Sei sulla pagina 1di 111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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.

Background on the Saliency of “Employee Engagement.”

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

Section One: Descriptive Statistics and Demographics

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.

City of Columbia Employee Demographics (2015)

Ethnicity Number Percentage


American Indian/Alaskan 6 0.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 5 0.4%
Black 131 9.6%
Hispanic 18 1.3%
Caucasian 1199 88.2%
Total 1359 100.0%

Gender Number Percentage


Female 350 25.8%
Male 1009 74.2%
Total 1359 100.0%

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%

Tenure Number Percentage


Less than 6 years 593 43.6%
6-10 Years 278 20.5%
11-15 Years 202 14.9%
16-19 Years 112 8.2%
20+ years 174 12.8%
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.

Demographics City County State


Population, 2013 estimate 115,276 170,929 6,044,917
Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 5.9% 5.1% 0.9%
Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 108,835 162,642 5,988,923
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 6.0% 6.0% 6.5%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 18.8% 20.6% 23.8%
Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 8.5% 10.1% 14.0%
Female persons, percent, 2010 51.7% 51.6% 51.0%
White alone, percent, 2010 (a) 79.0% 83.1% 82.8%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2010 (a) 11.3% 9.4% 11.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%
Asian alone, percent, 2010 (a) 5.2% 4.1% 1.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2010 (a) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Two or More Races, percent, 2010 3.1% 2.8% 2.1%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 (b) 3.4% 3.2% 3.5%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2010 77.0% 80.4% 81.0%
Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2009-2013 67.0% 73.3% 83.8%
Foreign-born persons, percent, 2009-2013 8.4% 6.3% 3.9%
Language other than English is spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2009-2013 10.9% 8.3% 6.1%
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 93.1% 93.0% 87.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2009-2013 54.5% 47.3% 26.2%
Veterans, 2009-2013 5,527 9,703 479,828
12
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2009-2013 16.5 18.2 23.1
Housing units, 2010 46,758 N/D 2,712,729
Homeownership rate, 2009-2013 48.6% 57.1% 68.4%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2009-2013 37.3% 29.4% 19.7%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2009-2013 $169,800 $162,200 $137,000
Households, 2009-2013 43,944 65,649 2,360,131
Persons per household, 2009-2013 2.32 2.38 2.47
Per capita money income in past 12 months (2013 dollars), 2009-2013 $26,110 $26,895 $25,649
Median household income, 2009-2013 $43,262 $48,627 $47,380
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2009-2013 24.5% 20.0% 15.5%
Notes:
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.
Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/2915670.html)

Section Two: Organizational Analysis

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

Cross-tabulation Job Classification and Race

My job is classified as which of the following? * Race Cross-tabulation

Race Total
American Indian /
Hispanic / Asian Black White Other

My job is Official and Admin Count 1 6 57 0 64


classified as % within Job Classification 1.6% 9.4% 89.1% 0.0% 100.0%
which of the Professional Count 1 1 99 3 104
following?
% within Job Classification .1% 1.0% 95.2% 2.9% 100.0%

Technician Count 2 2 66 3 73

% within Job Classification 2.7% 2.7% 90.4% 4.1% 100.0%

Protective Service Count 2 0 77 2 81

% within Job Classification 2.5% 0.0% 95.1% 2.5% 100.0%


Paraprofessional Count 0 0 7 0 7

% within Job Classification 100.0


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
%

14
Admin Support Count 3 2 58 3 66

% within Job Classification 4.5% 3.0% 87.9% 4.5% 100.0%

Skilled Craft Count 4 10 99 6 119

% within Job Classification 3.4% 8.4% 83.2% 5.0% 100.0%

I don't know Count 2 9 77 0 88

% within Job Classification 2.3% 10.2% 87.5% 0.0% 100.0%


Total Count 15 30 540 17 602

% within Job Classification 2.5 % 5.0% 89.7% 2.8% 100.0%

Cross-tabulation Supervision responsibility and Gender

How many persons do you supervise? * Gender Cross-tabulation

Gender

male female Total

How many persons do you None Count 263 123 386


supervise? % within # Supervised 68.1% 31.9% 100.0%

Between 1 and 5 Count 76 43 119

% within # Supervised 63.9% 36.1% 100.0%

Between 6 and 10 Count 32 12 44

% within # Supervised 72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

Between 10 and 19 Count 12 8 20

% within # Supervised 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

20 or more Count 33 4 37

% within # Supervised 89.2% 10.8% 100.0%


Total Count 416 190 606

% within # Supervised 68.6% 31.4% 100.0%

15
Section Three: Average Scores by Demographic Subgroup

Average Scores by Department

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

Average Score by Education

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.

Average Scores By Education


5.15
5.2 5.06
4.93
5 4.86
4.76 4.76 4.77
4.8
4.6
4.4

17
Descriptives
Average Score

Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max

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

Average Scores by Employment Status

The differences in averages between full-time, part-time, and temporary employees were not statistically
significant.

Average Scores by Employment Status


5.08
5.1

5 4.94 4.94

4.86
4.9

4.8

4.7
Temporary/Seasonal Full-time Overall Part-time

Descriptives
Average Score

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

Full-time 606 4.9359 1.00439 .04080 4.8557 5.0160 1.27 6.81


Part-time 18 5.0807 .70603 .16641 4.7296 5.4318 3.72 6.44
Temporary/Seasonal 4 4.8645 .60460 .30230 3.9024 5.8265 4.23 5.67
Total 628 4.9396 .99463 .03969 4.8616 5.0175 1.27 6.81

18
Average Scores By Gender

The average score for men was significantly lower than women.

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Average Score male 436 4.8312 1.03064 .04936

female 197 5.1812 .89253 .06359

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Average Score Equal variances


3.522 .061 -4.119 631 .000 -.35000 .08497 -.51686 -.18313
assumed

Equal variances
-4.348 432.574 .000 -.35000 .08050 -.50821 -.19178
not assumed

Average Scores by Job Classification

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

Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max

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

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(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

Official and Admin Professional .30027 .15108 .738 -.1726 .7731


*
Technician .77739 .16295 .000 .2674 1.2874
*
Protective Service .88199 .15912 .000 .3840 1.3800
Paraprofessional .32063 .38011 1.000 -.8690 1.5102
*
Admin Support .71711 .16575 .000 .1984 1.2359

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.

Average Scores by Race

There were no statistically significant differences in the average scores by race.

Descriptives
Average-Score

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max

American Indian 5 4.7333 1.27049 .56818 3.1558 6.3108 2.82 6.04


Hispanic 8 5.3186 .91973 .32517 4.5497 6.0875 3.46 6.08
Black 33 5.1349 .78586 .13680 4.8563 5.4136 3.50 6.81
White 559 4.9583 .98186 .04153 4.8767 5.0398 1.69 6.81
Asian 3 5.0009 .72399 .41800 3.2024 6.7994 4.19 5.59
Other 17 4.3131 1.35090 .32764 3.6185 5.0077 1.27 6.16
Total 625 4.9530 .98848 .03954 4.8754 5.0307 1.27 6.81

Average Scores by Residence

There were no statistically significant differences in the average scores based on where the employee lives.

Descriptives
Average Score

Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max

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.

Average Scores by # Supervise

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

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Min Max

None 393 4.8010 1.02658 .05178 4.6992 4.9028 1.27 6.78


Between 1 and 5 120 5.1277 .90606 .08271 4.9640 5.2915 2.37 6.81
Between 6 and 10 45 5.1647 .95223 .14195 4.8786 5.4508 2.69 6.66
Between 10 and 19 20 5.2356 .62364 .13945 4.9438 5.5275 3.96 6.49
20 or more 37 5.6072 .66248 .10891 5.3864 5.8281 3.99 6.81
Total 615 4.9540 .99354 .04006 4.8753 5.0327 1.27 6.81

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average Score
Hochberg

(J) How many Mean 95% Confidence Interval

persons do you Difference Std. Upper


(I) How many persons do you supervise? supervise? (I-J) Error Sig. Lower Bound Bound
*
None Between 1 and 5 -.32676 .10116 .013 -.6110 -.0426

Between 6 and 10 -.36374 .15265 .161 -.7926 .0651

Between 10 and 19 -.43466 .22234 .407 -1.0593 .1900


*
20 or more -.80627 .16680 .000 -1.2749 -.3377
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

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.

