TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page:
This report is based on five focus groups conducted with City of Tempe employees. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions, attitudes and concerns of employees regarding diversity issues and the development of a progressive workforce system.
The reader should note the individuals recruited for this project were selected through a purposive sampling methodology. The investigative focus of these groups is highlighted by their composition as shown below:
Each group consisted of 10-12 employees and all were held at Hatton Hall, just
south of the main City Hall building. The groups were held in September and October, 2001 and each lasted two hours.
The screening mechanism and the discussion guide for the groups was designed by Joel Wright and Janell Youtsey, with input and sign-off from all J&G DAT members. Both were designed utilizing the findings from our Exploratory Executive Interviews project and our experience and expertise in diversity research and organizational development.
Each group was audio recorded, the tapes were transcribed and the transcriptions used as the basis of this report. All tapes were destroyed after transcription in order for us to fulfill our commitment to respondents regarding anonymity.
This report represents all the findings germane to the basic research objectives of this project. If, however, additional data or inputs are needed, we stand ready to provide them.
Jamieson and Gutierrez
Diversity Audit Team
The following presents the major findings of this study. Each of the findings below is discussed in greater detail in the body of this report.
City of Tempe Mission
The majority of these respondents have little respect or enthusiasm for the City of Tempe’s Mission Statement. In fact, many express disdain, even resentment and anger when asked how they see Tempe’s mission and how well they believe the City is living up to that mission. How employees and managers see the mission and culture varies greatly depending on the workplace environment and culture of their particular division or department.
At one end of the continuum, fire personnel treat the question with thoughtfulness and respect. One fire fighter articulates the group sentiment, “Our job is to protect the citizens of Tempe. The City has made huge strides in how employees are treated, our benefits package and even how they view employees.” Other fire fighters and fire personnel agree that they feel as though the City has made an important shift in recent years in that employees are treated as a valuable asset rather than a disposable commodity.
Fire participants acknowledge that their department is unique within the City. One respondent explains, “We have more voice and influence than other City departments. Fire is a leader and innovator within the City.” Other fire personnel strongly agree. They say that they see no pattern of discrimination or prejudice within fire; moreover, they emphasize that Fire is very in tune with diversity issues and benefits because they are a close team and work and live together. One respondent explains the group perspective, “We live and work together 24 hours a day. We become brothers and know each other intimately, unlike most job situations. In Fire we talk about the problems that affect us and understand issues from all points of view. This enables us to reach consensus and resolve issues very effectively.” Others agree that the fire situation is unique. According to fire fighters, most City employees are ‘one step removed’ from their workplace environment in that they come to work and leave issues behind when they go home at night. Many issues only come to light once they have festered and become a major problem. This does not happen in the fire culture.
Police personnel are at the opposite end of the continuum. Police participants express anger and derision toward Tempe’s mission. Several pantomime pulling out their employee badge to read it, others roll their eyes and laugh. Once the antics subside, it is clear this is not a laughing matter to police, but a source of anger, disappointment and hurt. Police say that their everyday reality is far removed from the ideals of Tempe’s mission statement. In their view the City, especially the Police Department (PD), does not live up to the stated ideals of its mission. One participant explains his view, “They say serving the public and providing quality service is important, yet they (the City) show no respect for PD. Police are not consulted or involved in the major decisions that affect us. We are told we have been volunteered to do things we know are not feasible or effective. We’re tired of the bullshit.”
Other police participants strongly agree. In their view the police culture is at a low point in its history. They say people with longevity are penalized and that experienced senior staff are retiring early and leaving to work elsewhere. One respondent summarizes the group sentiment, “Employee experience and expertise is not valued in the City of Tempe. It’s reached the point that good people are leaving even if they haven’t lined up another job.” Police agree that the City culture, particularly PD, is rife with inequities and system problems and that this negative environment is leading to low morale and a declining work ethic within the Police Department.
Non-safety employees say that they have been ‘bludgeoned to death’ with Tempe’s mission and are sick and tired of it. One employee explains the group viewpoint, “It has been preached and discussed to death in our group. Under Greco, we had to endure smiley faces.” Employees agree that the mission has become a ‘meaningless joke’ for many employees. In their opinion, the City needs to recognize the overkill and move on. A few employees point out that even without the overkill issue, the mission statement is too vague to be useful for most employees. Several employees say that their group no longer refers to the mission and is focused upon doing their job, which is to serve citizens and provide good customer service.
Managers and supervisors agree that the mission statement is too vague to be meaningful to most employees. Those who use the mission statement effectively try to tie it specifically to the job they and their employees are doing. Others acknowledge that in their group, the environment has been chaotic and confusing. One PD supervisor describes his experience, “In PD there has been tremendous instability in the last year and the dust is finally settling. The mission has been a big joke for most employees. The City is just getting back on its feet with a new manager. What has been most helpful is that he hasn’t made any drastic change. We’ve needed a period of calm to re-group and re-focus.” Managers and supervisors from all parts of the City strongly agree with the forgoing assessment. Several also mention the smiley faces as being trite and not in keeping with Tempe Culture.
Many non-safety employees have positive things to say about the culture. One respondent says, “Our jobs are interesting and enjoyable.” Another adds, “We have many good benefits and flexibility in our jobs.” One describes Tempe as “progressive, professional and cooperative.” Several employees posit that most employees are happy in their jobs and are glad to work in the City of Tempe.
