4.3785 1.11221 .11122 4.1578 4.5992 1.38 6.38
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.1083 .35916 .16062 5.6624 6.5543 5.71 6.58
Finance Department 33 4.7258 1.13364 .19734 4.3239 5.1278 2.58 6.79
Public Health and Human
38 5.0438 .93221 .15122 4.7374 5.3502 3.33 6.54
Services
Human Resources Department 12 6.0619 .57590 .16625 5.6960 6.4278 5.04 6.92
Law Department 8 5.5677 .50589 .17886 5.1448 5.9906 4.75 6.25
Police Department 60 3.8911 1.12963 .14583 3.5993 4.1829 1.04 6.17
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.9167 .79440 .26480 4.3060 5.5273 3.79 6.08
Public Works Department 178 4.8045 .99397 .07450 4.6575 4.9515 1.25 7.00
Total 590 4.8093 1.08883 .04483 4.7213 4.8974 1.04 7.00
Teamwork City Manager's Office 9 5.3783 .56450 .18817 4.9444 5.8122 4.57 6.29
Fire Department 52 4.7647 1.07446 .14900 4.4655 5.0638 1.00 6.43
Information Technologies 14 5.0735 .91227 .24381 4.5467 5.6002 3.14 6.57
Municipal Court 5 4.9643 .73280 .32772 4.0544 5.8742 4.25 6.14
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.0696 1.05329 .16866 4.7282 5.4110 2.57 7.00
Community Development
28 4.5413 1.13697 .21487 4.1005 4.9822 2.57 6.80
Department
Water & Light 100 4.0249 1.11235 .11124 3.8042 4.2456 1.57 5.86
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 5.8286 .82931 .37088 4.7988 6.8583 4.71 6.71
Finance Department 33 4.1538 1.44982 .25238 3.6397 4.6679 1.00 7.00
Public Health and Human
38 4.7600 1.09784 .17809 4.3992 5.1209 2.29 6.71
Services
Human Resources Department 12 5.9881 .76921 .22205 5.4994 6.4768 4.00 6.57
Law Department 8 4.7708 1.41947 .50186 3.5841 5.9575 2.57 6.17
Police Department 60 2.9071 1.31164 .16933 2.5683 3.2460 1.00 6.14
79
Public Communications Dept. 9 3.5238 .81127 .27042 2.9002 4.1474 1.71 4.57
Public Works Department 178 4.1934 1.16847 .08758 4.0206 4.3663 1.14 6.71
Total 590 4.2866 1.30450 .05371 4.1811 4.3921 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv City Manager's Office 9 6.5556 .38442 .12814 6.2601 6.8510 5.80 7.00
Fire Department 52 6.1859 .68553 .09507 5.9950 6.3767 4.00 7.00
Information Technologies 14 6.0429 .72400 .19350 5.6248 6.4609 4.60 7.00
Municipal Court 5 5.8133 .62787 .28079 5.0337 6.5929 5.20 6.80
Parks and Rec Department 39 6.3538 .53991 .08645 6.1788 6.5289 5.00 7.00
Community Development
28 5.8929 .81918 .15481 5.5752 6.2105 3.40 7.00
Department
Water & Light 100 5.3433 1.19292 .11929 5.1066 5.5800 2.00 7.00
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.8400 .21909 .09798 6.5680 7.1120 6.60 7.00
Finance Department 33 5.3838 1.48277 .25812 4.8581 5.9096 1.00 7.00
Public Health and Human
38 5.9684 1.01611 .16484 5.6344 6.3024 2.40 7.00
Services
Human Resources Department 12 6.6333 .48116 .13890 6.3276 6.9390 5.60 7.00
Law Department 8 6.1250 .88115 .31153 5.3883 6.8617 4.20 7.00
Police Department 60 4.9608 1.42680 .18420 4.5923 5.3294 1.20 6.80
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.4944 .82327 .27442 4.8616 6.1273 3.80 6.80
Public Works Department 178 5.5234 1.03271 .07741 5.3707 5.6762 1.20 7.00
Total 590 5.6593 1.12680 .04639 5.5682 5.7504 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork City Manager's Office 9 6.0794 .54917 .18306 5.6572 6.5015 4.86 6.71
Fire Department 52 5.9528 .65537 .09088 5.7704 6.1353 3.71 7.00
Information Technologies 14 5.8469 1.03086 .27551 5.2517 6.4421 3.43 7.00
Municipal Court 5 4.5143 .55879 .24990 3.8205 5.2081 4.00 5.29
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.5867 1.01810 .16303 5.2567 5.9167 1.71 7.00
Community Development
28 5.3827 1.03678 .19593 4.9806 5.7847 3.29 7.00
Department
Water & Light 100 5.0200 1.25316 .12532 4.7713 5.2687 1.57 7.00
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.7714 .12778 .05714 6.6128 6.9301 6.57 6.86
Finance Department 33 5.1133 1.27266 .22154 4.6620 5.5645 1.57 7.00
Public Health and Human
38 5.2895 1.48665 .24117 4.8008 5.7781 1.14 7.00
Services
Human Resources Department 12 6.4762 .60711 .17526 6.0905 6.8619 5.29 7.00
Law Department 8 5.6815 1.32767 .46940 4.5716 6.7915 3.00 7.00
Police Department 60 4.7024 1.11134 .14347 4.4153 4.9895 2.14 6.71
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.8571 1.05221 .35074 4.0483 5.6659 3.29 6.00
Public Works Department 178 4.7971 1.21252 .09088 4.6178 4.9765 1.00 7.00
Total 590 5.1624 1.22799 .05056 5.0631 5.2617 1.00 7.00
80
CareerDev City Manager's Office 9 5.7333 .45826 .15275 5.3811 6.0856 5.20 6.40
Fire Department 52 5.2808 1.15011 .15949 4.9606 5.6010 1.20 7.00
Information Technologies 14 5.3286 .87216 .23309 4.8250 5.8321 4.00 6.80
Municipal Court 5 5.6800 .80747 .36111 4.6774 6.6826 4.60 6.80
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.5538 1.05876 .16954 5.2106 5.8971 2.40 7.00
Community Development
28 4.9429 1.26357 .23879 4.4529 5.4328 1.80 7.00
Department
Water & Light 100 4.7190 1.32800 .13280 4.4555 4.9825 1.00 7.00
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.2000 .42426 .18974 5.6732 6.7268 5.60 6.80
Finance Department 33 4.3636 1.71570 .29867 3.7553 4.9720 1.00 7.00
Public Health and Human
38 5.0684 .99216 .16095 4.7423 5.3945 2.60 6.60
Services
Human Resources Department 12 6.1667 .76673 .22134 5.6795 6.6538 4.80 7.00
Law Department 8 5.1250 1.52292 .53843 3.8518 6.3982 2.40 7.00
Police Department 60 4.3958 1.52594 .19700 4.0016 4.7900 1.00 7.00
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.3778 .92976 .30992 3.6631 5.0925 3.20 5.80
Public Works Department 178 4.6598 1.37059 .10273 4.4571 4.8626 1.00 7.00
Total 590 4.8666 1.35296 .05570 4.7572 4.9760 1.00 7.00
Resources City Manager's Office 9 5.7778 .97183 .32394 5.0308 6.5248 4.00 7.00
Parks and Rec Department 39 6.1795 .85446 .13682 5.9025 6.4565 4.00 7.00