Average Scores by Tenure


5.4 5.31

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

Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

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

(J) How many years have Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(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

Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .35353 .15133 .258 -.0912 .7982

6 to 10 years .45462 .15656 .056 -.0054 .9147

11 to 15 years .42837 .16869 .157 -.0673 .9241


16 to 20 years .38257 .17191 .329 -.1226 .8877

21+ years .47553 .17063 .079 -.0259 .9770

23
Section Four: Composite Scores by Demographic Subgroup

Overall Composite Scores

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

Composite Score Differences by Department

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.

Composite Score Differences: Education

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

Results show no significant difference between full-time, part-time, or temporary/seasonal employees.

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

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean


TwoWayComm male 436 5.0642 1.30223 .06237
female 196 5.2972 1.20850 .08632
TopDownComm male 436 4.8491 1.06508 .05101
female 197 5.1115 .95159 .06780
CoreValueTrust male 436 4.6722 1.10730 .05303
female 197 5.1176 .95777 .06824
Teamwork male 436 4.1511 1.30864 .06267
female 197 4.5778 1.20450 .08582
PublicServiceMotiv male 436 5.5162 1.18229 .05662
female 197 5.9553 .92943 .06622
RelationWithCowork male 436 5.0813 1.21994 .05842
female 197 5.3183 1.29009 .09191
CareerDev male 436 4.7408 1.38466 .06631
female 197 5.0452 1.27608 .09092
Resources male 434 5.0783 1.61498 .07752
female 196 5.5357 1.27047 .09075

Composite Score Difference by Job Classification

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.

Composite Score Differences by Race

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.

Composite Score Difference by Residence

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.

Composite Score Difference by Supervise

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.

Composite Score Differences by Tenure

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

(J) How many years 95% Confidence

(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.

Awareness of Compensation Policy

Aware of Compensation Policy

No
46%
Yes
54%

The pie graph indicates that the majority of respondents (54%) were aware of the new policy.

Responses to “I have an annual performance evaluation.”

Annual Performance Evaluation

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

Std. Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max

Official and Admin 65 4.78 2.004 .249 4.29 5.28 1 7


Professional 103 3.93 1.699 .167 3.60 4.26 1 7
Technician 72 3.57 1.634 .193 3.19 3.95 1 7
Protective Service 80 3.89 2.392 .267 3.36 4.42 1 7
Paraprofessional 7 4.29 1.890 .714 2.54 6.03 1 6
Admin Support 64 3.67 2.101 .263 3.15 4.20 1 7
Skilled Craft 123 3.85 1.851 .167 3.52 4.18 1 7
I don't know 90 3.94 1.951 .206 3.54 4.35 1 7
Total 604 3.94 1.958 .080 3.78 4.09 1 7

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.
Hochberg

95% Confidence

(J) My job is Mean Interval

(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

Official and Admin Professional .853 .308 .149 -.11 1.82


*
Technician 1.215 .332 .008 .17 2.26

Protective Service .897 .324 .151 -.12 1.91

Paraprofessional .499 .773 1.000 -1.92 2.92


*
Admin Support 1.113 .342 .033 .04 2.18
*
Skilled Craft .939 .298 .046 .01 1.87

I don't know .840 .316 .203 -.15 1.83

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.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Official and Admin 65 4.29 1.926 .239 3.82 4.77


Professional 104 3.89 2.000 .196 3.51 4.28
Technician 73 3.25 1.998 .234 2.78 3.71
Protective Service 81 3.35 1.912 .212 2.92 3.77
Paraprofessional 7 3.57 1.813 .685 1.90 5.25
Admin Support 66 3.77 2.089 .257 3.26 4.29
Skilled Craft 121 3.24 1.945 .177 2.89 3.59
I don't know 92 3.62 2.069 .216 3.19 4.05
Total 609 3.60 2.007 .081 3.44 3.76

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Hochberg

Mean 95% Confidence Interval


(I) My job is classified as (J) My job is classified as Difference Std.
which of the following? which of the following? (I-J) Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Official and Admin Professional .398 .314 .998 -.59 1.38

Technician 1.046 .339 .058 -.02 2.11

Protective Service .947 .331 .116 -.09 1.98

Paraprofessional .721 .791 1.000 -1.75 3.20

Admin Support .520 .347 .982 -.57 1.61


*
Skilled Craft 1.053 .306 .017 .10 2.01

I don't know .673 .322 .650 -.34 1.68

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.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Official and Admin 63 4.60 1.863 .235 4.13 5.07


Professional 104 4.14 1.973 .193 3.76 4.53
Technician 73 3.48 1.937 .227 3.03 3.93
Protective Service 81 3.48 1.976 .220 3.04 3.92
Paraprofessional 7 3.29 2.059 .778 1.38 5.19
Admin Support 66 3.77 2.052 .253 3.27 4.28
Skilled Craft 123 3.28 1.940 .175 2.94 3.63
I don't know 92 3.79 1.981 .207 3.38 4.20
Total 609 3.75 1.993 .081 3.59 3.91

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

as which of the as which of the Difference Lower Upper


following? following? (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

Official and Admin Professional .459 .313 .986 -.52 1.44


*
Technician 1.124 .337 .025 .07 2.18
*
Protective Service 1.122 .330 .020 .09 2.15

Paraprofessional 1.317 .782 .931 -1.13 3.76

Admin Support .830 .346 .371 -.25 1.91


*
Skilled Craft 1.319 .304 .000 .37 2.27

I don't know .810 .321 .283 -.19 1.81


Professional Official and Admin -.459 .313 .986 -1.44 .52
Technician .665 .300 .530 -.27 1.60
Protective Service .663 .291 .475 -.25 1.57
Paraprofessional .859 .766 1.000 -1.54 3.26
Admin Support .372 .309 .999 -.59 1.34
*
Skilled Craft .860 .261 .029 .04 1.68
I don't know .351 .281 .999 -.53 1.23

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

I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Official and Admin 63 5.49 1.447 .182 5.13 5.86


Professional 104 4.97 1.715 .168 4.64 5.30
Technician 73 4.67 1.573 .184 4.30 5.04
Protective Service 81 3.65 1.783 .198 3.26 4.05
Paraprofessional 7 5.14 1.574 .595 3.69 6.60
Admin Support 68 4.75 1.757 .213 4.32 5.18
Skilled Craft 123 4.50 1.710 .154 4.19 4.80
I don't know 92 4.67 1.828 .191 4.30 5.05
Total 611 4.65 1.760 .071 4.51 4.79

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: I feel that the total benefits package is adequate.


Hochberg

Mean 95% Confidence Interval


(I) My job is classified as which of (J) My job is classified as Difference Std.
the following? which of the following? (I-J) Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Official and Admin Professional .521 .272 .795 -.33 1.37


Technician .821 .293 .136 -.10 1.74
*
Protective Service 1.838 .286 .000 .94 2.73

Paraprofessional .349 .678 1.000 -1.77 2.47

Admin Support .742 .298 .304 -.19 1.67


*
Skilled Craft .996 .264 .005 .17 1.82

I don't know .818 .278 .091 -.05 1.69


*
Protective Service Official and Admin -1.838 .286 .000 -2.73 -.94
*
Professional -1.317 .252 .000 -2.11 -.53
*
Technician -1.017 .275 .007 -1.88 -.16
Paraprofessional -1.489 .671 .529 -3.59 .61
*
Admin Support -1.096 .280 .003 -1.97 -.22
*
Skilled Craft -.842 .244 .016 -1.60 -.08
*
I don't know -1.020 .259 .003 -1.83 -.21

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

Std. Std. Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound

City Manager's Office 9 5.00 1.225 .408 4.06


Fire Department 51 5.90 1.432 .200 5.50
Information Technologies 14 4.50 1.506 .403 3.63
Municipal Court 4 3.50 1.291 .645 1.45
Parks and Rec Department 39 4.31 1.734 .278 3.75
Community Development Department 27 3.81 1.798 .346 3.10
Water & Light 100 3.15 1.737 .174 2.81
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 5.60 2.074 .927 3.03
Finance Department 32 3.31 2.055 .363 2.57
Public Health and Human Services 38 4.00 1.755 .285 3.42
Human Resources Department 12 5.67 1.303 .376 4.84
Law Department 8 4.75 2.493 .881 2.67
Police Department 60 2.37 1.667 .215 1.94
Public Communications Dept. 9 3.56 1.130 .377 2.69
Public Works Department 173 4.14 1.861 .141 3.87
Total 581 3.94 1.967 .082 3.78