Non-safety employees argue that the City’s culture varies dramatically based upon the department or division where you work For example, one employee explains, “I really enjoy my new department because my management is in touch and approachable. In my previous job management was unfriendly and superior; they didn’t want to be bothered by employees.” Another concurs, “In my last group I dreaded getting up in the morning to go to work. In my new job I’m happy to get to work. The main difference is how I’m treated. In my new job I’m respected and appreciated. In my old job my supervisor just wanted me to shut up and do my job.”
Most agree that one’s group and one’s immediate supervisor make a big difference regarding how employees experience their work situation. One respondent asserts, “Culture depends on where you work, I wouldn’t want to work in Public Works or the Police Department based on what I’ve heard.” Employees agree that managers and supervisors set the stage for their group. They say that the City can be a great place to work or it can be a negative and stressful place to work.
Public Works (PW) employees acknowledge that things are better than they have been historically. One PW employee articulates the group view, “In the old days benefits and flexibility only went to certain individuals. Policy was not applied evenly across the board and lists were kept of problem employees. Once you were on the list, forget it. Today the management attitude has changed. Managers are more respectful and concerned.” PW employees acknowledge that things are better and that the culture is changing; however, employees who are critical of management or distrust new managers may be labeled as ‘troublemakers’ or are accused of not being ‘team players.’ PW employees agree managers need to be more sensitive to the inequities of the past and work on building employee trust.
Interestingly managers describe Tempe culture in terms of their own areas of responsibility. For example, Information Technology (IT) stresses the efficiency and technological capability as key cultural values. Planning emphasizes Tempe as innovative, progress and leading edge; they see development projects as examples of Tempe’s innovative character.
Police participants see Tempe’s redevelopment activities quite differently. One participant summarizes the police point of view, “Tempe’s primary cultural value seems to be producing revenue. We have a street full of bars that produce cash, but this doesn’t help our community. Rio Salado and the stadium are not improving our community. We have areas in Tempe that are like third world countries and nothing is being done to improve them. As development activities increase we worry about how we can protect and safeguard our community. The workload expands without any additional budget or personnel and we’re stretched dangerously thin.”
A planning manager contends, “I can see how it might look as though Tempe is going for the ‘sexy project’ and the big bucks, but I think what we are really trying to do is create a unique community identity. Planning activities are geared toward ensuring fiscal solvency twenty years down the line. Our job is forward thinking whereas PD has to focus on the here and now.”
Managers agree that Tempe strongly emphasizes customer service as a core cultural value. Again, whether this is a positive attribute depends on the individual point of view. A transit supervisor contends, “Customer service is the key value in our area.
Our mission is to serve the public by making bus stops ADA (American’s with Disability Act) accessible and improving traffic flows and neighborhoods.” Others suggest that customer orientation may be over-emphasized. One participant argues, “The customer service value has gone to the extreme in PD to the point that we don’t have the budget and resources needed to fulfill the commitments that the City makes for us.” Another in IT asserts that values such customer service are used to justify certain decisions, particularly expenditures and budget decisions, that make it difficult for supervisors to do their jobs.
Everyone laments the loss of a
more family-oriented, close-knit City culture.
In the past employees spent leisure time together and knew one
another. They say that as Tempe has
grown from 800 to 2000 it has become more impersonal and corporate in its
attitude toward employees. Fire and
Police have been able to maintain closer bonds than most groups, but overall
respondents agree that this shift has negatively affected employee morale. One respondent describes the prevailing
sentiment, “The City really has missed the boat as it has moved away from its
family/people orientation. Don’t get me
wrong, we have good employees, but we’re no longer close. We lack the ties that bind.” Only the Fire culture has maintained this
closeness. One fire fighter explains,
“Our unit is more like a family. And
like a family we’re much more accepting and tolerant of one another and we’re
willing to go the extra mile to get along.”
Degree of Openness
Participants describe fire culture as very open and inclusive. One participant explains, “Our culture differs in that we won’t just take whatever is handed to us. We’ll step up and fight for what we believe in and that is very different from most City groups.” Other fire personnel agree. Another elaborates, “Questioning authority is part of our culture. We’re not afraid to voice our opinion when we see things that need to be changed.” Fire fighters emphasize that they could take an issue all the way to their Fire Chief if need be without fear of reprisal. They acknowledge that this is not the case for most City of Tempe employees. One participant explains, “Most employees are not as comfortable challenging the status quo and even if they are, they are not always listened to or taken seriously.”
Non-safety employees indicate that the degree of openness depends on one’s department or group. For example, Traffic Ops and the Courts are described as very open and effective. According to employees in these groups, issues can be elevated without fear of reprisal and issues are handled effectively. Other departments are described as having an open door, but as being less effective in solving ongoing problems. One employee describes her experience, “One issue has been festering for the past year and still isn’t resolved. It has impacted department morale and everyone agrees it is a problem, yet nothing seems to happen. We have followed policy, guidelines and have worked with HR and all we have to show for it is lots of documentation. We’ve given up at this point.”
PW employees describe their management as ‘open to suggestion, but fixed in their thinking.’ One employee says, “Supervisors are now listening to us, but are most comfortable telling us what to do and how to do it. This is how they define their role as managers. It’s like if we come up with the ideas, what’s their job?” Another PW employee adds, “Our supervisors seem to be afraid of new ideas. It’s as if they have blinders on and are only comfortable with tradition.”