Community Development
28 5.4643 1.10494 .20881 5.0358 5.8927 3.00 7.00
Department
Water & Light 99 4.9495 1.63116 .16394 4.6242 5.2748 1.00 7.00
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.4000 .89443 .40000 5.2894 7.5106 5.00 7.00
Human Resources Department 12 6.1667 .71774 .20719 5.7106 6.6227 5.00 7.00
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.1111 1.45297 .48432 3.9943 6.2280 2.00 7.00
Public Works Department 178 4.9663 1.53269 .11488 4.7396 5.1930 1.00 7.00
Total 588 5.2041 1.54518 .06372 5.0789 5.3292 1.00 7.00
81
Appendix E: Composite Score Average by Education Level
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max
TwoWayComm less than high school 4 4.9667 1.26667 .63333 2.9511 6.9822 4.00 6.80
HS or GED 124 5.0634 1.19720 .10751 4.8506 5.2762 1.25 6.87
Some College 152 5.1566 1.20440 .09769 4.9635 5.3496 1.40 7.00
Associate Degree 64 4.9173 1.34145 .16768 4.5823 5.2524 1.00 6.93
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.2177 1.28906 .08771 5.0448 5.3905 1.40 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 5.1884 1.41617 .16926 4.8507 5.5261 1.00 7.00
Higher
Total 630 5.1372 1.27010 .05060 5.0378 5.2366 1.00 7.00
TopDownComm less than high school 4 4.4688 1.71505 .85753 1.7397 7.1978 3.25 7.00
HS or GED 124 4.7204 1.09317 .09817 4.5260 4.9147 1.63 7.00
Some College 153 4.9350 .94059 .07604 4.7848 5.0853 1.75 6.88
Associate Degree 64 4.8733 .97655 .12207 4.6294 5.1173 2.00 6.75
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.0373 1.02135 .06949 4.9003 5.1743 2.00 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 5.0398 1.12198 .13410 4.7723 5.3073 1.25 7.00
Higher
Total 631 4.9303 1.03229 .04109 4.8496 5.0110 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust less than high school 4 4.7917 1.48682 .74341 2.4258 7.1575 3.83 7.00
HS or GED 124 4.6156 1.06084 .09527 4.4270 4.8042 1.38 6.59
Some College 153 4.6689 1.02273 .08268 4.5056 4.8323 2.29 6.92
Associate Degree 64 4.6394 1.07365 .13421 4.3712 4.9076 2.13 6.57
Baccalaureate Degree 216 4.9469 1.14284 .07776 4.7936 5.1002 1.04 6.88
Master’s Degree or
70 5.0472 1.05242 .12579 4.7962 5.2981 1.25 6.71
Higher
Total 631 4.7933 1.09203 .04347 4.7080 4.8787 1.04 7.00
Teamwork less than high school 4 4.3571 1.60992 .80496 1.7954 6.9189 2.71 6.57
HS or GED 124 4.1723 1.16717 .10482 3.9648 4.3798 1.43 6.86
Some College 153 4.1373 1.20554 .09746 3.9447 4.3298 1.00 6.57
Associate Degree 64 4.0815 1.29952 .16244 3.7569 4.4061 1.00 6.57
Baccalaureate Degree 216 4.3913 1.37427 .09351 4.2070 4.5756 1.00 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 4.5511 1.36567 .16323 4.2255 4.8767 1.14 7.00
Higher
Total 631 4.2728 1.29239 .05145 4.1717 4.3738 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv less than high school 4 5.6000 1.25433 .62716 3.6041 7.5959 4.00 7.00
HS or GED 124 5.4409 1.07687 .09671 5.2494 5.6323 2.00 7.00
Some College 153 5.5805 1.03469 .08365 5.4152 5.7458 3.00 7.00
Associate Degree 64 5.4917 1.14096 .14262 5.2067 5.7767 1.00 7.00
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.7428 1.21122 .08241 5.5804 5.9053 1.20 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 5.9271 1.18565 .14171 5.6444 6.2099 1.00 7.00
Higher
Total 631 5.6382 1.14048 .04540 5.5490 5.7274 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork less than high school 4 4.8214 1.61782 .80891 2.2471 7.3957 3.00 6.57
HS or GED 124 4.8199 1.18419 .10634 4.6094 5.0304 1.57 7.00
Some College 153 4.9448 1.27680 .10322 4.7408 5.1487 1.14 7.00
Associate Degree 64 5.0009 1.31244 .16406 4.6731 5.3287 1.43 6.86
82
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.4513 1.11820 .07608 5.3014 5.6013 1.57 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 5.5092 1.22164 .14601 5.2179 5.8005 1.00 7.00
Higher
Total 631 5.1612 1.23368 .04911 5.0647 5.2576 1.00 7.00
CareerDev less than high school 4 4.2500 2.06155 1.03078 .9696 7.5304 2.00 7.00
HS or GED 124 4.6653 1.34055 .12039 4.4270 4.9036 1.00 7.00
Some College 153 4.7784 1.19841 .09689 4.5870 4.9698 1.40 7.00
Associate Degree 64 4.6844 1.34886 .16861 4.3474 5.0213 1.00 7.00
Baccalaureate Degree 216 4.9359 1.44182 .09810 4.7425 5.1292 1.00 7.00
Master’s Degree or
70 5.0457 1.37184 .16397 4.7186 5.3728 1.00 7.00
Higher
Total 631 4.8269 1.35440 .05392 4.7210 4.9327 1.00 7.00
Resources less than high school 4 5.0000 1.41421 .70711 2.7497 7.2503 4.00 7.00
HS or GED 124 5.0968 1.51104 .13570 4.8282 5.3654 1.00 7.00
Some College 151 5.2119 1.49492 .12165 4.9715 5.4523 1.00 7.00
Associate Degree 64 5.0938 1.63026 .20378 4.6865 5.5010 1.00 7.00
Baccalaureate Degree 216 5.2870 1.55848 .10604 5.0780 5.4961 1.00 7.00
Master’s Degree or
69 5.3768 1.48623 .17892 5.0198 5.7338 1.00 7.00
Higher
Total 628 5.2197 1.52996 .06105 5.0999 5.3396 1.00 7.00
TopDownComm Equal variances assumed 2.563 .110 -2.964 631 .003 -.26241
CoreValueTrust Equal variances assumed 4.400 .036 -4.881 631 .000 -.44546
Teamwork Equal variances assumed 1.646 .200 -3.892 631 .000 -.42674
PublicServiceMotiv Equal variances assumed 11.472 .001 -4.609 631 .000 -.43916
RelationWithCowork Equal variances assumed .450 .503 -2.223 631 .027 -.23703
CareerDev Equal variances assumed 1.648 .200 -2.623 631 .009 -.30435
83
Equal variances not assumed -2.705 407.987 .007 -.30435
Resources Equal variances assumed 15.289 .000 -3.505 628 .000 -.45737
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
TwoWayComm Official and Admin 65 5.7137 .93510 .11598 5.4820 5.9454 2.60 7.00
Skilled Craft 123 5.0609 1.15385 .10404 4.8549 5.2668 1.00 6.93
84
Total 613 4.8086 1.08215 .04371 4.7228 4.8945 1.04 7.00
Teamwork Official and Admin 65 5.1867 1.04555 .12968 4.9276 5.4458 1.14 7.00
Professional 104 4.6369 1.25957 .12351 4.3919 4.8818 1.00 6.80
