INTRODUCTION
This “Component 2 Final Report” includes all reports, documents and presentations summarizing the findings of the Jamieson and Gutierrez Diversity Audit Team regarding Component 2 of the City of Tempe (COT) Diversity Audit. The report is organized for ease of reference for the reader.
The initial documents presented include a discussion of issues involving the next component of the audit, action planning, and is titled “Transitioning from Research to Action Planning.” Further, an in-depth discussion of the methodologies used in the various individual research projects that comprised Component 2 of the audit follows.
The data and conclusions arising from Component 2 are presented in the rest of this Final Report. They begin with a summary presentation of the Component 2 research. Following this, the individual research project reports are presented in a sequential manner, from the Phase 1 Exploratory Research reports to the Phase 2 Employee Census Research presentations and then to the Phase 3 Implementation Research reports. The final section is the Appendices, where all focus group screening mechanisms, executive interview and focus group discussion guides and the survey research protocol are presented.
This report represents all of the research, documentation and findings germane to the research objectives of Component 2. If, however, additional data or information are needed, we stand ready to provide such input.
Jamieson and Gutierrez
Diversity Audit Team
Transitioning from Research to Action
Planning
City of Tempe (COT) managers and employees at all levels agree that diversity is important. They emphasize fairness, equal opportunity and valuing diversity for the different skills, abilities, talents and perspectives it brings to the organization. Managers in particular are focused upon “mirroring’ the diversity of the city itself as a primary goal. The City Manager is most astute. He sees diversity in the broadest terms emphasizing the business rationale for diversity and the global implications of creating a diverse workforce. This broader definition needs to be proliferated throughout the organization so that employees understand the overarching rationale for increasing the City’s workplace diversity.
Managers are proud of the progress they have made in the past year. They point to Mandatory Supervisory Training (MST), mediation training for HR Specialists and building a comprehensive diversity database as examples of their accomplishments. Managers see MST as the key to making cultural change and say that the City is very adept at making system level change.
The City is definitely on the right track with their focus on cultural change. They are to be commended for recognizing that managing diversity is on ongoing, long-term effort. However, there is a serious disconnect with the rank and file employees with respect to the City’s diversity efforts to date. Many employees, especially minorities and women, question the seriousness and sincerity of the City’s diversity initiative. Most are familiar with MST and have attended some form of training, yet they see very little real post-training change. Some believe the City is applying ‘band aids’ to the problem and most express skepticism about whether things will actually change.
Employees are firmly behind their new City Manager and think he is doing a wonderful job. Most believe Will Manley is a genuine change agent and they trust him; however, they see the weight of the diversity effort resting squarely on his shoulders without sufficient management support. For example, many believe that their own supervisors are not sensitive or supportive of diversity issues. In their opinions, many supervisors do not have the skill and confidence needed to handle diversity issues effectively. Some don’t know how to manage differently; others have not ‘bought into diversity’ and simply ignore the issue. A few supervisors are openly resistant to diversity and mock MST training.
Employees are adamant about accountability being built into the system. In their view, historically the City has poor implementation track record. Many say they have no idea what the City is doing with respect to diversity and if MST is the solution, they say it is not having an appreciable effect on their everyday work reality. In their opinion, if the City is serious about diversity, management needs to do a better job of ensuring that the vision from the top is implemented successfully in the trenches. Further, there must be incentives for making change and consequences for those who are resisting change.
Managers, particularly the City Manager, are in touch with some of the key diversity issues. Managers and employees agree that the biggest problems pertain to equal opportunity for promotion and career development, persistence of the ‘good old boy network,’ under representation of women and minorities in male-dominated, professional and top management areas and gender/racial/ethnic stereotypes and discrimination, i.e. barriers to promotion, career development, language, jokes, etc. A few managers also mention management style, especially controlling behavior, as a problem that MST is addressing.
Employees are much more concerned than executives about the City’s controlling management style and a significant number describe their everyday situation as a hostile work environment. Women and minorities are particularly vocal about tactics and behaviors that they see as intimidating and controlling. Minorities, especially men, say that their supervisors have threatened them or warned them not to complain or go to HR with issues. Women and minorities are more likely to say that the City is not a safe place to work and many fear retaliation if they speak out or complain. These employees do not believe that the issue will be resolved with management training. It is a power issue, in their opinion, and supervisors can get away with intimidating and retaliatory behavior in the current system. These are serious charges that could result in legal problems for the City. Strategies and options for addressing hostile work environment will be a focus in the action planning sessions.
Another critical area that must be addressed is inclusion. Inclusion goes beyond promotion and career development; it encompasses everyday business practices such as meetings, communication, decision-making and the like. Employees, especially women and minorities, indicate that they are excluded from fully participating in their teams during meetings and many feel misunderstood or that they have no voice. Minorities and women contend that their ‘secondary status’ within the organization results in a lack of respect for their ideas and opinions. The top down way many work group meetings are conducted is just one example of an everyday process that excludes some employees. Inclusion strategies are a key way to address these types of issues and will be explored in action planning.