Employees from other groups agree that some managers and supervisors are threatened by creativity and new ideas. As one employee sees it, “The management response to new ideas is to tell employees thanks but, this is the way we’ve always done it, as if that is reason enough to maintain the status quo.” Others say their supervisor gets mad or feels challenged by employee inputs, even those that are intended to improve operations. Blue-collar employees feel particularly stifled. One employee argues, “Blue collar employees are ignored and disrespected. We’re stereotyped. Supervisors want you to just shut up and do the job.” Another blue-collar employee adds, “In my department our manager resents our inputs. Our expertise is not respected or valued. The attitude is that if we had any great ideas, we wouldn’t be blue collar workers!”
Clerical and blue-collar workers agree that employees at the lowest levels of the City are treated differently than professional level employees and managers. On employees expresses the group sentiment, “Supervisors are much happier if we keep our noses to the grind stone and our ideas to ourselves.’ Professional level employees acknowledge that this bias probably occurs in some departments.
Police employees describe their department as extremely ‘closed.’ One employee contends, “Many of our managers have hit their heads against the brick wall for so long that when you go to them with an idea or suggestion, they are reluctant to move forward with it. I went to my lieutenant and told him that a project we were committed to wouldn’t work. I showed him some of the studies that backed me up and he agreed with me. He said he knew it wouldn’t work but that we had to do it anyway because that’s what the Chief wanted.” Others strongly agree that taking ideas to their manager or challenging the current direction is largely futile.
A Police employee expresses the group sentiment, “Things are not better, they’re much worse under the new Chief. He’s the one who gave all the raises to his staff to keep them in line.” Participants explain that their managers now work ‘at will,’ which in their opinion means that they are firmly ‘under the thumb’ of the new Chief. They say this change has eliminated the ‘open door policy’ within PD. One employee adds, “I was specifically told by my supervisor not to go talk to the new City Manager …so much for the open door policy.” Other say that their ideas and inputs have been squelched or vetoed by their supervisors because their managers either don’t want to ‘rock the boat’ or they have ‘given up’ on making change.
Degree of Employee Inclusion
Many employees, especially minority employees, see Tempe as exclusionary. One black employee shares his perspective, “I am extremely excluded in my group. Tempe is very exclusionary as compared to other places I’ve worked where you find Black and Hispanic managers and women executives. Here training, perks and positions are given to you if your manager likes you, not based upon job performance.” Many employees, especially women, Hispanic and Black employees agree with this assessment. They too believe that certain groups are favored and other groups are excluded based upon diversity criteria including gender, race and ethnicity.
A Hispanic female explains, “I’ve been with the City over twenty years and certain minority groups have been routinely excluded in some departments and divisions. Employees expected the City to recruit new blood from outside of the City when problem areas were identified and it didn’t happen. It is very disappointing for many of us and has negatively impacted our morale.”
Most say that they are excluded in subtle ways. For example, one young Hispanic female describes her situation, “I know I am being discriminated against being I am Hispanic. I work in a team with three other Hispanic women and two white women. Our supervisor always goes to the white employees for input and never asks for input or suggestions from the Hispanic employees. In staff meetings my suggestions and inputs are ignored. I say something and get no response. It’s like I’m invisible. I had to train my white co-workers and now whatever they say goes. I’ve tried to talk to my supervisor about it and I’ve been told that if I don’t like it, I can leave.”
Other minority employees say they have had similar experiences. Some have been punished or threatened by their supervisor when they have tried to confront them about how they are being treated. Many minority employees describe being ‘ignored, disrespected, patronized, shut down, held back and excluded.’ Several say that they had good performance reviews, until they started ‘rocking the boat’. One employee reveals, “My reviews always praised my ability to work well with others. When I complained about how I was being treated I was labeled ‘not a team player’ in my next review.” Others agree that they too have been sanctioned or retaliated against when they have questioned or challenged their supervisor.
A few minority employees say they try not to dwell upon how they are treated. One Hispanic employee explains, “I try not to think about it because it makes me sad and angry. I go home and talk to my wife about it, but talking about it just makes it worse because nothing seems to change.” Others agree that many minority employees just try to do the best job that they can and try not to focus on these types of problems. Another adds, “Yeah, I know what you mean, but sometimes it’s too much to ignore. That’s when I really feel trapped because I don’t think there is anywhere else to go and I need my job.”
Several non-minority employees, especially clerical and blue-collar workers say they too have been shut down and told they can leave if they are not happy with the way their supervisor is running things. One employee contends, “It’s not just a diversity issue. It’s a power issue. In our group anyone that challenges the supervisor is in trouble.” Others wonder where to draw the line between management problems and diversity issues. For example, a few minority employees agree that in their group minority employees are not singled out for abuse, but that any employee who challenges his or her supervisor may experience retaliation. Several employees contend that there is more conflict between levels, i.e. between supervisors and employees, than there is among employees themselves.
Police participants say employee inputs are not solicited nor welcomed. In their view employees who speak their minds or disagree with their supervisor are often labeled as ‘troublemakers’ and retaliated against. They acknowledge that some Police supervisors may try to elevate issues, but they too are subject to retaliation. Consequently, most agree that in PD managers go through the motions of getting employee input but typically don’t act upon it unless it is in line with top management thinking.
Finally, supervisors and managers agree that the degree of openness and inclusion depends on the group. In their view, PD is probably the most closed group. As one PD supervisor sees it, “Employees and supervisors in PD are walking on eggshells afraid to say what they think in many instances.” Other managers suggest they see things getting better in their groups. More employee inputs are solicited than in the past and supervisors are being trained on how to work with employees, provide coaching and the like.