Technician 73 4.1566 .96661 .11313 3.9310 4.3821 2.14 6.14
Protective Service 81 3.6002 1.48629 .16514 3.2716 3.9289 1.00 6.14
Paraprofessional 7 4.3265 1.43975 .54418 2.9950 5.6581 2.29 6.00
Admin Support 68 4.1306 1.24046 .15043 3.8303 4.4308 1.43 6.57
Skilled Craft 123 4.1228 1.14268 .10303 3.9188 4.3267 1.14 6.86
I don't know 92 4.2301 1.31642 .13725 3.9575 4.5027 1.60 6.71
Total 613 4.2771 1.29094 .05214 4.1747 4.3795 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv Official and Admin 65 6.1159 .93015 .11537 5.8854 6.3464 1.20 7.00
Professional 104 5.9159 1.13311 .11111 5.6955 6.1362 1.00 7.00
Technician 73 5.5370 .89621 .10489 5.3279 5.7461 2.40 7.00
Protective Service 81 5.4724 1.29315 .14368 5.1865 5.7584 1.60 7.00
Paraprofessional 7 6.0286 .53452 .20203 5.5342 6.5229 5.40 7.00
Admin Support 68 5.7412 1.06359 .12898 5.4837 5.9986 2.80 7.00
Skilled Craft 123 5.3959 1.15264 .10393 5.1902 5.6017 1.20 7.00
I don't know 92 5.5092 1.14951 .11984 5.2712 5.7473 2.20 7.00
Total 613 5.6499 1.12557 .04546 5.5606 5.7392 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork Official and Admin 65 5.7696 1.00291 .12440 5.5211 6.0181 1.71 7.00
Professional 104 5.6735 1.11563 .10940 5.4566 5.8905 1.57 7.00
Technician 73 4.9374 1.25965 .14743 4.6435 5.2313 1.57 7.00
Protective Service 81 5.2501 1.08012 .12001 5.0113 5.4890 2.57 7.00
Paraprofessional 7 5.1224 1.29738 .49036 3.9226 6.3223 3.00 6.86
Admin Support 68 4.9958 1.32105 .16020 4.6760 5.3156 1.71 7.00
Skilled Craft 123 4.7840 1.17837 .10625 4.5736 4.9943 1.00 7.00
I don't know 92 4.9935 1.23468 .12872 4.7378 5.2492 1.14 7.00
Total 613 5.1781 1.22123 .04933 5.0812 5.2750 1.00 7.00
CareerDev Official and Admin 65 5.4908 1.06971 .13268 5.2257 5.7558 1.40 7.00
Professional 104 5.1635 1.26974 .12451 4.9165 5.4104 1.00 7.00
Technician 73 4.5644 1.32554 .15514 4.2551 4.8737 1.80 7.00
Protective Service 81 4.8222 1.43944 .15994 4.5039 5.1405 1.00 7.00
Paraprofessional 7 5.1429 1.59045 .60113 3.6719 6.6138 3.00 7.00
Admin Support 68 4.3809 1.45222 .17611 4.0294 4.7324 1.40 7.00
Skilled Craft 123 4.8203 1.24044 .11185 4.5989 5.0417 1.00 7.00
I don't know 92 4.6478 1.33470 .13915 4.3714 4.9242 1.00 7.00
Total 613 4.8485 1.34080 .05415 4.7421 4.9548 1.00 7.00
Resources Official and Admin 63 5.6190 1.27543 .16069 5.2978 5.9403 2.00 7.00
85
Professional 104 5.4423 1.32802 .13022 5.1840 5.7006 1.00 7.00
Skilled Craft 123 5.0081 1.60172 .14442 4.7222 5.2940 1.00 7.00
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
95% Confidence
TwoWayComm Official and Admin Professional .35399 .19643 .873 -.2608 .9687
*
Technician .82240 .21187 .003 .1593 1.4855
*
Protective Service .67827 .20688 .030 .0308 1.3257
86
*
Technician .77194 .17753 .000 .2163 1.3275
*
Protective Service 1.10185 .17335 .000 .5593 1.6444
Paraprofessional .41738 .41409 1.000 -.8786 1.7133
*
Admin Support .62940 .18057 .015 .0643 1.1945
*
Skilled Craft .85764 .15963 .000 .3581 1.3572
*
I don't know .72041 .16867 .001 .1925 1.2483
Professional Official and Admin -.34245 .16459 .657 -.8576 .1727
Technician .42949 .15895 .180 -.0680 .9269
*
Protective Service .75940 .15426 .000 .2766 1.2422
Paraprofessional .07493 .40648 1.000 -1.1972 1.3471
Admin Support .28695 .16234 .893 -.2211 .7950
*
Skilled Craft .51519 .13867 .006 .0812 .9492
I don't know .37796 .14899 .274 -.0883 .8442
Teamwork Official and Admin Professional .54984 .19390 .124 -.0570 1.1567
*
Technician 1.03015 .20914 .000 .3756 1.6847
*
Protective Service 1.58647 .20422 .000 .9473 2.2256
Paraprofessional .86017 .48784 .895 -.6666 2.3869
*
Admin Support 1.05614 .21273 .000 .3904 1.7219
*
Skilled Craft 1.06394 .18806 .000 .4754 1.6525
*
I don't know .95658 .19871 .000 .3347 1.5785
Professional Official and Admin -.54984 .19390 .124 -1.1567 .0570
Technician .48030 .18725 .256 -.1057 1.0663
*
Protective Service 1.03662 .18174 .000 .4679 1.6054
Paraprofessional .31033 .47887 1.000 -1.1883 1.8090
Admin Support .50629 .19125 .208 -.0923 1.1048
*
Skilled Craft .51409 .16337 .047 .0028 1.0254
I don't know .40673 .17552 .442 -.1426 .9561
PublicServiceMotiv Official and Admin Professional .20003 .17476 1.000 -.3469 .7470
Technician .57891 .18849 .060 -.0110 1.1688
*
Protective Service .64347 .18405 .014 .0675 1.2195
Paraprofessional .08733 .43967 1.000 -1.2887 1.4633
Admin Support .37472 .19172 .766 -.2253 .9747
*
Skilled Craft .71996 .16949 .001 .1895 1.2504
*
I don't know .60666 .17909 .021 .0462 1.1671
Professional Official and Admin -.20003 .17476 1.000 -.7470 .3469
Technician .37888 .16876 .506 -.1493 .9070
Protective Service .44344 .16379 .177 -.0692 .9560
Paraprofessional -.11271 .43158 1.000 -1.4634 1.2380
Admin Support .17469 .17237 1.000 -.3648 .7141
87
*
Skilled Craft .51993 .14723 .012 .0591 .9807
I don't know .40663 .15819 .252 -.0885 .9017
RelationWithCowork Official and Admin Professional .09606 .18579 1.000 -.4854 .6775
*
Technician .83222 .20038 .001 .2051 1.4594
Protective Service .51945 .19567 .204 -.0929 1.1318
Paraprofessional .64715 .46742 .993 -.8157 2.1100
*
Admin Support .77380 .20383 .005 .1359 1.4117
*
Skilled Craft .98562 .18018 .000 .4217 1.5495
*
I don't know .77607 .19039 .001 .1802 1.3719
Professional Official and Admin -.09606 .18579 1.000 -.6775 .4854
*
Technician .73616 .17941 .001 .1747 1.2977
Protective Service .42339 .17413 .349 -.1216 .9683
Paraprofessional .55109 .45882 .999 -.8848 1.9870
*
Admin Support .67774 .18325 .007 .1042 1.2512
*
Skilled Craft .88956 .15653 .000 .3997 1.3794
*
I don't know .68000 .16817 .002 .1537 1.2063
CareerDev Official and Admin Professional .32731 .20709 .965 -.3208 .9754
*
Technician .92639 .22336 .001 .2273 1.6254
Protective Service .66855 .21811 .062 -.0140 1.3511