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

Std. Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound

City Manager's Office 9 5.00 1.581 .527 3.78


Fire Department 52 4.17 1.855 .257 3.66
Information Technologies 14 2.86 1.610 .430 1.93
Municipal Court 4 2.25 .500 .250 1.45
Parks and Rec Department 38 4.42 2.009 .326 3.76
Community Development Department 28 3.75 2.137 .404 2.92
Water & Light 100 2.59 1.843 .184 2.22
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 4.40 1.517 .678 2.52
Finance Department 33 3.58 2.194 .382 2.80
Public Health and Human Services 38 3.58 2.048 .332 2.91
Human Resources Department 12 5.58 1.379 .398 4.71
Law Department 8 5.00 1.414 .500 3.82
Police Department 60 2.72 1.698 .219 2.28
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.00 1.871 .624 3.56
Public Works Department 176 3.80 1.870 .141 3.52
Total 586 3.59 1.991 .082 3.43

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

Std. Std. Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound

City Manager's Office 9 5.11 1.616 .539 3.87


Fire Department 52 4.21 1.893 .262 3.68
Information Technologies 14 3.21 1.888 .505 2.12
Municipal Court 5 3.20 1.789 .800 .98
Parks and Rec Department 39 4.59 1.846 .296 3.99
Community Development Department 28 4.11 2.061 .389 3.31
Water & Light 99 2.98 1.938 .195 2.59
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 4.80 1.789 .800 2.58
Finance Department 32 3.56 2.078 .367 2.81
Public Health and Human Services 38 4.00 2.000 .324 3.34
Human Resources Department 12 5.75 1.603 .463 4.73
Law Department 8 5.00 1.414 .500 3.82
Police Department 59 2.85 1.779 .232 2.38
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.11 1.833 .611 3.70
Public Works Department 177 3.69 1.849 .139 3.42
Total 586 3.72 1.975 .082 3.56

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

Std. Std. Interval for Mean

N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound

City Manager's Office 9 6.11 .782 .261 5.51


Fire Department 52 4.67 1.530 .212 4.25
Information Technologies 14 4.64 1.336 .357 3.87
Municipal Court 5 5.20 2.049 .917 2.66
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.62 1.369 .219 5.17
Community Development Department 28 5.39 1.474 .279 4.82
Water & Light 99 3.78 1.860 .187 3.41
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.80 .447 .200 6.24
Finance Department 32 4.47 1.722 .304 3.85
Public Health and Human Services 38 4.71 1.784 .289 4.12
Human Resources Department 12 6.33 .651 .188 5.92
Law Department 8 6.00 .535 .189 5.55
Police Department 60 3.37 1.886 .244 2.88
Public Communications Dept. 9 5.44 1.333 .444 4.42
Public Works Department 178 4.86 1.521 .114 4.63
Total 588 4.64 1.760 .073 4.50

Additional Pay and Benefits questions by Department

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.

Perception of Morale by Tenure


There were no statistically significant differences in morale based on the employees’ tenure.

Descriptives
Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this time last year.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Less than 1 year 52 4.12 1.641 .228 3.66 4.57


1 to 5 years 175 4.09 1.938 .147 3.80 4.37
6 to 10 years 138 3.81 2.077 .177 3.46 4.16
11 to 15 years 89 4.00 2.045 .217 3.57 4.43
16 to 20 years 81 4.26 2.102 .234 3.79 4.72
21+ years 83 3.48 1.783 .196 3.09 3.87
Total 618 3.96 1.971 .079 3.80 4.11

Perception of wage Competitiveness by Tenure

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

I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Less than 1 year 56 4.39 1.875 .251 3.89 4.89


1 to 5 years 175 3.65 1.965 .149 3.36 3.94
6 to 10 years 137 3.42 2.002 .171 3.08 3.75
11 to 15 years 89 3.51 2.190 .232 3.04 3.97
16 to 20 years 81 3.84 1.971 .219 3.40 4.28
21+ years 84 3.11 1.876 .205 2.70 3.51
Total 622 3.60 2.007 .080 3.44 3.75

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.

Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .741 .305 .207


*
6 to 10 years .977 .315 .030

11 to 15 years .887 .339 .128

16 to 20 years .553 .346 .823


*
21+ years 1.286 .343 .003

Perception of fairness of pay by Tenure

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.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Less than 1 year 57 4.74 1.717 .227 4.28 5.19


1 to 5 years 178 3.77 1.962 .147 3.48 4.06
6 to 10 years 136 3.55 1.943 .167 3.22 3.88
11 to 15 years 88 3.64 2.134 .228 3.18 4.09
16 to 20 years 81 3.94 2.027 .225 3.49 4.39
21+ years 82 3.29 1.908 .211 2.87 3.71
Total 622 3.75 1.990 .080 3.59 3.91

40
Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: I feel that my pay is fair.

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

16 to 20 years .799 .340 .249

*
21+ years 1.444 .339 .000

Perception of benefits package by Tenure

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.

95% Confidence Interval for Mean


N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Less than 1 year 57 5.28 1.719 .228 4.82 5.74


1 to 5 years 178 4.80 1.658 .124 4.55 5.04
6 to 10 years 138 4.72 1.643 .140 4.44 4.99
11 to 15 years 88 4.48 1.851 .197 4.09 4.87
16 to 20 years 81 4.57 1.910 .212 4.15 4.99
21+ years 82 4.05 1.818 .201 3.65 4.45
Total 624 4.65 1.765 .071 4.51 4.79

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.

Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years .483 .265 .657

6 to 10 years .563 .275 .461

11 to 15 years .803 .297 .099

16 to 20 years .713 .302 .242


*
21+ years 1.232 .301 .001
1 to 5 years Less than 1 year -.483 .265 .657
6 to 10 years .080 .198 1.000
11 to 15 years .320 .227 .924
16 to 20 years .230 .234 .997
*
21+ years .749 .233 .020

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

Average Engagement: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 747 5.07 .985 .036 5.00 5.14 1.68 7
2013 709 5.07 .996 .037 5.00 5.14 1.45 7
2015 702 5.04 1.109 .042 4.96 5.12 1.00 7
Total 2158 5.06 1.030 .022 5.02 5.10 1.00 7

Two-way Communications

Two-way Communications: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 713 5.15 1.139 .043 5.07 5.24 1 7
2013 651 5.25 1.191 .047 5.16 5.34 1 7
2015 702 5.22 1.296 .049 5.13 5.32 1 7
Total 2066 5.21 1.211 .027 5.16 5.26 1 7

Two-way Communications 2011 2013 2015


I am satisfied with the way that my immediate supervisor and I N 744 704 695
communicate.
Satisfied 78.49% 80.40% 79.51%
Neutral 7.80% 6.39% 7.22%

Dissatisfied 13.71% 13.21% 13.28%


There is a culture of openness at work. N 738 703 688
Satisfied 60.03% 63.30% 64.53%
Neutral 14.63% 14.22% 11.48%
Dissatisfied 25.34% 22.48% 23.98%
I know what is expected of me at work. N 742 699 690
Satisfied 83.96% 85.55% 86.09%
Neutral 7.14% 6.01% 6.38%
Dissatisfied 8.89% 8.44% 7.54%
My opinions seem to count at work. N 743 704 683
Satisfied 58.28% 63.49% 61.79%

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%

Two-way Communications Cont’d


2011 2013 2015
The relationship I have with my immediate supervisor helps me to N 739 699 673
do a better job.
Satisfied 73.07% 76.97% 76.23%
Neutral 13.80% 11.30% 11.00%
Dissatisfied 13.13% 11.73% 12.78%
I receive helpful feedback on my job performance regularly. N 738 698 673
Satisfied 55.96% 61.17% 59.44%
Neutral 18.02% 14.76% 19.02%
Dissatisfied 26.02% 24.07% 21.55%

My immediate supervisor is consistent when administering policies N 738 689 670


concerning employees.
Satisfied 64.91% 73.88% 70.45%
Neutral 15.72% 12.19% 12.99%
Dissatisfied 19.38% 13.93% 16.57%

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%

I am encouraged to learn from my mistakes. N 738 680 661


Satisfied 72.09% 73.82% 73.52%
Neutral 17.48% 17.79% 18.15%
Dissatisfied 10.43% 8.38% 8.32%