Level of Trust
The majority of managers and employees strongly agree that lack of trust in the City is a serious problem. They describe issues of trust between employees, between departments and between levels of the organization. Most significantly, they agree that both employees and managers use ‘spies’ to monitor one another and to determine what is really happening in the City. They see spies in employee work groups like the TEC, spies in HR, spies in employee unions and even potential spies in the diversity focus groups. In their view there is a lack of trust at all levels throughout the City and everyone, managers and employees alike, take steps to protect themselves and their individual interests.
Managers and employees lack a shared definition or understanding of diversity. Managers and employees mention receiving some diversity training over the past years. Civil Treatment training and cultural awareness training is most frequently mentioned. Several say that diversity as simply as living by the golden rule. Those
who espouse this view believe the City and/or their departments have gone ‘overboard’ with their emphasis on diversity. Police in particular say that employees are ‘walking on eggshells’ because of some of the negative training they have received. A few employees say that the City’s approach to diversity is to mirror the diversity of the surrounding community.
Only two or three mention diversity benefits per se, without prompting. One manager posits, “Our focus should be on diversity benefits such as language translation, or better connecting with a citizen from a diverse group. We need to have employees from different backgrounds to strengthen the workplace and better serve our community.” Others agree with this perspective when it is expressed; however, diversity benefits are not top of mind for most managers or employees. Many admit that their first thoughts of diversity pertain to concerns about offending someone, legal issues and possible personal or professional sanctions. A few say they are not concerned about sanctions, they are just focused on the job and diversity issues do not directly affect them.
Respondents emphasize hiring and recruiting minorities as Tempe’s primary approach to managing diversity. Managers and supervisors say that job performance and experience are the primary factors used in hiring; however, they are conscious of diversity criteria and are pleased when they can increase the diversity in their areas. One PD manager says, “In our last group of eight new officers, three were female, one was Hispanic and one was Black. When I saw the group mix I jumped up and down. It was great to see that we are paying attention to diversity and valuing it.” Managers and employees agree that increasing the diversity Tempe’s workforce is a valuable goal, but are not in favor of using quotas to increase workforce diversity.
Employees say that diversity is not a major topic or focus in their group. It is not discussed in staff or in team meetings. Moreover, employees do not see any significant changes in the City or their immediate work environment based upon diversity training or goals. The only visible change they see is the hiring of Hispanic supervisors in Public Works. Many agree with the statement that ‘in reality diversity isn’t even a blip on the City’s map.’ Several say they had no clue diversity was an issue until they heard about the Diversity Audit. Others disagree; they say diversity is important, but most cannot articulate how it impacts them or the City.
Several minority employees say they do not see managers implementing any of the ideas that were presented in diversity training classes. One Hispanic employee shares his view, “I was hopeful after I went to the Civil Treatment training and I went back to my department to apply it. I tried to do it but my supervisor wasn’t doing it. You get de-motivated when your managers ignore the guidelines and training.” Another Hispanic employee adds, “In our group the managers who were discriminating against us sent us to Civil Treatment Training. As far as I know they didn’t even attend. Where’s the logic in that?”
Several police employees contend that PD is not hiring and staffing with appropriate diversity goals in mind. One participant argues, “The street crime unit is a good old boy unit. I can’t understand how an all white unit can infiltrate the aspects of society that they need to. Mesa’s unit is diverse and very effective. We don’t use diversity to our advantage in getting the job done.” Another respondent agrees, “We only have one Hispanic officer in our gang unit, give me a break!”
Police employees agree that PD needs more diversity in these and other types of units. They contend that in PD the pendulum has swung toward recruiting women, especially gay women to curry favor with the Mayor. They emphasize that most PD employees have no issues hiring and working with gay officers; what they object to is what they see as the political nature of hiring practices. In their view, it is an issue of fairness and unit effectiveness. They strongly agree that diversity should be a hiring consideration and a broader net needs to be used to increase diversity in PD. And they strongly oppose any hiring or promotional practices that are based upon favoritism, politics or other inappropriate criteria.
How employees say that management varies by department and group. Overall, fire employees tend to be very satisfied. One fire fighter articulates the group sentiment, “Our management is better than most. Fire has a communication and goal setting process that works well and our meet and confer process is effective.” Other fire personnel see themselves and the way that they work with their management as the role model for the city.
In contrast, Police say that their department is rife with problems. In their view PD is managed top down and authority is absolute. “In PD accountability is hammered and negative reinforcement is the norm,” explains one respondent. Others agree and in their view, the situation has gotten worse in recent years. Police personnel strongly agree that they cannot go to their Chief with a problem or concern. One employee explains, “We’ve worked very hard to get to where we are. Why fight the fight when it’s not going anywhere?” Employees say that they fear they may lose their jobs if they ‘tell it like it is.’ Others say their direct supervisor or manager has threatened them point blank. Most believe that they must conform or they will be punished, even fired.
Police employees have different opinions about why their department has these problems. Most agree that their current leadership came up through the trenches and many do not know how to lead and manage effectively. One participant expresses the group view, “Our current leaders and managers have been taught and have adapted to poor management practices in PD. Minimally, the city needs to go outside to recruit a new PD Chief. We need substantial change and a fresh start in PD.” All but one agrees. She argues, “Simply changing the personnel is not the solution. Government is traditionally an authoritative management structure. We need to look at a different types of organization and make system level changes. The biggest shift we need to make in Police is to become more inclusive in our daily operation. A lot of good talent and experience being wasted.” Most agree with this assessment.