Paraprofessional .34791 .52102 1.000 -1.2827 1.9785
*
Admin Support 1.10989 .22720 .000 .3988 1.8209
*
Skilled Craft .67044 .20085 .025 .0419 1.2990
*
I don't know .84294 .21222 .002 .1788 1.5071
Professional Official and Admin -.32731 .20709 .965 -.9754 .3208
Technician .59908 .19999 .077 -.0268 1.2250
Protective Service .34124 .19410 .898 -.2662 .9487
Paraprofessional .02060 .51143 1.000 -1.5800 1.6212
*
Admin Support .78258 .20426 .004 .1433 1.4218
Skilled Craft .34314 .17448 .756 -.2029 .8892
I don't know .51564 .18746 .157 -.0710 1.1023
Resources Official and Admin Professional .17674 .23916 1.000 -.5718 .9252
88
*
Professional -.81268 .22200 .008 -1.5075 -.1179
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max
TwoWayComm American Indian 5 5.0000 2.05264 .91797 2.4513 7.5487 1.60 6.67
Hispanic 8 5.6788 1.19268 .42167 4.6817 6.6759 2.87 6.60
Black 33 5.2139 1.16814 .20335 4.7996 5.6281 2.60 7.00
White 558 5.1603 1.24719 .05280 5.0565 5.2640 1.00 7.00
Asian 3 5.0444 .34211 .19752 4.1946 5.8943 4.67 5.33
Other 17 4.6863 1.69751 .41171 3.8135 5.5591 1.00 6.80
Total 624 5.1550 1.26023 .05045 5.0559 5.2541 1.00 7.00
TopDownComm American Indian 5 4.7250 1.90886 .85367 2.3548 7.0952 1.75 6.25
Hispanic 8 5.4978 .76058 .26891 4.8619 6.1336 3.88 6.13
Black 33 5.1834 .80403 .13996 4.8983 5.4685 3.43 6.75
White 559 4.9473 1.01184 .04280 4.8632 5.0313 1.63 7.00
Asian 3 5.0000 .45069 .26021 3.8804 6.1196 4.63 5.50
Other 17 4.3603 1.23971 .30067 3.7229 4.9977 1.25 5.75
Total 625 4.9493 1.01746 .04070 4.8694 5.0292 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust American Indian 5 4.7083 1.09370 .48912 3.3503 6.0663 3.33 6.17
Hispanic 8 5.0521 1.09421 .38686 4.1373 5.9669 3.08 6.13
Black 33 5.0808 .89091 .15509 4.7649 5.3967 3.13 6.92
White 559 4.8235 1.06423 .04501 4.7351 4.9119 1.04 7.00
Asian 3 5.0278 1.25023 .72182 1.9220 8.1335 3.67 6.13
Other 17 4.1397 1.52496 .36986 3.3556 4.9238 1.25 5.92
Total 625 4.8214 1.07538 .04302 4.7370 4.9059 1.04 7.00
Teamwork American Indian 5 4.2857 1.60675 .71856 2.2907 6.2808 1.71 5.86
Hispanic 8 4.6220 1.34123 .47420 3.5007 5.7433 2.29 6.14
Black 33 4.6797 1.00491 .17493 4.3233 5.0360 2.57 6.57
89
White 559 4.2801 1.29236 .05466 4.1727 4.3875 1.00 7.00
Asian 3 4.5238 .71903 .41513 2.7376 6.3100 3.86 5.29
Other 17 3.6891 1.56022 .37841 2.8869 4.4913 1.14 6.14
Total 625 4.2907 1.29065 .05163 4.1893 4.3921 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv American Indian 5 5.6000 .54772 .24495 4.9199 6.2801 4.80 6.20
Hispanic 8 6.4333 .59308 .20969 5.9375 6.9292 5.60 7.00
Black 33 6.0545 .78942 .13742 5.7746 6.3345 4.20 7.00
White 559 5.6577 1.11343 .04709 5.5652 5.7502 1.00 7.00
Asian 3 6.0667 .30551 .17638 5.3078 6.8256 5.80 6.40
Other 17 4.8235 1.51967 .36858 4.0422 5.6049 1.20 6.80
Total 625 5.6674 1.11430 .04457 5.5798 5.7549 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork American Indian 5 3.9714 .89443 .40000 2.8609 5.0820 2.43 4.57
Hispanic 8 5.3571 .91109 .32212 4.5954 6.1188 4.43 6.86
Black 33 5.1169 1.21347 .21124 4.6866 5.5472 1.14 7.00
White 559 5.1991 1.22561 .05184 5.0973 5.3009 1.57 7.00
Asian 3 4.7143 .62270 .35952 3.1674 6.2612 4.00 5.14
Other 17 4.6639 1.50165 .36420 3.8918 5.4359 1.00 6.86
Total 625 5.1701 1.23009 .04920 5.0735 5.2667 1.00 7.00
CareerDev American Indian 5 5.1200 1.26965 .56780 3.5435 6.6965 3.60 6.40
Hispanic 8 5.0500 1.46872 .51927 3.8221 6.2779 2.60 6.20
Black 33 4.9636 1.16346 .20253 4.5511 5.3762 2.40 6.80
White 559 4.8653 1.33758 .05657 4.7542 4.9764 1.00 7.00
Asian 3 4.6667 1.47422 .85114 1.0045 8.3288 3.00 5.80
Other 17 3.9059 1.78061 .43186 2.9904 4.8214 1.00 6.00
Total 625 4.8478 1.34852 .05394 4.7419 4.9538 1.00 7.00
Resources American Indian 5 5.0000 2.00000 .89443 2.5167 7.4833 2.00 7.00
Hispanic 8 6.0000 1.30931 .46291 4.9054 7.0946 3.00 7.00
Black 33 5.3030 1.33428 .23227 4.8299 5.7761 2.00 7.00
White 556 5.2194 1.52530 .06469 5.0924 5.3465 1.00 7.00
Asian 3 5.6667 1.15470 .66667 2.7982 8.5351 5.00 7.00
Other 17 5.0000 1.45774 .35355 4.2505 5.7495 1.00 7.00
Total 622 5.2283 1.51194 .06062 5.1092 5.3473 1.00 7.00
90
Appendix I: Composite Score Averages by Residence
Descriptives
Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error
TwoWayComm In the city of Columbia 278 5.0781 1.36507 .08187
In Boone County 235 5.1730 1.23533 .08058
None of the above 106 5.3070 .96339 .09357
Total 619 5.1533 1.25598 .05048
TopDownComm In the city of Columbia 278 4.9813 1.03177 .06188
In Boone County 236 4.8719 1.06517 .06934
None of the above 106 5.0305 .85340 .08289
Total 620 4.9481 1.01712 .04085
CoreValueTrust In the city of Columbia 278 4.8566 1.10094 .06603
In Boone County 236 4.7695 1.08233 .07045
None of the above 106 4.8302 1.02457 .09951
Total 620 4.8189 1.08018 .04338
Teamwork In the city of Columbia 278 4.2781 1.39670 .08377
In Boone County 236 4.2651 1.22198 .07954
None of the above 106 4.3537 1.15047 .11174
Total 620 4.2861 1.29049 .05183
PublicServiceMotiv In the city of Columbia 278 5.7493 1.14561 .06871
In Boone County 236 5.5877 1.10129 .07169
None of the above 106 5.5623 1.09757 .10661
Total 620 5.6558 1.12218 .04507
RelationWithCowork In the city of Columbia 278 5.2132 1.24506 .07467
In Boone County 236 5.1593 1.23326 .08028
None of the above 106 5.1089 1.18634 .11523
Total 620 5.1749 1.22937 .04937
CareerDev In the city of Columbia 278 4.7797 1.42475 .08545
In Boone County 236 4.8619 1.34097 .08729
None of the above 106 5.0014 1.09893 .10674
Total 620 4.8489 1.34243 .05391
Resources In the city of Columbia 277 5.2238 1.57209 .09446
In Boone County 235 5.2085 1.49470 .09750
None of the above 106 5.2925 1.44728 .14057
Total 618 5.2298 1.51992 .06114
91
Appendix J: Composite Score Average by Supervise