My supervisor encourages me to be ethical and honest in N 738 680 657


completing the tasks assigned to me.
Satisfied 72.09% 73.82% 82.80%

45
Neutral 17.48% 17.79% 12.18%
Dissatisfied 10.43% 8.38 % 5.02%

Two-way Communications Cont’d


2011 2013 2015
I have an annual performance evaluation. N 740 698 677*
*In 2015 the response was yes/no.
Satisfied 86.08% 81.81% 93.8%
Neutral 8.38% 11.17%
Dissatisfied 5.54% 7.02% 6.06%

I have trust and confidence in my immediate supervisor. N N/A 687 670


Satisfied 78.89% 75.97%
Neutral 9.75% 10.00%
Dissatisfied 11.35% 14.03%

I trust my supervisor to help me keep my job. N N/A 685 666


Satisfied 66.13% 64.11%
Neutral 17.23% 16.97%
Dissatisfied 16.64% 18.92%
The relationships that I have with my coworkers allow me to do my N 736 691 674
job well.
Satisfied 83.97% 84.08% 81.60%
Neutral 8.02% 9.99% 11.57%
Dissatisfied 8.02% 5.93% 6.82%

Top-down Communications

Top-down Communications: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 736 4.07 1.744 .064 3.95 4.20 1 7
2013 689 5.37 1.388 .053 5.27 5.47 1 7
2015 669 5.09 1.511 .058 4.97 5.20 1 7
Total 2094 4.82 1.657 .036 4.75 4.90 1 7

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%

Public Service Motivation

Public Service Motivation: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 736 4.07 1.744 .064 3.95 4.20 1 7
2013 689 5.37 1.388 .053 5.27 5.47 1 7
2015 669 5.09 1.511 .058 4.97 5.20 1 7
Total 2094 4.82 1.657 .036 4.75 4.90 1 7

Public Service Motivation


2011 2013 2015
I think it is important to perform at my highest level even if I don’t N 737 699 675
receive recognition for my performance.
Satisfied 93.35% 94.71% 95.26%
Neutral 3.93% 3.43% 2.07%

Dissatisfied 2.71% 1.86% 2.67%


I like my job because the work is meaningful. N 738 693 674
Satisfied 80.89% 84.43% 82.79%
Neutral 9.89% 10.39% 10.83%
Dissatisfied 9.21% 4.18% 6.38%
I understand how my work contributes to the good of the City of N 736 677 659
Columbia.
Satisfied 88.99% 89.51% 88.92%
Neutral 7.34% 7.09% 6.22%
Dissatisfied 3.67% 3.40% 4.86%
I like my job because it services the public interest. N 737 674 656
Satisfied 76.26% 79.82% 76.83%
Neutral 15.60% 14.84% 16.01%

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%

Core Values & Trust

Core Values and Trust: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 729 4.49 1.500 .056 4.38 4.59 1 7
2013 664 4.09 1.433 .056 3.98 4.20 1 7
2015 671 4.11 1.554 .060 3.99 4.23 1 7
Total 2064 4.24 1.507 .033 4.17 4.30 1 7
* There were statistically significant differences in the average perceptions of core values and trust between 2011 and 2013
and 2011 and 2015. Responses for 2013 and 2015 were not statistically different. The mean for core values and trust was
higher in 2011 than in 2013 or in 2015; this is likely due to questions about the fairness of pay and fairness of promotion that
were not asked in 2011.

Core Values and Trust


2011 2013 2015
I am proud to work for the City of Columbia N 738 693 675
Satisfied 76.96% 77.34% 76.30%
Neutral 14.77% 13.56% 12.44%

Dissatisfied 8.27% 9.09% 11.26%


The City of Columbia’s policies for promotion and advancement are N 734 682 665
fair.
Satisfied 38.15% 31.96% 36.84%
Neutral 22.89% 26.98% 18.80%
Dissatisfied 38.96% 41.06% 44.36%
I would prefer to work for the City of Columbia even if offered N 738 678 657
employment elsewhere.
Satisfied 48.24% 48.38% 51.29%
Neutral 28.32% 29.50% 24.35%
Dissatisfied 23.44% 22.12% 24.35%
I would recommend the City of Columbia as a good place to work to N 737 676 655

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

Career Development Opportunities: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 737 4.50 1.836 .068 4.37 4.64 1 7
2013 679 4.70 1.410 .054 4.59 4.81 1 7
2015 662 4.96 1.713 .067 4.83 5.09 1 7
Total 2078 4.71 1.677 .037 4.64 4.79 1 7
*There were statistically significant differences in the average perceptions of career development opportunities between 2011
and 2015 and 2013 and 2015. There were not statistically significant differences in average perceptions of career
development opportunities between 2011 and 2013.

Career Development Opportunities


2011 2013 2015
I have opportunities to receive formalized training for my job. N 737 682 662
Satisfied 55.77% 59.97% 67.67%
Neutral 16.15% 16.57% 11.18%

Dissatisfied 28.09% 23.46% 21.15%


I have opportunities at work to learn and grow. N 733 680 664
Satisfied 59.35% 64.41% 65.66%
Neutral 16.92% 15.74% 13.55%
Dissatisfied 23.74% 19.85% 20.78%

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: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 734 3.65 1.713 .063 3.53 3.78 1 7
2013 660 3.77 1.473 .057 3.65 3.88 1 7
2015 645 3.82 1.548 .061 3.70 3.94 1 7
Total 2039 3.74 1.587 .035 3.67 3.81 1 7
*All confidence intervals overlap, indicating that there is not a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of
teamwork from observation period to observation period.

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%

Dissatisfied 41.14% 38.08% 40.37%


Morale in my department is better when I compare it to this N N/A 683 669
time last year.
Satisfied 32.21% 36.02%
Neutral 31.33% 26.31%

Dissatisfied 36.46% 37.67%

50
Resource Adequacy

Resource Adequacy: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 734 5.17 1.632 .060 5.05 5.29 1 7
2013 672 5.29 1.480 .057 5.18 5.41 1 7
2015 656 5.20 1.526 .060 5.09 5.32 1 7
Total 2062 5.22 1.550 .034 5.15 5.29 1 7
*All confidence intervals overlap, indicating that there is not a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the
adequacy of resources from observation period to observation period.

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%

Dissatisfied 18.12% 13.54% 16.92%

Relationships with Co-workers

Relationships with Coworkers: Comparison of Means*


Std. Confidence
Observations Mean Std. Dev. Error Interval Min Max
2011 734 5.17 1.632 .060 5.05 5.29 1 7
2013 672 5.29 1.480 .057 5.18 5.41 1 7
2015 656 5.20 1.526 .060 5.09 5.32 1 7
Total 2062 5.22 1.550 .034 5.15 5.29 1 7
*All confidence intervals overlap, indicating that there is not a statistically significant difference in responses regarding
relationships with co-workers from observation period to observation period.

Relationships with Co-workers


2011 2013 2015
The relationships that I have with my coworkers allow me to do my N 736 691 674
job well.
Satisfied 83.97% 84.08% 81.60%
Neutral 8.02% 9.99% 11.57%

Dissatisfied 8.02% 5.93% 6.82%

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.

IPMA Key Drivers of Employee Engagement


IPMA Item
City of Columbia Survey Item 2011 2013 2015
I feel a sense of accomplishment in my job. N 734 673 654
I feel satisfied when completing my daily duties.
Satisfied 83.24% 82.47% 82.11%
Neutral 10.63% 10.70% 11.01%

Dissatisfied 6.13% 6.84% 6.88%


I am focused on serving the public with integrity. N 737 674 656
I like my job because it serves the public interest.
Satisfied 76.26% 79.82% 76.83%
Neutral 15.60% 14.84% 16.01%
Dissatisfied 8.14% 5.34% 7.16%
I feel I can make a difference by working here. N 736 677 659