Other police participants stress lack of management experience as an issue. One employee asserts, “We have managers that have only been here two or three years and lack experience.” A few contend that the lack of incentives such as merit pay (employee pay scales top out at fifteen years) contribute to management and employee inertia. And the list goes on. One employee summarizes the group view, “We have many issues in PD; essentially PD is a dinosaur. We need to look at how private industry is organized and managed and implement some of these practices in the department.”
Non-safety employees say management competence is a mixed bag; it depends primarily on who you have as a direct supervisor. About half of the employees agree that their supervisor is ‘competent and supportive.’ One employee says, “My immediate supervisor is savvy, she provides lots of feedback and career coaching. She’s great! Another adds, “I’ve experienced good and bad supervisors working for the City. It really comes down to the luck of the draw as far as good management goes.”
About half of the group says they have experienced poor management and supervision. For example, one employee describes her situation, “My immediate supervisor is nice, but not very knowledgeable or supportive. Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall. He’s been there 20 years and things are just the way they are. He has no familiarity with my job and is completely out of touch. It’s frustrating. His coaching and advice is way off base and I’m de-motivated.” Another employee adds, “The level of supervision in my area is diluted. Mine doesn’t want to be bothered with anything. There is poor support for all employees.” Several agree that there are many incompetent supervisors who lack basic management skill and ability.
Managers and supervisors say that generally speaking, management is ‘pretty good’ particularly more recently. One supervisor explains, “Manley is the opposite of Greco which is a good thing. Manley is making an attempt to reach out to all groups within the City. One of the best things he did when he took over is he left things alone. Many of my people were running scared. In the previous administration we said we valued people and then began firing them right and left and seeing lots of negative press. We needed someone to rally the troops and to establish some stability.”
Managers and employees strongly agree that the current administration is taking the City is a positive direction. However managers and supervisors contend that the management direction changes under the direction of the City Council. One supervisor argues, “It is difficult to maintain a steady course when so many things are driven from a council level. Top managers should be pushing back more and staying the course.” Others agree. Another adds, “We need to learn how to say ‘no’ to the Mayor and Council. Some of the things that trickle down to us from the top are absurd.”
Half of the managers and supervisors agree that their direct manager is ‘supportive and competent.’ They say the level of support declines as one moves up the management hierarchy. Those who do not see their management as supportive say their manager fails to elevate their issues up the chain to get them resolved. A few recognize that their bosses are in ‘overload’ themselves, but most agree that they need to spend more time working with supervisors directly. They recommend that their managers learn to delegate more effectively and help their departments focus on the priorities. Finally, most agree that communication between and across levels needs to be improved.
Non-safety employees have a very good or excellent impression of the new City Manager. They mention field trips, email communications and open door policy as specific things they attribute to Manley’s leadership. Several respondents see positive change in their groups. One employee says, “I see my managers making an effort to get more into the field and talk with employees.” Another agrees, “Ours are showing more interest in what we do and that shows their respect and regard for employees.” Many say they do see improvement and ongoing efforts by the City Manager to improve communication and accessibility.
Other employees disagree. They say they see the new City Manager making efforts, but do not see any significant changes in their own groups. One employee asserts, “I refuse to answer this question and that should give you a pretty good idea of my situation.” Another adds, “There is no accountability in management. They are not doing anything differently in my area nor will they any time soon. Supervisors and managers cover for one another rather than supporting their employees. They don’t waste their time in the field.”
Fire personnel say that they haven’t seen any big changes in communication and accessibility in their department. As one participant sees it, “Communication and accessibility sound like good management buzz words. But all kidding aside, sometimes the people at the top lose touch with reality. It would be helpful to have our chief come ride with us at five a.m. in the morning to get a better sense of what we have to deal with every day.” Others agree that they haven’t seen much change in this regard. Another fire fighter expresses the group sentiment, “We appreciate that our top management is in overload and we don’t really expect lot of time in the field from them.” Another agrees, “Sure there are times we are all too busy to communicate well and things drag on and there is room for improvement, but we all mostly understand and make it work.”
Police employees say that communication in their group in one-way, top down. One employee adds, “I’ve heard ‘open communication and accessibility’ over the years with multiple administrations. No one is going to talk unless they want to lose their jobs.” Most agree. Another employee expresses the group perspective, “There has been no change to date. If you maintain the same people, what do you expect?”
Managers and supervisors have not seen significant improvement in management communication and accessibility in their areas, nor have they been instructed to work on this with their direct reports. One supervisor explains, “I don’t see this happening at all in my area. Super Track training is a case in point. I tried to take what I learned back to my group and implement it without success. The environment was not there to support me and my manager did not support me. Change is not supported in my group and there is little or no accountability.”
Another supervisor sees it somewhat differently, “I think upper management is trying to make a difference in light of the challenges, but when the ‘shit hits the fan’ it’s back to the old way of doing things.” Others agree, under pressure of deadlines and everyday realities, communication goes out the window and top down management becomes the norm. Finally, another supervisor adds, “The political pressure from Council makes it difficult to sustain any true change in how we manage things. We spend more time juggling political balls than doing our jobs.” Most agree that money and politics are what truly drive the City management.