Managers and employees want many of the same things with respect to diversity: a fair, level playing field where all employees, including women and minorities, have an equal opportunity to contribute to the organization, excel and be promoted based upon their accomplishments. Managers and employees see many of the same issues and opportunities for improvement and both demonstrate a good grasp of the fundamentals needed to make cultural/organizational change.
The 4-Sided Partnership is an excellent collaborative model the City can build upon. Those involved in it – the City Manager, the fire and police unions, TEC and HR – are very aware of the diversity goals, issues, strategies and progress. They report impressive progress working together and are becoming an effective team. The 4-Sided Partnership can be adapted to include all employees such that they know what the diversity goals are, what the plan is and how they fit into the big picture. An augmented process can provide opportunities for employees and supervisors to have strategic input and provide critical feedback to management. Accountability and formal follow up can be built into the change process to maximize the opportunity for successful change.
One final note, action plans are relatively easy to develop; implementing them is another story. It really comes down to commitment and will. Does the organization really want to make the change? Does it have the wherewithal and the necessary level of commitment to stay the course? Executives, managers and employees all have pieces of the puzzle and have good ideas as to how to put them together. Clearly, they care about the Tempe community and are motivated to do an outstanding job for its citizens. They are proud of their organization, despite any areas for improvement, and have faith that they can become a role model for other cities with respect to diversity. Moreover, they say they are ready, even eager to work together to make change happen. We take them at their word and look forward to working with them in action planning.
Methodology
This section of the Final Report deals with the methodology of the research conducted for Component 2 of the City of Tempe Diversity Audit. As the reader is aware, Component 2 focused specifically on assessment of the city employee workplace relative to diversity issues. The discussion below involves research design and content, measurement, respondent selection and data collection procedures.
Overall, Component 2 of the audit involved a phased assessment approach to researching the City workplace. There were three major phases in the research design:
This phased approach allowed us to construct a research design in which the knowledge and understanding of workplace issues gained in each phase influenced the content and data collected in subsequent phases. For example, the knowledge and understanding gained in Phase 1 Exploratory Research was used to guide content and measurement in the Phase 2 Employee Census. Similarly, the findings from Phase 2 were used to guide design and content of Phase 3 Implementation Research. In this way, the Jamieson and Gutierrez Diversity Audit Team was able to design and execute an extremely effective research process allowing us to build a strong data-based and multi-faceted foundation for drawing the conclusions and making the recommendations found in this report.
Specifically, the Phase 1 Exploratory Research consisted of: a) 12 one-on-one executive interviews with top managers, selected employee representatives of the city workforce and one member of the City’s Human Relations Commission and b) five focus groups of 10 to 12 employees each. Individuals were selected in Phase 1 through a purposive (a.k.a. judgmental) sampling methodology. A purposive sample is one where individual respondents are selected for inclusion through the judgment of the researcher(s) because of their employment positions, knowledge, experience and potential for yielding useful, important insights. The respondents in Phase 1 fulfilled this goal.
The one-on-one executive interviews were held in individual conference rooms of the Tempe Public Library at Southern Avenue and Rural Road during September and October of 2001. All interviews were conducted personally by J&G DAT Principal Investigators Joel Wright and Janell Youtsey. Each interview lasted at least one and one-half hours. Based on our diversity knowledge and expertise, a pre-designed general interview protocol was used in each interview and all were audio recorded with the permission of each respondent. The audio tapes were transcribed and those transcripts were used as the basis of the Phase 1 Exploratory Executive Interviews report. The audio tapes were then destroyed, as per our commitment to respondents regarding anonymity. The report from the one-on-one interviews is included in the body of this Final Report and the general interview protocol is appended.
The focus groups were conducted in October, 2001 and all five were held at Hatton Hall, just south of the main City Hall building. Each focus group consisted of 10 to 12 employee respondents and the groups were recruited based on specific investigative considerations. Those considerations were based on findings from the one-on-one executive interviews and our experience and expertise conducting workplace diversity research. The considerations are highlighted by the composition of the groups shown below:
These groups were audio recorded, transcribed and those data were used as
the basis of the Phase 1 Exploratory Focus Groups report. The report is included in the body of this Final Report. The screening mechanism used to identify potential respondents and the discussion guide used in the groups are both appended to this report. Per our commitment to anonymity, the audio tapes were destroyed once transcriptions were complete.
Phase 2 Employee Census:
The Phase 2 Employee Census consisted of a quantitative telephone and mail survey conducted among all employees of the City willing to do the interview. This was a total of 1,171 employees out of 1,669, thus yielding a response rate of 70.2 percent. This response rate is extremely strong and shows the vast majority of employees were “on board” and willing to contribute their opinions and experiences to the audit process.