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%

Key Drivers of Engagement


Satisfaction 2011, 2013, 2015

At work, my opinions seem to count 58% 63% 62%

I am proud to work for the City of Columbia. 73% 77% 76%

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%

I feel satisfied when completing my daily duties. 83% 82% 82%

2011 2013 2015

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%

Dissatisfied 8.89% 8.44% 7.54%


I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. N 734 672 656
I have adequate materials and equipment I need to do my job.
Satisfied 76.29% 79.46% 75.15%
Neutral 5.59% 6.99% 7.93%
Dissatisfied 18.12% 13.54% 16.92%
At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. N N/A N/A 646
Satisfied 83.59%
Neutral 10.06%
Dissatisfied 6.35%
In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for N 742 699 683
doing good work.
Satisfied 55.18% 54.91% 61.79%
In the last month I have received recognition or praise for doing
good work. Neutral 16.15% 17.92% 13.03%
Dissatisfied 28.67% 27.17% 25.18%
My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as N 739 699 673
a person.
Satisfied 73.07% 76.97% 76.23%
The relationship I have with my supervisor helps me do my job
well. Neutral 13.80% 11.30% 11.00%
Dissatisfied 13.13% 11.73% 12.78%
There is someone at work who encourages my development. N N/A 680 651
Satisfied 58.38% 59.34%
Neutral 21.32% 18.83%
Dissatisfied 20.29% 21.84%

Gallop’s Q12® Cont’d


Gallop Item 2011 2013 2015

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%

Dissatisfied 8.14% 5.34% 7.16%


My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing N 737 691 672
quality work.
Satisfied 68.93% 76.70% 73.81%
Neutral 16.28% 12.01% 12.95%
Dissatisfied 14.79% 11.29% 13.24%
In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about N 735 680 663
my progress.
Satisfied 36.05% 35.00% 40.27%
My immediate supervisor has talked to me about my career
path. Neutral 23.67% 28.24% 22.02%
Dissatisfied 40.27% 36.76% 37.71%
This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and N 733 680 664
grow.
Satisfied 59.35% 64.41% 65.66%
I have opportunities at work to learn and grow.
Neutral 16.92% 15.74% 13.55%
Dissatisfied 23.74% 19.85% 20.78%

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

Department 2011 2013 2015 Total


City Manager Mean 4.94 5.95 5.99 5.78
St. Dev 0.42 0.35 0.45 0.57
N 4 8 9 21
Fire Department Mean 5.17 5.29 5.50 5.31*
St. Dev 0.89 0.76 0.89 0.83
N 53 99 52 204
Information Technology Mean 5.31 4.70* 5.63 5.26*
St. Dev 0.86 0.83 0.71 0.86
N 11 10 14 35
Municipal Court Mean 5.38 5.10 5.26 5.22
St. Dev 0.46 0.86 0.46 0.64
N 4 7 5 16
Office of Cultural Affairs Mean 5.12 6.14 6.31 5.77
St. Dev 0.28 0.06 - 0.61
N - - - -
Office of Sustainability Mean 5.12 5.85 - 5.48
St. Dev - - - 0.52
N - - - 5
Parks & Recreation Mean 5.29 5.55 5.61 5.46
St. Dev 0.90 0.76 0.90 0.86
N 73 64 39 176
Community Development Mean 5.10 4.91 5.17 5.08*
St. Dev 0.55 0.79 0.95 0.85
N 7 16 28 51
Public Safety Mean 5.18 4.79 . 5.11*
St. Dev 1.03 0.88 . 1.00
N 23 5 - 28
Water & Light Mean 5.07 4.65* 4.71* 4.83*
St. Dev 1.00 1.17 1.06 1.08
N 110 79 100 289
City Clerk’s Office Mean 5.31 . 5.13 5.24
St. Dev 0.57 . 0.90 0.61
N - - - 5

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).

Engagement Scores, Performance Management and Organizational Maturity

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.

As organizations become more mature, we see the following trends:

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.

Constraints on the use of financial incentives

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.

Impact of public service motivation

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.

5. Consider implementing a performance management technology solution.

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

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid American Indian 5 .7 .8 .8

Hispanic 8 1.1 1.3 2.1

Black 33 4.7 5.3 7.4

White 559 79.7 89.4 96.8

Asian 3 .4 .5 97.3

Other 17 2.4 2.7 100.0


Total 625 89.2 100.0
Missing System 76 10.8
Total 701 100.0

65
Gender

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid male 436 62.2 68.9 68.9

female 197 28.1 31.1 100.0

Total 633 90.3 100.0


Missing System 68 9.7
Total 701 100.0

66
Age

Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid less than 18 years old 1 .1 .2 .2

18-23 years old 18 2.6 2.9 3.0

24-29 years old 56 8.0 8.9 11.9

30-35 years old 115 16.4 18.3 30.3

36-41 years old 96 13.7 15.3 45.5

42-47 years old 117 16.7 18.6 64.2

48-53 years old 88 12.6 14.0 78.2

54-59 years old 92 13.1 14.6 92.8


60-65 years old 39 5.6 6.2 99.0

66 or older 6 .9 1.0 100.0

Total 628 89.6 100.0


Missing System 73 10.4
Total 701 100.0

67
Education

Education

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid less than high school 4 .6 .6 .6

HS or GED 124 17.7 19.7 20.3

Some College 153 21.8 24.2 44.5

Associate Degree 64 9.1 10.1 54.7

Baccalaureate Degree 216 30.8 34.2 88.9

Master’s Degree or Higher 70 10.0 11.1 100.0

Total 631 90.0 100.0


Missing System 70 10.0
Total 701 100.0

68
Job Classification

My job is classified as which of the following?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Paraprofessional 7 1.0 1.1 1.1

Official and Admin 65 9.3 10.6 11.7

Admin Support 68 9.7 11.1 22.8

Technician 73 10.4 11.9 34.7

Protective Service 81 11.6 13.2 48.0

I don't know 92 13.1 15.0 63.0

Professional 104 14.8 17.0 79.9

Skilled Craft 123 17.5 20.1 100.0

Total 613 87.4 100.0


Missing System 88 12.6
Total 701 100.0

69
Department

In what department are you employed?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent


Valid Office of Cultural Affairs 1 .1 .2 .2
Economic Development 1 .1 .2 .3
City Clerk's Office 2 .3 .3 .7
Municipal Court 5 .7 .8 1.5
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 .7 .8 2.4
Law Department 8 1.1 1.3 3.7
City Manager's Office 9 1.3 1.5 5.2
Public Communications Dept. 9 1.3 1.5 6.7
Human Resources Department 12 1.7 2.0 8.8
Information Technologies 14 2.0 2.4 11.1
Community Development Department 28 4.0 4.7 15.8
Finance Department 33 4.7 5.6 21.4
Public Health and Human Services 38 5.4 6.4 27.8
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.6 6.6 34.3
Fire Department 52 7.4 8.8 43.1
Police Department 60 8.6 10.1 53.2
Water & Light 100 14.3 16.8 70.0
Public Works Department 178 25.4 30.0 100.0
Total 594 84.7 100.0
Missing System 107 15.3
Total 701 100.0

70
Employment Status

What is your employment status?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent


Valid Temporary/Seasonal 4 .6 .6 .6

Part-time 18 2.6 2.9 3.5

Full-time 606 86.4 96.5 100.0

Total 628 89.6 100.0


Missing System 73 10.4
Total 701 100.0

71
Supervise

How many persons do you supervise?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Between 10 and 19 20 2.9 3.3 3.3


20 or more 37 5.3 6.0 9.3

Between 6 and 10 45 6.4 7.3 16.6

Between 1 and 5 120 17.1 19.5 36.1

None 393 56.1 63.9 100.0

Total 615 87.7 100.0


Missing System 86 12.3
Total 701 100.0

72
Residence

I live....

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid None of the above 106 15.1 17.1 17.1

In Boone County 236 33.7 38.1 55.2


In the city of Columbia 278 39.7 44.8 100.0

Total 620 88.4 100.0


Missing System 81 11.6
Total 701 100.0

73
74
Appendix B: Crosstab of Job Classification and Gender

My job is classified as which of the following? * Gender Cross-tabulation

Gender

male female Total

My job is classified as which Official and Admin Count 42 23 65


of the following? % within My job is classified
64.6% 35.4% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Professional Count 48 53 101

% within My job is classified


47.5% 52.5% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Technician Count 59 14 73

% within My job is classified


80.8% 19.2% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Protective Service Count 69 12 81

% within My job is classified


85.2% 14.8% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Paraprofessional Count 1 6 7

% within My job is classified


14.3% 85.7% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Admin Support Count 13 54 67

% within My job is classified


19.4% 80.6% 100.0%
as which of the following?

Skilled Craft Count 117 6 123

% within My job is classified


95.1% 4.9% 100.0%
as which of the following?

I don't know Count 67 22 89

% within My job is classified


75.3% 24.7% 100.0%
as which of the following?
Total Count 416 190 606

% within My job is classified


68.6% 31.4% 100.0%
as which of the following?