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max
TwoWayComm None 392 4.9998 1.31402 .06637 4.8693 5.1303 1.00 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 5.3460 1.13691 .10379 5.1405 5.5515 1.60 7.00
Between 6 and 10 45 5.3160 1.12469 .16766 4.9781 5.6539 1.73 6.93
Between 10 and 19 20 5.5369 .85759 .19176 5.1355 5.9383 2.80 6.93
20 or more 37 5.7957 .98508 .16195 5.4672 6.1241 2.27 7.00
Total 614 5.1561 1.25572 .05068 5.0566 5.2556 1.00 7.00
TopDownComm None 393 4.8160 1.07616 .05429 4.7093 4.9227 1.25 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 5.0993 .87612 .07998 4.9409 5.2577 2.13 6.88
Between 6 and 10 45 5.1389 .88397 .13177 4.8733 5.4045 3.50 7.00
Between 10 and 19 20 5.1955 .65850 .14725 4.8873 5.5037 3.88 6.38
20 or more 37 5.6361 .62081 .10206 5.4291 5.8431 4.38 7.00
Total 615 4.9566 1.01436 .04090 4.8763 5.0369 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust None 393 4.6763 1.10271 .05562 4.5669 4.7857 1.04 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 5.0006 1.04613 .09550 4.8115 5.1897 2.13 6.92
Between 6 and 10 45 5.0113 1.05725 .15761 4.6937 5.3289 2.67 6.71
Between 10 and 19 20 5.0125 .76664 .17143 4.6537 5.3713 3.33 6.54
20 or more 37 5.4611 .79907 .13137 5.1947 5.7275 3.63 6.88
Total 615 4.8222 1.08277 .04366 4.7365 4.9080 1.04 7.00
Teamwork None 393 4.0774 1.29316 .06523 3.9491 4.2056 1.00 6.86
Between 1 and 5 120 4.5191 1.19801 .10936 4.3025 4.7356 1.57 6.71
Between 6 and 10 45 4.5714 1.38706 .20677 4.1547 4.9881 1.00 6.57
Between 10 and 19 20 4.6821 1.06239 .23756 4.1849 5.1794 2.29 6.43
20 or more 37 5.2944 .88526 .14554 4.9992 5.5896 3.57 7.00
Total 615 4.2926 1.29435 .05219 4.1901 4.3951 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv None 393 5.4961 1.19897 .06048 5.3772 5.6150 1.00 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 5.8483 .98459 .08988 5.6704 6.0263 2.40 7.00
Between 6 and 10 45 5.9422 .92306 .13760 5.6649 6.2195 1.20 7.00
Between 10 and 19 20 5.7400 .83123 .18587 5.3510 6.1290 3.40 7.00
20 or more 37 6.2441 .70256 .11550 6.0099 6.4784 4.20 7.00
Total 615 5.6504 1.12591 .04540 5.5612 5.7396 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork None 393 5.0349 1.28103 .06462 4.9079 5.1619 1.00 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 5.3452 1.12036 .10227 5.1427 5.5478 1.71 7.00
92
Between 6 and 10 45 5.3942 1.29041 .19236 5.0065 5.7819 1.57 7.00
Between 10 and 19 20 5.5000 .86525 .19348 5.0951 5.9049 3.14 6.71
20 or more 37 5.6834 .93383 .15352 5.3720 5.9948 2.57 7.00
Total 615 5.1759 1.23505 .04980 5.0781 5.2737 1.00 7.00
CareerDev None 393 4.6774 1.39051 .07014 4.5395 4.8153 1.00 7.00
Between 1 and 5 120 4.9983 1.26265 .11526 4.7701 5.2266 2.20 7.00
Between 6 and 10 45 5.1289 1.24035 .18490 4.7562 5.5015 1.20 7.00
Between 10 and 19 20 5.5000 .62744 .14030 5.2063 5.7937 4.40 6.20
20 or more 37 5.6676 .87815 .14437 5.3748 5.9604 4.00 7.00
Total 615 4.8593 1.33944 .05401 4.7533 4.9654 1.00 7.00
Resources None 393 5.1399 1.54796 .07808 4.9864 5.2935 1.00 7.00
Between 1 and 5 119 5.4118 1.44628 .13258 5.1492 5.6743 1.00 7.00
Between 6 and 10 45 5.4222 1.37327 .20471 5.0096 5.8348 2.00 7.00
Between 10 and 19 20 5.1000 1.71372 .38320 4.2980 5.9020 1.00 7.00
20 or more 36 5.5833 1.40153 .23359 5.1091 6.0575 2.00 7.00
Total 613 5.2382 1.51637 .06125 5.1179 5.3585 1.00 7.00
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
(I) How many persons (J) How many persons do Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable do you supervise? you supervise? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
93
*
20 or more -.78481 .18292 .000 -1.2987 -.2709
*
Teamwork None Between 1 and 5 -.44172 .13088 .008 -.8094 -.0740
Between 6 and 10 -.49406 .19749 .119 -1.0489 .0608
Between 10 and 19 -.60477 .28766 .305 -1.4129 .2034
*
20 or more -1.21703 .21580 .000 -1.8233 -.6108
*
20 or more None 1.21703 .21580 .000 .6108 1.8233
*
Between 1 and 5 .77531 .23598 .011 .1124 1.4383
Between 6 and 10 .72297 .27849 .092 -.0594 1.5053
Between 10 and 19 .61226 .34828 .560 -.3662 1.5907
*
PublicServiceMotiv None Between 1 and 5 -.35223 .11544 .023 -.6765 -.0279
Between 6 and 10 -.44612 .17418 .102 -.9355 .0432
Between 10 and 19 -.24390 .25371 .983 -.9566 .4688
*
20 or more -.74805 .19033 .001 -1.2827 -.2133
RelationWithCowork None Between 1 and 5 -.31034 .12750 .142 -.6685 .0478
Between 6 and 10 -.35928 .19238 .473 -.8997 .1812
Between 10 and 19 -.46510 .28021 .640 -1.2523 .3221
*
20 or more -.64850 .21021 .021 -1.2391 -.0579
CareerDev None Between 1 and 5 -.32098 .13688 .177 -.7055 .0635
Between 6 and 10 -.45154 .20653 .256 -1.0318 .1287
Between 10 and 19 -.82265 .30083 .062 -1.6678 .0225
*
20 or more -.99021 .22568 .000 -1.6242 -.3562
94
Appendix K: Composite Score Averages by Tenure
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
TwoWayComm Less than 1 year 57 5.4989 1.22035 .16164 5.1751 5.8227 2.27 6.93
95
11 to 15 years 89 5.5579 1.21246 .12852 5.3025 5.8133 2.00 7.00
16 to 20 years 81 5.7309 1.15463 .12829 5.4756 5.9862 1.20 7.00
21+ years 84 5.4500 1.08926 .11885 5.2136 5.6864 1.60 7.00
Total 627 5.6525 1.12973 .04512 5.5639 5.7411 1.00 7.00
RelationWithCowork Less than 1 year 57 5.5685 1.19523 .15831 5.2514 5.8856 2.00 7.00
1 to 5 years 178 5.0814 1.18910 .08913 4.9055 5.2573 1.00 7.00
6 to 10 years 138 5.0439 1.31299 .11177 4.8229 5.2649 1.14 7.00
11 to 15 years 89 5.2509 1.16724 .12373 5.0051 5.4968 1.57 7.00
16 to 20 years 81 5.2504 1.28304 .14256 4.9667 5.5341 1.71 7.00
21+ years 84 5.1341 1.15364 .12587 4.8837 5.3844 2.43 7.00
Total 627 5.1704 1.22694 .04900 5.0742 5.2666 1.00 7.00
CareerDev Less than 1 year 57 5.3728 1.32833 .17594 5.0204 5.7253 1.20 7.00
1 to 5 years 178 4.8787 1.29095 .09676 4.6877 5.0696 1.00 7.00