The City’s official workforce database of 1,669 employees was obtained by us through the Human Resources Department and with the assistance of Director Bill Hernandez. The reader should note Police Chief Ralph Tranter’s concerns about the availability of personal/home contact information of his department’s employees were satisfied through the use of two separate locations for data collection. Police Department employees and any other employee wishing that personal/home contact information be kept within the City were interviewed by our staff located at a City facility where they did not have access to such data. A system was developed so that our interviewers simply punched buttons to dial a telephone without knowing what number it was they were dialing. Thus we were not privileged with the home telephone numbers of PD employees and others, accounting for approximately 800 City employees.
The remaining names and telephone numbers from the City database were contacted and interviewed from a central location telephone data collection facility in north Phoenix, Arizona.
Attempts to interview employees in Phase 2 were comprehensive. Repeated callbacks and interview appointments were scheduled throughout the data collection period and our field operations conducted interviews whenever employees indicated they were available, sometimes including late at night and in the early morning hours. Field attempted up to 20 times each to complete interviews with employee non-respondents. If an employee indicated they did not want to participate in the survey, attempts to contact them were immediately terminated. Only 158 employees, or 9.5 percent, refused to participate in the census, a remarkably low number for survey research of this type. The low number of refusals is another clear indicator of the extent to which employees were supportive of the audit process.
All interviews were conducted by professional interview staff and all data collection was supervised 100 percent of the time by professional supervisory staff. In addition, bilingual staff conducted the interview with Spanish-speaking employees whenever necessary.
The interview itself was designed by Component 2 Principal Investigators Joel Wright and Janell Youtsey based on findings from Phase 1. J&G DAT team members reviewed the draft interview and made suggestions. Once all input was received, the interview was cleared for the data collection pretest.
The pretest of 10 completed interviews was conducted to ensure the interview was clear, understandable and that no administrative problems existed. None did, so field operations and data collection began November 15, 2001 and ended February 28, 2002. Data collection was on hold during holiday periods. During data collection, a random sample of 10 percent of completed interviews were re-called and respondents asked several key questions as a quality control check. No problems were encountered.
Further, we also developed a mailed version of the interview, which was sent to all non-respondent non-refusal employees in January, 2002. The mail interview included a Spanish language version. The mail interview package included postage-paid return envelopes, in addition to the interview itself. The package was designed so that employees had only to fill out the questionnaire and mail it back to us.
The reader should note the interview and data collection process was designed specifically so no individual respondents could be identified. All data collection records have been destroyed.
Once all interviews were completed, the data were then reduced and coded so they were ready for computer input. Once computer input was finished, the dataset was sent to Joel Wright. He personally performed all validity and logic checks, calculated and applied data weights to ensure the final dataset used in analysis is clean and representative of the sample universe. It is.
He produced all statistical output and performed all analyses of the data, including the factor analysis and cluster analysis. Once all analyses were complete, he wrote the Tempe Census Detailed Findings Report, discussing the primary findings, and the Tempe Census Executive Summary Report, summarizing key findings and our conclusions. Both reports are included in this main report.
The interview protocol used in the census research is appended to this report.
The Phase 3 Implementation Research consisted of: a) 10 one-on-one executive interviews with top managers and selected employee representatives of the city workforce and b) three focus groups of 10 to 12 employees each. Individuals were selected in Phase 3 through a purposive sampling method.
The one-on-one executive interviews were held in individual conference rooms of the Tempe Public Library at Southern Avenue and Rural Road during March, 2002. All interviews were conducted personally by J&G DAT Principal Investigator Janell Youtsey. Each interview lasted one to one and one-half hours. A pre-designed interview protocol was used in each interview and all but one were audio recorded with the permission of each respondent (one respondent refused and was not taped). The audio tapes were transcribed and those transcripts were used as the basis of the Phase 3 Implementation Executive Interviews report. The audio tapes were then destroyed. The report from the one-on-one interviews is included in the body of this Final Report and the general interview protocol is appended.
The focus groups were conducted in April, 2002 and all were held at Hatton Hall, just south of the main City Hall building. Each focus group consisted of 10-12 employee respondents and the groups were recruited based on specific investigative considerations. Those considerations were based on findings from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 research and our diversity and action planning expertise. The considerations are highlighted by the composition of the groups shown below:
These groups were audio recorded, transcribed and those data were used as
the basis of the Phase 3 Implementation Focus Groups report. The report is included in the body of this Final Report. The screening mechanism used to identify potential respondents and the discussion guide used in the groups are both appended to this report. The audio tapes were destroyed once transcriptions were complete.
In sum, the Component 2 Workforce Assessment involved triangulating research methods, where data are obtained from a variety of sources, viewpoints and through various independent data collection methods. The auditors’ expertise in diversity research and organizational development allowed us to frame the context of the data and findings as shown in our reports. The Component 2 research effort was extremely comprehensive and our recommendations reflect the findings and knowledge gained from such an effort.