75
Appendix C: Results for the Average Score by Department

Descriptives
AverageScore

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean

Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Min Max

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

Std. Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max

TwoWayComm City Manager's Office 9 6.0958 .48575 .16192 5.7224 6.4691 4.93 6.53

Fire Department 52 5.5114 1.19150 .16523 5.1797 5.8432 1.60 7.00

Information Technologies 14 5.9444 .81462 .21772 5.4741 6.4148 3.89 7.00

Municipal Court 4 5.8667 .62775 .31388 4.8678 6.8656 5.47 6.80


Parks and Rec Department 39 5.5208 1.13385 .18156 5.1532 5.8884 2.27 7.00

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

Finance Department 33 4.6954 1.58505 .27592 4.1333 5.2574 1.40 6.93

Public Health and Human


38 5.3086 1.12837 .18305 4.9378 5.6795 2.67 6.80
Services

Human Resources Department 12 6.3389 .68606 .19805 5.9030 6.7748 4.53 7.00

Law Department 8 5.2160 1.75390 .62010 3.7497 6.6823 2.33 6.93

Police Department 60 4.6233 1.23324 .15921 4.3048 4.9419 1.00 6.93

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

Total 589 5.1545 1.27854 .05268 5.0510 5.2579 1.00 7.00


TopDownComm City Manager's Office 9 5.6528 .50690 .16897 5.2631 6.0424 4.75 6.25
Fire Department 52 5.4392 .73077 .10134 5.2358 5.6427 3.50 6.75
Information Technologies 14 5.0638 .70682 .18891 4.6557 5.4719 3.50 6.13
Municipal Court 5 4.6500 1.56475 .69978 2.7071 6.5929 2.00 6.00
Parks and Rec Department 39 5.5124 .89928 .14400 5.2208 5.8039 3.38 7.00
Community Development
28 4.9955 .86031 .16258 4.6619 5.3291 3.25 6.75
Department
Water & Light 100 4.6420 1.07180 .10718 4.4293 4.8547 1.63 6.75
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 5.8750 .36443 .16298 5.4225 6.3275 5.38 6.25
Finance Department 33 4.5922 1.19913 .20874 4.1670 5.0174 2.00 6.38
Public Health and Human
38 5.1820 1.01637 .16488 4.8479 5.5161 2.75 7.00
Services

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

Fire Department 52 5.7885 1.12610 .15616 5.4750 6.1020 1.00 7.00

Information Technologies 14 5.9286 .61573 .16456 5.5731 6.2841 5.00 7.00

Municipal Court 5 6.2000 .83666 .37417 5.1611 7.2389 5.00 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

Finance Department 32 5.3750 1.51870 .26847 4.8275 5.9225 1.00 7.00

Public Health and Human


38 5.7105 1.31330 .21305 5.2789 6.1422 2.00 7.00
Services

Human Resources Department 12 6.1667 .71774 .20719 5.7106 6.6227 5.00 7.00

Law Department 8 6.2500 .70711 .25000 5.6588 6.8412 5.00 7.00

Police Department 60 3.9000 1.80113 .23252 3.4347 4.3653 1.00 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

Appendix F: Composite Score Significance Test for Gender

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2- Mean


F Sig. t df tailed) Difference
TwoWayComm Equal variances assumed 2.356 .125 -2.127 630 .034 -.23302

Equal variances not assumed -2.188 402.536 .029 -.23302

TopDownComm Equal variances assumed 2.563 .110 -2.964 631 .003 -.26241

Equal variances not assumed -3.093 420.045 .002 -.26241

CoreValueTrust Equal variances assumed 4.400 .036 -4.881 631 .000 -.44546

Equal variances not assumed -5.155 433.059 .000 -.44546

Teamwork Equal variances assumed 1.646 .200 -3.892 631 .000 -.42674

Equal variances not assumed -4.016 408.470 .000 -.42674

PublicServiceMotiv Equal variances assumed 11.472 .001 -4.609 631 .000 -.43916

Equal variances not assumed -5.041 473.362 .000 -.43916

RelationWithCowork Equal variances assumed .450 .503 -2.223 631 .027 -.23703

Equal variances not assumed -2.176 359.906 .030 -.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

Equal variances not assumed -3.832 470.586 .000 -.45737

Appendix G: Composite Score Averages by Job Classification

Descriptives

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean

Std. Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max

TwoWayComm Official and Admin 65 5.7137 .93510 .11598 5.4820 5.9454 2.60 7.00

Professional 104 5.3597 1.32917 .13034 5.1012 5.6182 1.40 7.00

Technician 73 4.8913 1.28522 .15042 4.5915 5.1912 1.40 6.93

Protective Service 81 5.0354 1.27393 .14155 4.7538 5.3171 1.60 7.00

Paraprofessional 7 5.6190 1.00053 .37816 4.6937 6.5444 4.33 6.60

Admin Support 67 4.9034 1.30359 .15926 4.5855 5.2214 1.87 6.87

Skilled Craft 123 5.0609 1.15385 .10404 4.8549 5.2668 1.00 6.93

I don't know 92 5.0480 1.34625 .14036 4.7692 5.3268 1.25 6.93

Total 612 5.1446 1.26058 .05096 5.0446 5.2447 1.00 7.00


TopDownComm Official and Admin 65 5.4217 .73907 .09167 5.2386 5.6048 3.75 7.00
Professional 104 5.2113 .94798 .09296 5.0270 5.3957 2.00 6.88
Technician 73 4.7373 .92896 .10873 4.5205 4.9540 2.75 6.88
Protective Service 81 4.9034 .96106 .10678 4.6909 5.1159 2.00 6.75
Paraprofessional 7 5.4464 .78680 .29738 4.7188 6.1741 4.38 6.38
Admin Support 68 4.8237 1.03592 .12562 4.5730 5.0744 2.00 6.75
Skilled Craft 123 4.7402 1.08029 .09741 4.5474 4.9330 1.25 7.00
I don't know 92 4.7580 1.12756 .11756 4.5245 4.9915 1.63 7.00
Total 613 4.9336 1.01760 .04110 4.8529 5.0143 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust Official and Admin 65 5.4591 .84428 .10472 5.2498 5.6683 3.38 6.88
Professional 104 5.1166 1.05594 .10354 4.9112 5.3220 2.13 6.75
Technician 73 4.6871 .87092 .10193 4.4839 4.8903 2.54 6.78
Protective Service 81 4.3572 1.23176 .13686 4.0848 4.6296 1.04 6.58
Paraprofessional 7 5.0417 .94465 .35704 4.1680 5.9153 3.50 6.13
Admin Support 68 4.8296 .96616 .11716 4.5958 5.0635 2.79 6.75
Skilled Craft 123 4.6014 1.03807 .09360 4.4161 4.7867 1.25 6.46
I don't know 92 4.7386 1.14724 .11961 4.5011 4.9762 1.38 7.00

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

Technician 73 5.1507 1.42079 .16629 4.8192 5.4822 2.00 7.00

Protective Service 81 4.6296 1.91340 .21260 4.2065 5.0527 1.00 7.00

Paraprofessional 7 6.1429 .69007 .26082 5.5047 6.7811 5.00 7.00

Admin Support 68 5.4706 1.27514 .15463 5.1619 5.7792 1.00 7.00

Skilled Craft 123 5.0081 1.60172 .14442 4.7222 5.2940 1.00 7.00

I don't know 92 5.3804 1.51071 .15750 5.0676 5.6933 1.00 7.00

Total 611 5.2324 1.52305 .06162 5.1114 5.3534 1.00 7.00

Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg
95% Confidence

(J) My job is classified Mean Interval

(I) My job is classified as as which of the Difference Std. Lower Upper


Dependent Variable which of the following? following? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