6 to 10 years 138 4.7286 1.41792 .12070 4.4899 4.9673 1.00 7.00
11 to 15 years 89 4.7528 1.32288 .14023 4.4741 5.0315 1.00 7.00
16 to 20 years 81 4.7753 1.49412 .16601 4.4449 5.1057 1.00 7.00
21+ years 84 4.7440 1.21748 .13284 4.4798 5.0083 1.00 7.00
Total 627 4.8413 1.35231 .05401 4.7353 4.9474 1.00 7.00
Resources Less than 1 year 57 5.3860 1.65567 .21930 4.9467 5.8253 1.00 7.00
96
Appendix L: Significance Test Results for Morale by Department
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
Hochberg
(I) In what department (J) In what department are you Mean Std. Lower Upper
are you employed? employed? Difference (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Fire Department City Manager's Office .902 .634 1.000 -1.32 3.12
Information Technologies 1.402 .529 .573 -.45 3.26
Municipal Court 2.402 .910 .586 -.79 5.59
*
Parks and Rec Department 1.594 .373 .002 .29 2.90
*
Community Development Dep 2.087 .417 .000 .62 3.55
*
Water & Light 2.752 .302 .000 1.69 3.81
Convention and Visitors Bureau .302 .822 1.000 -2.58 3.18
*
Finance Department 2.589 .395 .000 1.20 3.98
*
Public Health and Human Services 1.902 .376 .000 .58 3.22
Human Resources Department .235 .563 1.000 -1.74 2.21
Law Department 1.152 .667 1.000 -1.19 3.49
*
Police Department 3.535 .334 .000 2.36 4.71
*
Public Communications Dept. 2.346 .634 .024 .12 4.57
*
Public Works Department 1.757 .279 .000 .78 2.74
Water & Light City Manager's Office -1.850 .610 .232 -3.99 .29
*
Fire Department -2.752 .302 .000 -3.81 -1.69
Information Technologies -1.350 .500 .523 -3.10 .40
Municipal Court -.350 .894 1.000 -3.48 2.78
Parks and Rec Department -1.158 .331 .052 -2.32 .00
Community Development Depart -.665 .380 1.000 -2.00 .67
Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.450 .803 .221 -5.27 .37
Finance Department -.163 .356 1.000 -1.41 1.09
Public Health and Human Services -.850 .334 .685 -2.02 .32
*
Human Resources Department -2.517 .536 .000 -4.39 -.64
Law Department -1.600 .644 .744 -3.86 .66
Police Department .783 .286 .484 -.22 1.79
Public Communications Dept. -.406 .610 1.000 -2.55 1.73
*
Public Works Department -.995 .220 .001 -1.77 -.22
*
Police Department City Manager's Office -2.633 .627 .003 -4.83 -.44
*
Fire Department -3.535 .334 .000 -4.71 -2.36
97
*
Information Technologies -2.133 .520 .005 -3.96 -.31
Municipal Court -1.133 .905 1.000 -4.31 2.04
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.941 .361 .000 -3.21 -.68
*
Community Development Depart -1.448 .406 .041 -2.87 -.02
Water & Light -.783 .286 .484 -1.79 .22
*
Convention and Visitors Bureau -3.233 .816 .009 -6.09 -.37
Finance Department -.946 .384 .763 -2.29 .40
*
Public Health and Human Services -1.633 .363 .001 -2.91 -.36
*
Human Resources Department -3.300 .554 .000 -5.24 -1.36
*
Law Department -2.383 .660 .034 -4.70 -.07
Public Communications Dept. -1.189 .627 .998 -3.39 1.01
*
Public Works Department -1.778 .263 .000 -2.70 -.86
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Hochberg
95% Confidence
98
Information Technologies -.140 .556 1.000 -2.09 1.81
Municipal Court .467 .967 1.000 -2.92 3.86
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.704 .388 .001 -3.07 -.34
Community Development Department -1.033 .429 .810 -2.54 .47
Water & Light .127 .306 1.000 -.95 1.20
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.683 .872 .996 -4.74 1.37
Finance Department -.859 .406 .971 -2.28 .56
Public Health and Human Services -.862 .388 .935 -2.22 .50
*
Human Resources Department -2.867 .592 .000 -4.94 -.79
Law Department -2.283 .705 .124 -4.75 .19
Public Communications Dept. -2.283 .669 .070 -4.63 .06
*
Public Works Department -1.084 .280 .012 -2.07 -.10
99
Appendix N: Significance Test of fair pay variable by Department
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I feel that my pay is fair.
Hochberg
95% Confidence
Interval
(I) In what department (J) In what department are you Mean Std. Lower Upper
are you employed? employed? Difference (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Water & Light City Manager's Office -2.131 .655 .119 -4.43 .17
*
Fire Department -1.232 .322 .015 -2.36 -.10
Information Technologies -.234 .538 1.000 -2.12 1.65
Municipal Court -.220 .863 1.000 -3.25 2.81
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.610 .356 .001 -2.86 -.36
Community Development Department -1.127 .403 .423 -2.54 .29
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.820 .863 .973 -4.85 1.21
Finance Department -.583 .383 1.000 -1.92 .76
Public Health and Human Services -1.020 .359 .384 -2.28 .24
*
Human Resources Department -2.770 .575 .000 -4.79 -.75
Law Department -2.020 .692 .315 -4.45 .41
Police Department .132 .310 1.000 -.95 1.22
Public Communications Dept. -2.131 .655 .119 -4.43 .17
Public Works Department -.715 .236 .235 -1.54 .11
Police Department City Manager's Office -2.264 .674 .083 -4.63 .10
*
Fire Department -1.364 .358 .016 -2.62 -.11
Information Technologies -.367 .560 1.000 -2.33 1.60
Municipal Court -.353 .877 1.000 -3.43 2.72
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.742 .389 .001 -3.10 -.38
Community Development Department -1.260 .432 .318 -2.77 .26
Water & Light -.132 .310 1.000 -1.22 .95
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.953 .877 .933 -5.03 1.12
Finance Department -.715 .413 1.000 -2.16 .73
Public Health and Human Services -1.153 .392 .296 -2.53 .22
*
Human Resources Department -2.903 .596 .000 -4.99 -.81
Law Department -2.153 .709 .230 -4.64 .33
Public Communications Dept. -2.264 .674 .083 -4.63 .10
Public Works Department -.847 .283 .258 -1.84 .14
100
Appendix O: Significance Test of benefits package variable by Department
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.