According to fire personnel, the City Management has improved in how it handles diversity from the Mayor down. One fire employee says, “Minimally, the City is more aware of their image.” Another adds, “Current top management is more inclined to follow through and keep their promises. They are more aware of diversity and taking action to correct past issues.” Fire participants say they are isolated in their own department and don’t know what is happening in other parts of the City. One employee explains, “In fire, management is pretty well on top of things. For example, we’ve had sexual harassment training and it was helpful.” Others agree. They may have heard some rumors about Public Works or have talked to Police colleagues, but none had come across any major issues in their department.
Although fire personnel acknowledge that they have no firsthand knowledge of diversity issues, their overall impression is that most of the diversity issues have emanated in Public Works and PD. As one employee sees it, “The rumor mill suggests that PD has the most diversity problems primarily due to their management leadership and style. The police employees I’ve talked to are very dissatisfied with how things operate, i.e. favoritism, buddy system, etc.” Others say Police is known to have high turnover and is losing some of its best people. As to diversity issues in PD, three key areas are mentioned in descending order of importance: sexual harassment, racial discrimination and sexual orientation, i.e. gay issues. Fire members do not have specific cases they feel they can share because they lack firsthand experience with the diversity issues. They emphasize that these are the areas most frequently mentioned by their police colleagues as problematic.
Police respondents say they have diversity issues in their department. They cite sexual harassment and gender bias as the most prevalent problems. Two specific examples are given where a female officer/employee was discriminated against and the entire focus group was intimately familiar with both cases. Neither case can be described here because all participants agree that the employees involved would be readily identified and punished, perhaps even fired.
A few contend that racial bias has been evident in staffing decisions. The overwhelmingly white male composition of the gang unit and the street crime unit are cited as examples of areas where diversity is needed, but is lacking. However, two police employees of color say that they are treated no differently than any other employee in PD. One employee states, “I get good support from the officers in my unit. Most of the difficulties I’ve faced are from citizens who are prejudiced against me. When I’ve faced these types of situations my co-workers have stepped in and supported me. I’ve experienced no diversity issues with being black in PD.”
Police respondents are not happy with how diversity has been managed in PD. Specifically, some of the training they have received – ‘guard your actions, guard your words’ and ‘vicarious liability’ – has created a negative environment where employees are increasing wary of anything pertaining to diversity. One black employee emphasizes the point, “We all hate this focus on diversity, especially those of us who feel we are being singled out – women and people of color. It’s demeaning and has created problems where none existed before.” Employees agree that the way diversity has been handled in PD has done more harm than good.
The majority of non-safety employees say that they don’t see their groups dealing with diversity apart from training. Most remember going to Civil Treatment training, but beyond that diversity is not a topic or issue in their department. Many of these employees see diversity as primarily an issue of fairness and expect their managers and supervisors to ensure appropriate hiring and promotional practices are followed in their departments.
Minority employees agree that their manager or group is not dealing with diversity issues and several see it as a major problem. One employee suggests, “Our management is not at all savvy about diversity. They do the minimum that they are required to do.” Another employee agrees, “We are not seeing any support from our supervisors. They don’t seem to care or focus upon it at all.”
Many minority employees say their supervisors do not address the issues they raise. One employee explains, “Our supervisors don’t want to be bothered with what they see as unimportant issues. They don’t have the answers and they just blow you off.” Several non-minority employees argue they get similar treatment. One field service employee contends, “The major issue in our group is that workers at the lowest levels are not a priority. I’m not sure how much of this is racial and how much of it is prejudice against blue-collar workers. I’m white and I get blown off all the time too.”
Comments from all the groups seem to substantiate the correlation between level in the organization and degree of discrimination. Those employees – especially Hispanics, Blacks and women – who say they have had no significant problems, tend to be working in higher paying, professional jobs. Most of the employees who report having experienced discrimination or differential treatment based upon diversity characteristics are concentrated in jobs in the clerical, administrative and blue-collar fields.
Managers and supervisors believe that the City does a ‘fairly good job’ of handling diversity issues. In their view most groups are conscious of the need to continue increasing workplace diversity. Equally important, they think most employee groups get along well and are able to work together without any major diversity issue. One PD supervisor shares his experience, “My squad is very young and are more attuned to diversity issues than many long time Tempe employees. They come from another culture and are experienced working with diverse people. I see no problems with them working together. The female member is treated just like everybody else. And they work well with our diverse community.”
Another manager agrees, “My group is very open about diversity. We cover for each other during holidays and are aware of different employee needs and concerns. We have developed a comfortable rapport.” Most agree that things have changed and improved over time as their groups have become more diverse. One supervisor adds, “We’re in a different place today than we were when females first joined the Police force. Initially we were worried about how women would perform. Today we want female partners and back-up for things like domestic violence. It’s very helpful to have the female officer talk to the woman while the guy talks to the man. We saw the benefits soon after we started becoming more diverse.” Another manager adds, “As younger employees come in diversity will become the norm; it will only get better as more old timers retire and we bring in new recruits.”
Fire and Police agree that the Tempe Employee Council (TEC) is largely ineffective for several reasons. One employee explains the prevailing perception, “TEC is a function of management in our view. They don’t have a meet and confer process, which is a serious disadvantage to effective negotiation. The TEC is there to make the City look good.” Others agree that the TEC exists for appearance sake and has no real voice or power. Others suggest that the TEC is also ineffective because it represents such a diverse group of employees.
Several fire employees assert that previous City administrations have tried to promote in fighting between City departments and groups as a control mechanism. One employee expresses the group view, “The City used what fire was doing against us. They told other departments that fire was causing trouble and drumming up union activity. There was a conscious divide and conquer strategy by the previous City Administration.” Another adds, “TEC was that administration’s attempt to head employee unions off at the pass. The TEC is a very political City puppet organization.”