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

Paraprofessional .09468 .49420 1.000 -1.4520 1.6413


*
Admin Support .81029 .21629 .005 .1334 1.4872
*
Skilled Craft .65284 .19051 .018 .0566 1.2491
*
I don't know .66575 .20130 .028 .0358 1.2957
TopDownComm Official and Admin Professional .21039 .15710 .996 -.2813 .7020
*
Technician .68442 .16944 .002 .1541 1.2147
*
Protective Service .51826 .16545 .050 .0005 1.0361
Paraprofessional -.02473 .39523 1.000 -1.2617 1.2122
*
Admin Support .59800 .17235 .015 .0586 1.1374
*
Skilled Craft .68149 .15236 .000 .2047 1.1583
*
I don't know .66371 .16099 .001 .1599 1.1675
Professional Official and Admin -.21039 .15710 .996 -.7020 .2813
Technician .47403 .15171 .051 -.0008 .9488
Protective Service .30787 .14724 .647 -.1529 .7687
Paraprofessional -.23512 .38796 1.000 -1.4493 .9791
Admin Support .38761 .15495 .298 -.0973 .8725
*
Skilled Craft .47109 .13235 .011 .0569 .8853
*
I don't know .45331 .14220 .041 .0083 .8984
CoreValueTrust Official and Admin Professional .34245 .16459 .657 -.1727 .8576

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

Technician .46836 .25761 .863 -.3379 1.2746


*
Protective Service .98942 .25165 .003 .2018 1.7770

Paraprofessional -.52381 .59684 1.000 -2.3917 1.3441

Admin Support .14846 .26196 1.000 -.6714 .9683

Skilled Craft .61092 .23209 .216 -.1155 1.3373


I don't know .23861 .24498 1.000 -.5281 1.0053
*
Protective Service Official and Admin -.98942 .25165 .003 -1.7770 -.2018

88
*
Professional -.81268 .22200 .008 -1.5075 -.1179

Technician -.52106 .24176 .588 -1.2777 .2356

Paraprofessional -1.51323 .59017 .256 -3.3603 .3338


*
Admin Support -.84096 .24639 .019 -1.6121 -.0698

Skilled Craft -.37850 .21436 .894 -1.0494 .2924


*
I don't know -.75081 .22825 .029 -1.4652 -.0365

Appendix H: Composite Score Averages by Race

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

TwoWayComm None Between 1 and 5 -.34624 .12917 .073 -.7091 .0166

Between 6 and 10 -.31617 .19487 .669 -.8636 .2313

Between 10 and 19 -.53712 .28382 .454 -1.3345 .2602


*
20 or more -.79590 .21293 .002 -1.3941 -.1977
TopDownComm None Between 1 and 5 -.28329 .10360 .062 -.5743 .0077
Between 6 and 10 -.32288 .15632 .329 -.7620 .1163
Between 10 and 19 -.37952 .22768 .634 -1.0192 .2601
*
20 or more -.82009 .17081 .000 -1.2999 -.3402
Between 1 and 5 None .28329 .10360 .062 -.0077 .5743
Between 6 and 10 -.03958 .17363 1.000 -.5274 .4482
Between 10 and 19 -.09623 .23990 1.000 -.7702 .5777
*
20 or more -.53679 .18678 .041 -1.0615 -.0121
*
CoreValueTrust None Between 1 and 5 -.32429 .11094 .035 -.6360 -.0126
Between 6 and 10 -.33501 .16740 .373 -.8053 .1353
Between 10 and 19 -.33620 .24383 .840 -1.0212 .3488

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

Std. Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max

TwoWayComm Less than 1 year 57 5.4989 1.22035 .16164 5.1751 5.8227 2.27 6.93

1 to 5 years 177 5.2033 1.16784 .08778 5.0301 5.3765 1.00 7.00

6 to 10 years 138 4.9873 1.36922 .11656 4.7568 5.2178 1.00 7.00

11 to 15 years 89 5.1070 1.21925 .12924 4.8502 5.3638 1.60 7.00

16 to 20 years 81 5.0589 1.40625 .15625 4.7480 5.3699 1.25 7.00

21+ years 84 5.1184 1.22632 .13380 4.8523 5.3845 1.60 7.00

Total 626 5.1388 1.26874 .05071 5.0393 5.2384 1.00 7.00


TopDownComm Less than 1 year 57 5.3382 .96194 .12741 5.0830 5.5935 3.25 7.00
1 to 5 years 178 4.9753 .98384 .07374 4.8298 5.1208 1.25 7.00
6 to 10 years 138 4.8863 1.04148 .08866 4.7109 5.0616 2.00 7.00
11 to 15 years 89 4.8359 1.02521 .10867 4.6199 5.0518 2.13 6.50
16 to 20 years 81 4.9238 1.06586 .11843 4.6881 5.1594 1.63 6.88
21+ years 84 4.7927 1.04327 .11383 4.5663 5.0191 2.00 7.00
Total 627 4.9378 1.02518 .04094 4.8574 5.0182 1.25 7.00
CoreValueTrust Less than 1 year 57 5.2451 1.08952 .14431 4.9560 5.5342 1.92 7.00
1 to 5 years 178 4.8481 1.00459 .07530 4.6995 4.9967 1.25 6.83
6 to 10 years 138 4.7602 1.07260 .09131 4.5796 4.9407 2.14 6.79
11 to 15 years 89 4.7255 1.15549 .12248 4.4821 4.9689 1.75 6.88
16 to 20 years 81 4.7950 1.15978 .12886 4.5385 5.0514 1.38 6.92
21+ years 84 4.5658 1.07900 .11773 4.3317 4.8000 1.04 6.54
Total 627 4.8028 1.08833 .04346 4.7174 4.8881 1.04 7.00
Teamwork Less than 1 year 57 4.6009 1.18548 .15702 4.2864 4.9155 1.43 6.80
1 to 5 years 178 4.2466 1.27948 .09590 4.0573 4.4358 1.00 6.57
6 to 10 years 138 4.1968 1.37479 .11703 3.9653 4.4282 1.00 7.00
11 to 15 years 89 4.2386 1.32512 .14046 3.9595 4.5178 1.14 6.71
16 to 20 years 81 4.3420 1.37894 .15322 4.0371 4.6469 1.00 6.57
21+ years 84 4.2638 1.14499 .12493 4.0153 4.5123 1.29 7.00
Total 627 4.2813 1.29534 .05173 4.1798 4.3829 1.00 7.00
PublicServiceMotiv Less than 1 year 57 5.8772 1.18367 .15678 5.5631 6.1913 1.80 7.00
1 to 5 years 178 5.6598 1.04766 .07853 5.5049 5.8148 1.00 7.00
6 to 10 years 138 5.6884 1.15866 .09863 5.4934 5.8834 2.20 7.00

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

1 to 5 years 178 5.2022 1.51587 .11362 4.9780 5.4265 1.00 7.00

6 to 10 years 138 5.2101 1.49184 .12699 4.9590 5.4613 1.00 7.00

11 to 15 years 88 5.2386 1.53873 .16403 4.9126 5.5647 1.00 7.00

16 to 20 years 81 5.1728 1.51484 .16832 4.8379 5.5078 1.00 7.00

21+ years 82 5.1951 1.55904 .17217 4.8526 5.5377 1.00 7.00

Total 624 5.2212 1.52743 .06115 5.1011 5.3412 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

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

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

Appendix M: Significance Test Results of Wage Competitiveness by Department

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I receive a competitive wage for the work I do.
Hochberg

95% Confidence

(I) In what Interval

department are you Mean Std. Lower Upper


employed? (J) In what department are you employed? Difference (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
Water & Light City Manager's Office -2.410 .652 .025 -4.69 -.13
*
Fire Department -1.583 .320 .000 -2.71 -.46
Information Technologies -.267 .534 1.000 -2.14 1.61
Municipal Court .340 .955 1.000 -3.01 3.69
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.831 .357 .000 -3.08 -.58
Community Development Department -1.160 .400 .333 -2.56 .24
Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.810 .858 .973 -4.82 1.20
Finance Department -.986 .376 .603 -2.30 .33
Public Health and Human Services -.989 .357 .449 -2.24 .26
*
Human Resources Department -2.993 .572 .000 -5.00 -.99
Law Department -2.410 .688 .051 -4.82 .00
Police Department -.127 .306 1.000 -1.20 .95
*
Public Communications Dept. -2.410 .652 .025 -4.69 -.13
*
Public Works Department -1.211 .234 .000 -2.03 -.39
Police Department City Manager's Office -2.283 .669 .070 -4.63 .06
*
Fire Department -1.456 .355 .005 -2.70 -.21