Hochberg
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
101
Appendix P: Average scores of additional pay and benefits questions by
Department
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
I am satisfied with City Manager's Office 9 5.11 1.616 .539 3.87 6.35 2 7
my base pay. Fire Department 52 4.00 1.704 .236 3.53 4.47 1 7
Public Health and Human Services 37 3.78 1.873 .308 3.16 4.41 1 7
102
Public Works Department 176 3.81 1.829 .138 3.53 4.08 1 7
Total 581 3.73 1.893 .079 3.58 3.89 1 7
I am satisfied with City Manager's Office 9 5.22 1.787 .596 3.85 6.60 2 7
the City's Fire Department 52 5.52 1.291 .179 5.16 5.88 1 7
retirement plan. Information Technologies 14 5.57 1.453 .388 4.73 6.41 2 7
Municipal Court 5 4.40 1.517 .678 2.52 6.28 3 6
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.49 1.393 .223 5.04 5.94 1 7
Community Development Department 28 5.79 1.315 .249 5.28 6.30 1 7
Water & Light 100 4.67 1.688 .169 4.34 5.00 1 7
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.40 .548 .245 5.72 7.08 6 7
Finance Department 33 5.33 1.021 .178 4.97 5.70 3 7
Public Health and Human Services 37 4.89 1.680 .276 4.33 5.45 1 7
Human Resources Department 12 6.33 .651 .188 5.92 6.75 5 7
Law Department 8 6.00 .000 .000 6.00 6.00 6 6
Police Department 60 4.32 1.944 .251 3.81 4.82 1 7
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.56 1.333 .444 4.53 6.58 3 7
Public Works Department 178 4.99 1.414 .106 4.78 5.20 1 7
Total 589 5.07 1.549 .064 4.95 5.20 1 7
I am satisfied with City Manager's Office 9 5.44 1.333 .444 4.42 6.47 4 7
the healthcare/ Fire Department 52 4.85 1.577 .219 4.41 5.29 1 7
medical benefits Information Technologies 14 5.29 1.383 .370 4.49 6.08 2 7
offered by the Municipal Court 5 4.40 1.817 .812 2.14 6.66 2 6
City. Parks and Rec Department 39 5.26 1.601 .256 4.74 5.78 1 7
Community Development Department 28 5.68 1.416 .268 5.13 6.23 1 7
Water & Light 100 4.16 1.857 .186 3.79 4.53 1 7
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.60 .548 .245 5.92 7.28 6 7
Finance Department 33 5.21 1.269 .221 4.76 5.66 2 7
Public Health and Human Services 37 5.22 1.294 .213 4.78 5.65 2 7
Human Resources Department 12 6.33 .651 .188 5.92 6.75 5 7
Law Department 8 5.50 1.414 .500 4.32 6.68 2 6
Police Department 60 4.22 1.786 .231 3.76 4.68 1 7
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.56 1.333 .444 4.53 6.58 3 7
Public Works Department 178 4.92 1.567 .117 4.69 5.15 1 7
Total 589 4.88 1.652 .068 4.75 5.01 1 7
I am satisfied with City Manager's Office 9 5.22 1.641 .547 3.96 6.48 2 7
the City's paid Fire Department 52 5.50 1.196 .166 5.17 5.83 1 7
time off Information Technologies 14 5.14 1.834 .490 4.08 6.20 1 7
(vacations, Municipal Court 5 3.60 2.302 1.030 .74 6.46 1 6
holidays, sick Parks and Rec Department 39 5.79 1.174 .188 5.41 6.18 3 7
103
days, floating Community Development Department 28 5.39 1.750 .331 4.71 6.07 1 7
holidays, comp Water & Light 100 4.89 1.746 .175 4.54 5.24 1 7
time). Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.40 .894 .400 5.29 7.51 5 7
Finance Department 33 4.82 1.911 .333 4.14 5.50 1 7
Public Health and Human Services 37 4.86 1.686 .277 4.30 5.43 1 7
Human Resources Department 12 5.83 1.403 .405 4.94 6.73 2 7
Law Department 8 5.63 1.302 .460 4.54 6.71 3 7
Police Department 60 4.43 1.807 .233 3.97 4.90 1 7
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.44 1.333 .444 4.42 6.47 3 7
Public Works Department 178 5.33 1.440 .108 5.11 5.54 1 7
Total 589 5.16 1.612 .066 5.03 5.29 1 7
My pay and City Manager's Office 9 4.67 1.658 .553 3.39 5.94 2 7
benefits allow me Fire Department 52 5.00 1.428 .198 4.60 5.40 1 7
to support my Information Technologies 14 4.64 1.737 .464 3.64 5.65 2 7
family.