Non-safety employees give the TEC mixed reviews. On the positive side many see it as good forum where issues can be raised and addressed. However, most question whether the TEC has any real power. Some employees have had negative experiences with the TEC. For example, one Hispanic employee was reprimanded by his supervisor for elevating an incident of discrimination against another Hispanic employee to the TEC. He relays his experience, “I was our group’s TEC representative and I took the issue to the TEC. When I returned to work my supervisor was waiting for me and started screaming at me for airing our dirty laundry. He called me a dirty name and kept screaming at me until I explained that I was only doing my job as the TEC rep and that it wasn’t me that had the issue. He calmed down somewhat, because he knew I was right and that I was just doing my job. But he was angry about me standing up to him and he’s held it against me ever since.”
At least half of those who have direct experience working with the TEC agree that it is not a safe and effective vehicle for resolving problems. Most employees have no direct experience with the TEC, even so, very few of them say they would go to the TEC with a conflict or diversity issue. And managers and supervisors agree that they would not utilize the TEC to resolve diversity issues or to help implement action plans.
A few managers and supervisors see the TEC as being brought to the forefront under the Manley administration. One supervisor explains, “TEC was pushed aside in our group until Manley took office. It is now being used to get employee input.” A couple of employees say they have seen the TEC and employee work groups being used to gather input and to discuss employee related issues. Some employees are optimistic that the TEC will have more power and influence under the current City administration. A supervisor disagrees, “Occasionally a memo from the TEC may cross my desk, but it is not an effective force in our department. I’ll be surprised if TEC has any impact.”
In contrast, the Fire union is seen as providing effective employee representation. “The Fire union is very effective, far more so than other groups. It goes back to the philosophy of teamwork, family and safety first, “ explains one fire fighter, “The police department is behind the curve on this. They’re less team oriented and have a different mentality.”
A Police employee explains that their union is an association, “The Tempe Officers Association (TOA) represents sworn officers. We have meet and confer but it’s a joke. We have no real bargaining power. If our reps speak out they are labeled and retaliated against.” A few acknowledge that the TOA is new and hope it will become more effective over time; however, most are not optimistic about TOA becoming a positive force for change.
Civilians in PD say that they are totally left out of the picture in terms of representation. One employee argues, “At least sworn (officers) gets some input, we are not getting consulted at all nor do we get any feedback. Our issues and concerns are not represented.” Sworn employees agree that civilians are treated as ‘second class citizens’ in PD. They argue that in reality neither sworn nor civilian employees have an advocate or voice in PD. One officer expresses the prevailing view, “We really don’t have a voice either, despite the association. There are no employee work groups in the PD that produce any results.” Further, several argue that management consciously exacerbates the divisions between employee work groups to ‘divide and conquer.’
Teamwork Effectiveness
In fire, their lives depend on good teamwork and it is part of their underlying philosophy. One fire fighter sums it up, “The teamwork philosophy underlies all negotiations. Teamwork leads to all points of view being understood and considered in daily practice and in negotiation.” In contrast, Police say teamwork in their group has eroded. One employee clarifies, “We used to be very close but now we don’t even socialize with fellow employees. Today the divisions between employees are emphasized and the trust and closeness are gone.” Police personnel agree, in their view PD is so stressful that most employees just want to get away from it.
A black employee who works in courts says, “We’re just one big happy family. We have no diversity issues, of course we are all women and mostly white except for me.” Another adds, “Pubic Works was very racially discriminatory until recently. Minorities were lowest members of the team. It’s better, but there’s still racial tension especially between levels.” “We have the same thing in my area,” says another employee, “the workers all get along pretty well, but there is a lot of tension with our supervisor and unprofessional behavior like retaliation against employees and abuse of power.”
Another non-safety employee admits that teamwork has become more difficult as her group has become more diverse. She explains, “We have experienced a big change with more women and minorities coming into our group. We have many more problems as the different cultures are coming together. There are lots more negative attitudes and our TEC representative is not very effective. The different problems, conflicts and attitudes are not really handled well. I just hope to make it to retirement.”
In sum, most employees say they work in teams. About two-thirds of these respondents say that there are problems, including diversity issues, in their work groups. Respondents agree that the quality and effectiveness of teamwork seems to vary by department and group. Generally speaking, more Hispanic employees say that they experience diversity issues in their work groups. One employee expresses the group perspective, ““I’m in a team where Hispanics aren’t listened to or respected and not are treated as part of the team.”
Perceptions of relationship issues based upon diversity vary by department; here again Fire is at one end of the continuum, police is at the other and non-safety employee groups fall somewhere in between depending upon the particular group.
Fire employees say they do not see any major relationship clashes or problems based upon race, ethnicity, gender, age and so forth. One employee describes the fire situation, “Diversity issues came up initially when women first came on board. It wasn’t just a female issue, it was an issue of being set in our ways and resistant to doing things differently. Changing old habits takes time; now it’s no big deal.” Another agrees, “Some of the old fire fighters sounded like Archie Bunker when women and minorities first came on the scene. It was shocking to me. On the good side prejudice has faded over time and acceptance is increasing as we become more diverse.”
In their view there is a tremendous amount of mutual respect among fire fighters, management and support personnel. In their opinion one’s diversity background is not at issue. One fire fighter expresses the group perspective, “We are able to manage our differences for the most part, although we are like a family in that we avoid certain taboo topics that we know may be sensitive.” Fire employees strongly agree that they have no major diversity issues that create departmental friction or inequities.