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

(I) In what department are you Difference Std. Lower Upper


employed? (J) In what department are you employed? (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
Water & Light City Manager's Office -2.333 .560 .004 -4.30 -.37
Fire Department -.895 .276 .120 -1.86 .07
Information Technologies -.865 .460 .998 -2.48 .75
Municipal Court -1.422 .738 .996 -4.01 1.16
*
Parks and Rec Department -1.838 .304 .000 -2.90 -.77
*
Community Development Department -1.615 .344 .000 -2.82 -.41
*
Convention and Visitors Bureau -3.022 .738 .005 -5.61 -.44
Finance Department -.691 .327 .973 -1.84 .46
Public Health and Human Services -.933 .307 .229 -2.01 .14
*
Human Resources Department -2.556 .492 .000 -4.28 -.83
*
Law Department -2.222 .592 .020 -4.30 -.15
Police Department .411 .263 1.000 -.51 1.33
Public Communications Dept. -1.667 .560 .272 -3.63 .30
*
Public Works Department -1.082 .202 .000 -1.79 -.37
*
Police Department City Manager's Office -2.744 .575 .000 -4.76 -.73
*
Fire Department -1.306 .305 .002 -2.38 -.24
Information Technologies -1.276 .478 .551 -2.95 .40
Municipal Court -1.833 .749 .779 -4.46 .79
*
Parks and Rec Department -2.249 .331 .000 -3.41 -1.09
*
Community Development Department -2.026 .368 .000 -3.32 -.73
Water & Light -.411 .263 1.000 -1.33 .51
*
Convention and Visitors Bureau -3.433 .749 .001 -6.06 -.81
Finance Department -1.102 .352 .175 -2.34 .13
*
Public Health and Human Services -1.344 .334 .007 -2.51 -.17
*
Human Resources Department -2.967 .509 .000 -4.75 -1.18
*
Law Department -2.633 .606 .002 -4.76 -.51
*
Public Communications Dept. -2.078 .575 .034 -4.09 -.06
*
Public Works Department -1.493 .240 .000 -2.34 -.65

101
Appendix P: Average scores of additional pay and benefits questions by
Department
Descriptives

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean

Std. Std. Lower Upper


N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min Max

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

Information Technologies 14 3.21 2.007 .536 2.06 4.37 1 6

Municipal Court 5 3.80 1.643 .735 1.76 5.84 2 6

Parks and Rec Department 39 4.59 1.802 .289 4.01 5.17 1 7

Community Development Department 28 4.04 2.099 .397 3.22 4.85 1 7

Water & Light 100 2.85 1.828 .183 2.49 3.21 1 7

Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 4.80 1.643 .735 2.76 6.84 2 6

Finance Department 33 3.36 1.917 .334 2.68 4.04 1 7

Public Health and Human Services 37 3.78 1.873 .308 3.16 4.41 1 7

Human Resources Department 12 5.17 1.801 .520 4.02 6.31 1 7

Law Department 8 5.50 .756 .267 4.87 6.13 4 6

Police Department 59 2.86 1.645 .214 2.44 3.29 1 6

Public Communications Dept. 9 4.56 1.509 .503 3.40 5.72 2 6

Public Works Department 178 3.56 1.750 .131 3.30 3.82 1 7

Total 588 3.61 1.872 .077 3.45 3.76 1 7


I am more City Manager's Office 9 5.44 1.130 .377 4.58 6.31 4 7
satisfied with my Fire Department 51 4.25 1.968 .276 3.70 4.81 1 7
pay now than I Information Technologies 14 2.93 1.817 .486 1.88 3.98 1 6
was a year ago. Municipal Court 5 4.60 1.673 .748 2.52 6.68 2 6
Parks and Rec Department 39 3.95 1.776 .284 3.37 4.52 1 7
Community Development Department 27 3.63 2.115 .407 2.79 4.47 1 7
Water & Light 99 3.02 1.868 .188 2.65 3.39 1 7
Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 4.80 1.095 .490 3.44 6.16 4 6
Finance Department 33 3.67 1.814 .316 3.02 4.31 1 6
Public Health and Human Services 35 4.06 1.798 .304 3.44 4.67 1 7
Human Resources Department 12 5.58 1.676 .484 4.52 6.65 2 7
Law Department 8 4.38 1.506 .532 3.12 5.63 2 6
Police Department 59 3.24 1.823 .237 2.76 3.71 1 6
Public Communications Dept. 9 4.11 1.616 .539 2.87 5.35 2 6

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

Parks and Rec Department 39 5.21 1.525 .244 4.71 5.70 1 7

Community Development Department 28 5.25 1.481 .280 4.68 5.82 1 7

Water & Light 100 4.15 1.882 .188 3.78 4.52 1 7

Convention and Visitors Bureau 5 6.00 1.225 .548 4.48 7.52 4 7

Finance Department 33 5.03 1.610 .280 4.46 5.60 1 7

Public Health and Human Services 36 4.64 1.743 .290 4.05 5.23 1 7

Human Resources Department 12 5.83 1.115 .322 5.13 6.54 4 7

Law Department 8 5.50 1.069 .378 4.61 6.39 3 6

Police Department 59 3.63 1.761 .229 3.17 4.09 1 6

Public Communications Dept. 9 4.33 1.803 .601 2.95 5.72 1 7

Public Works Department 178 4.75 1.615 .121 4.51 4.99 1 7

Total 587 4.65 1.710 .071 4.51 4.79 1 7

104
Multiple Comparisons
Hochberg

95% Confidence

(I) In what Mean Interval

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

pay. Information Technologies -.364 .508 1.000 -2.15 1.42

Municipal Court -.950 .816 1.000 -3.81 1.91


*
Parks and Rec Department -1.740 .336 .000 -2.92 -.56

Community Development Department -1.186 .381 .182 -2.52 .15

Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.950 .816 .828 -4.81 .91

Finance Department -.514 .357 1.000 -1.77 .74

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

Police Department -.014 .292 1.000 -1.04 1.01

Public Communications Dept. -1.706 .620 .468 -3.88 .47

Public Works Department -.712 .223 .141 -1.49 .07


*
Police City Manager's Office -2.247 .637 .047 -4.48 -.01
Department Fire Department -1.136 .339 .085 -2.32 .05

Information Technologies -.350 .529 1.000 -2.21 1.51

Municipal Court -.936 .829 1.000 -3.84 1.97


*
Parks and Rec Department -1.725 .367 .000 -3.01 -.44

Community Development Department -1.171 .409 .359 -2.60 .26

Water & Light .014 .292 1.000 -1.01 1.04

Convention and Visitors Bureau -1.936 .829 .870 -4.84 .97

Finance Department -.499 .387 1.000 -1.86 .86

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

Public Communications Dept. -1.691 .637 .569 -3.93 .54

Public Works Department -.697 .267 .619 -1.64 .24


I am more
*
satisfied with Water & Light City Manager's Office -2.424 .638 .017 -4.66 -.19
my pay now *
Fire Department -1.235 .316 .011 -2.34 -.13

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

Water & Light -.523 .271 .996 -1.47 .43

Convention and Visitors Bureau -2.373 .769 .198 -5.07 .32


*
Finance Department -1.403 .359 .011 -2.66 -.15

Public Health and Human Services -1.012 .349 .332 -2.24 .21
*
Human Resources Department -2.206 .523 .003 -4.04 -.37

Law Department -1.873 .622 .246 -4.05 .31

Public Communications Dept. -.706 .591 1.000 -2.78 1.36


*
Public Works Department -1.120 .248 .001 -1.99 -.25

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.

Ellickson, M.C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government


employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from
ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 277069581)

Esty, K and Gewirtz, M. (2008) “Creating a Culture of Employee Engagement, Northeast


Human Resources Association” http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/062308.shtml

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,

Gurchiek, K. (2009) “Employee Surveys Help Measure Engagement.”

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.

Kranz, G. (2010). “Employees want feedback – even if it’s negative.” Workforce


Management, 89(2), 10-11.

Leiter, M.P., & Schaufeli, W.B. (1996). “Consistency of the burnout construct across
occupations.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 9, 229-243.

Lockwood, N. (2007) “Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s


Strategic Role” HR Magazine. 52(3); 1-11.

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

Saks, A. M., (2006) “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement” Journal of


Managerial Psychology 21 (7)pg. 600

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.

Towers Perrin (2010) “Global Workforce Study Report” http://www.towerswatson.com/global-


workforce-study/reports

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)

Westover, J. H., and Taylor, J (2010) International Journal of Productivity and


Performance Management. Bradford: 2010. 59 (8); pg. 811

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.

Yaffe, J. (1992) “A response to occupational (workforce) literacy in a large county government


workforce”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 5, 40-56.

111