Municipal Court 5 4.20 1.643 .735 2.16 6.24 2 6
Public Health and Human Services 36 4.64 1.743 .290 4.05 5.23 1 7
104
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
95% Confidence
department are (J) In what department are you Difference Std. Lower Upper
you employed? employed? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
Water & Light City Manager's Office -2.261 .620 .030 -4.43 -.09
I am satisfied
*
with my base Fire Department -1.150 .304 .018 -2.22 -.08
Public Health and Human Services -.934 .343 .495 -2.14 .27
*
Human Resources Department -2.317 .544 .003 -4.22 -.41
*
Law Department -2.650 .654 .006 -4.94 -.36
Public Health and Human Services -.919 .373 .765 -2.23 .39
*
Human Resources Department -2.302 .564 .005 -4.28 -.33
*
Law Department -2.636 .671 .010 -4.99 -.28
105
than I was a Information Technologies .092 .523 1.000 -1.74 1.93
year ago. Municipal Court -1.580 .840 .998 -4.53 1.37
Parks and Rec Department -.929 .347 .543 -2.14 .29
Community Development Department -.609 .398 1.000 -2.00 .79
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.780 .840 .971 -4.73 1.17
Finance Department -.646 .368 1.000 -1.94 .65
Public Health and Human Services -1.037 .360 .351 -2.30 .23
*
Human Resources Department -2.563 .560 .001 -4.53 -.60
Law Department -1.355 .674 .990 -3.72 1.01
Police Department -.217 .301 1.000 -1.27 .84
Public Communications Dept. -1.091 .638 1.000 -3.33 1.15
Public Works Department -.787 .230 .069 -1.59 .02
I am satisfied
with the City's Police City Manager's Office -.906 .534 1.000 -2.78 .97
retirement *
Department Fire Department -1.203 .283 .003 -2.20 -.21
plan. Information Technologies -1.255 .444 .393 -2.81 .30
Municipal Court -.083 .696 1.000 -2.52 2.36
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.171 .307 .016 -2.25 -.09
*
Community Development Department -1.469 .342 .002 -2.67 -.27
Water & Light -.353 .244 1.000 -1.21 .50
Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.083 .696 .257 -4.52 .36
Finance Department -1.017 .324 .169 -2.15 .12
Public Health and Human Services -.575 .312 .999 -1.67 .52
*
Human Resources Department -2.017 .473 .002 -3.67 -.36
Law Department -1.683 .562 .259 -3.66 .29
Public Communications Dept. -1.239 .534 .880 -3.11 .63
Public Works Department -.672 .223 .245 -1.45 .11
I am satisfied
with the Water & Light City Manager's Office -1.284 .551 .873 -3.22 .65
healthcare/me Fire Department -.686 .271 .696 -1.64 .26
dical benefits Information Technologies -1.126 .452 .739 -2.71 .46
offered by the Municipal Court -.240 .726 1.000 -2.79 2.31
City. *
Parks and Rec Department -1.096 .299 .028 -2.15 -.05
*
Community Development Department -1.519 .339 .001 -2.71 -.33
Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.440 .726 .083 -4.99 .11
Finance Department -1.052 .318 .099 -2.17 .06
Public Health and Human Services -1.056 .305 .058 -2.13 .01
*
Human Resources Department -2.173 .484 .001 -3.87 -.48
Law Department -1.340 .582 .892 -3.38 .70
106
Police Department -.057 .259 1.000 -.96 .85
Public Communications Dept. -1.396 .551 .698 -3.33 .54
*
Public Works Department -.761 .198 .014 -1.46 -.07
Police City Manager's Office -1.228 .566 .956 -3.21 .76
Department Fire Department -.629 .300 .976 -1.68 .42
Information Technologies -1.069 .470 .909 -2.72 .58
Municipal Court -.183 .738 1.000 -2.77 2.40
Parks and Rec Department -1.040 .326 .145 -2.18 .10
*
Community Development Department -1.462 .363 .007 -2.73 -.19
Water & Light .057 .259 1.000 -.85 .96
Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.383 .738 .127 -4.97 .20
Finance Department -.995 .343 .332 -2.20 .21
Public Health and Human Services -1.000 .331 .241 -2.16 .16
*
Human Resources Department -2.117 .501 .003 -3.87 -.36
Law Department -1.283 .596 .961 -3.37 .81
Public Communications Dept. -1.339 .566 .848 -3.32 .65
Public Works Department -.705 .237 .268 -1.53 .12
I am satisfied
with the City's Police City Manager's Office -.789 .563 1.000 -2.76 1.19
paid time off *
Department Fire Department -1.067 .299 .039 -2.11 -.02
(vacations, Information Technologies -.710 .468 1.000 -2.35 .93
holidays, sick Municipal Court .833 .734 1.000 -1.74 3.41
days, floating *
Parks and Rec Department -1.362 .324 .003 -2.50 -.22
holidays, comp
Community Development Department -.960 .361 .564 -2.22 .31
time).
Water & Light -.457 .257 1.000 -1.36 .45
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.967 .734 .542 -4.54 .61
Finance Department -.385 .342 1.000 -1.58 .81
Public Health and Human Services -.432 .330 1.000 -1.59 .72
Human Resources Department -1.400 .498 .413 -3.15 .35
Law Department -1.192 .593 .990 -3.27 .89
Public Communications Dept. -1.011 .563 .999 -2.99 .96
*
Public Works Department -.893 .235 .017 -1.72 -.07
My pay and
benefits allow Police City Manager's Office -1.040 .591 1.000 -3.11 1.03
me to support Department Fire Department -1.373
*
.314 .002 -2.47 -.27
my family.
Information Technologies -1.016 .491 .981 -2.74 .70
Municipal Court -.573 .769 1.000 -3.27 2.12
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.578 .341 .000 -2.77 -.38
107
*
Community Development Department -1.623 .379 .002 -2.95 -.29
Public Health and Human Services -1.012 .349 .332 -2.24 .21
*
Human Resources Department -2.206 .523 .003 -4.04 -.37
108
References
Agrawal S., Harter J. K., Killham E. A., Schmidt F. L. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: the
relationship between engagement at work and organization outcomes. Washington, D.C.: University
Press.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). “Job demands and job
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62,
341-356.
Bakker, A.B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M.C. (2006). “Crossover of burnout and
engagement in work teams” Work and Occupations. 33:464-488.
Bersin & Associates / David Mallon, Janet Clarey and Mark Vickers, (August 2012) The High-
Impact Learning Organization Maturity Model®, www.bersin.com/hilo.
Bliss, W. (2010) “Developing and Sustaining Employee Engagement” Society for Human
Resource Management
Bolman, L G and Deal, T. E. (2008) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Choi, Sanghan. (2009). “The Emergence of Shared Leadership from Organizational Dimensions
of Local Government.” International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1): 94-114
Corbett, Christi (Spring 2015) “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap.” A report of the
Amerian Association of University Women (AUW) Washington, DC.
Feeny, M. K. and Barry Bozeman (2009) “Staying Late: Comparing Work Hours in Public and
Nonprofit Sectors.” The American Review of Public Administration
Gould-Williams, Julian. (2007) “HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes:
evaluating social exchange relationships in local government.” International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(9): 1627-1647.
Greengard, S. (December 2004) “Employee surveys: ask the right questions, probe the answers
for insight”. Workforce Management,
109
Harrison, L. M., Davis, M. V., MacDonald, P., Alexander, L. K., Cline, J. S., Alexander, J. G.,
Rothney, E. E., Rybka, T. P., and Stevens, R. H. (2005) “ Development and Implementation of a Public
Health Workforce Training Needs Assessment Survey in North Carolina” Public Health 120: 28–34.
Hoxsey, D. (2010) “Are happy employee’s healthy employees? Researching the effects of
employee engagement on absenteeism” Canadian Public Administration. 53(4): 551-571.
Kim, S. (2002). “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management
Leadership.” Public Administration Review. 62(2), 231-241.
Leiter, M.P., & Schaufeli, W.B. (1996). “Consistency of the burnout construct across
occupations.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 9, 229-243.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.)
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mesch, D. J. (2010) “Management of Human Resources in 2020: The Outlook for Nonprofit
Indiana Organizations” Public Administration Review, Supplement, Vol. 70, ps173-s174, 2p
Ng, T. W. and Danial C Feldman (2010) “The Relationship of Age with Job Attitudes: A Meta-
Analysis” Personnel Psychology 63
Osatuke, K., S.C. Moore, C. Ward, S.R. Dyrenforth, and L. Belton. (2009) “Civility, Respect,
Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide Organization Development Intervention at
Veterans Health Administration” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45: 384.
Rainey, Hal G. (2003) Understanding & Managing Public Organizations. 3rd Edition. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Roberts, D. R. and Davenport, T. O. (2002), “Job engagement: Why it's important and how to
improve it”. Employment Relations Today, 29: 21–29
Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2004) “Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study”. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293-315.
110
Trahant, B. (2009) “Driving Better Performance through Continuous Employee Engagement”
Public Manager. Potomac: Spring 2009. 38, (1)pp 54-59
Van Der Wel, Z., De Graf G. and Lasthuizen, K. (2008) “What is Valued Most? Similarities and
Differences between the Organizational Values of the Public and Private Sector.” Public
Administration Vol. 86 (2)
Wright, B. E.; Davis, B. S. (2003). “Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Role of the Work
Environment,” The American Review of Public Administration. 33(1), 70-90.
111