Only one fire employee can think of any personal situation pertaining to diversity. She relays the story of an email that contained a religious point of view. She emphasizes that she was able to address her discomfort directly with her supervisor and that the situation was handled very effectively. Others agree that occasionally an issue may come up, but that that employees deal with it with their teammates and supervisor. They stress that the fire culture is healthy, open and that they are comfortable with station diversity.
Non-safety employees agree that Public Works has had the most egregious diversity problems. Public Works employees say that the level of discrimination and prejudice in their area was flagrant and extreme under the previous administration. For example, supervisors in field services warned employees not to go to HR for any reason. Some say their supervisors that told them that ‘they had better not catch employees hanging around HR for any reason if they want to keep their job’ and similar threats. PW employees say the environment has greatly improved. Employees see far less racial and ethnic discrimination; however, many caution that in their opinion the department still needs to address negative stereotypes and attitudes and improve employee recognition.
Other non-safety employees acknowledge that most departments probably have diversity issues involving gender, race and age at least occasionally. However, most do not believe that there a pattern of blatant discrimination in most groups. They say that overall, employees in diverse groups tend to get along well. In their opinion there are issues – misunderstandings, sensitivities and the like – but most employees feel that these problems are resolved among employees themselves.
Several employees contend that there are more issues between employees and their supervisors than among employee work teams. One employee describes the situation, “Each supervisor or manager sets the tone for his or her group. The best supervisors work with you when an issue comes up and the worst ones ignore or even penalize you for raising issues.” Others agree that in some groups diversity issues are practically nonexistent and in others, they are endemic largely because of the management environment.
Police respondents insist that most employees get along fine; in their view, employees have respect for one another are able to work out any issues among themselves. They say it is the system issues – top down management, one-way communication, employee exclusion, the buddy system, etc. – that create a dysfunctional working environment. In their view their negative environment has lead to low morale and a lack of trust among all employees. Diversity issues are low on their list of priorities and concerns.
Police acknowledge that they have had more relationship disconnects as diversity has increased in their group. A few suggest that diversity issues have increased, not because of stereotypes or prejudice but more as a result of the general negativity of the police environment. One employee explains, “We are pulling in to ourselves and no longer connect with our co-workers and management. There is less trust and more open hostility and anger about our situation. We are more sensitive to diversity issues and less able to handle them. Many of us just put our time in and focus more on our families.”
Supervisors and managers have had very few diversity issues arise in their groups. Only two have had experience handling a diversity problem. One case pertained to an employee who had difficulty understanding a co-worker with a Spanish accent. Initially there was resentment and irritation openly expressed by the white worker who suggested his co-worker ‘learn to speak English.’ However, the supervisor was able to intervene effectively and help his employees learn to work together and respect one another.
Another supervisor has dealt with several diversity issues including sexual harassment, gender bias and racial discrimination. In her opinion these incidences do not suggest that there is a widespread pattern of gender or racial discrimination throughout the City. She explains, “During my tenure with the City I have dealt with several potential diversity issues. I’m happy to report that most of them turned out to be unfounded. Those that were legitimate we worked out internally or with HR. Overall I don’t see any patterns of discrimination such as a glass ceiling or racial discrimination. They do happen, but we’re ready to deal with them when they occur.”
Another supervisor adds, “Human nature dictates that there is some gender discrimination, but there is less than in the past.” Another argues, “We cannot afford gender or racial bias in our area. Getting technically qualified employees in transit is hard enough. We’d gladly hire qualified women and minorities.”
Supervisors and managers say that they and their employees have attended some diversity training on sexual harassment and similar topics to sensitize them to potential issues. They agree diversity benefits have not been emphasized. Diversity is not a major focus or topic of discussion in their groups or at their staff meetings. And they contend that most employees are focused upon doing their job, not diversity issues.
One manager shares her view, “I think your awareness and sensitivity to diversity greatly depends on your experience, perceptivity and notion of diversity. I worked for a federal agency before I came to Tempe and I thought they were great, I even envisioned myself going back there someday. Years later I now see how naïve and inexperienced I was, there were diversity issues all around me and I didn’t see them. Now I know I’d never go back. It’s difficult to say how savvy the City as whole is about these issues. We’re becoming more aware, but there are real differences in knowledge and experience levels in my own department.”
Employees, safety and non-safety, agree that diversity is not a visible priority in their groups. All employees have received some training. Police and Fire have received additional training on sexual harassment and working with the diverse community. Most agree that the City and their departments have emphasized diversity issues and legal guidelines rather than diversity benefits.
Police respondents are vocal about their training experience. One employee argues, “The training we have received is not adequate. The City seems to be covering their management asses, not providing anything helpful to us.” Another adds, “It was terrible. I was embarrassed as a black woman. I felt singled out and just endured it.” One employee summarizes the group sentiment, “In PD we don’t have a healthy way of dealing with diversity issues. We walk on eggshells and are fearful that if a third party hears something we could be in trouble. Most of us try to avoid anything having to do with diversity.” Respondents agree that there is more tension and less openness than before the focus on diversity in PD.
Fire employees say they use their team diversity to better deal with their community. One employee asserts, “We are very sensitive to dealing with a diverse public; we work in diverse teams to increase our ability to deal with the public.” A minority fire fighter adds, “I have been on the receiving end of racial prejudice from Tempe citizens and my team members have been my best supporters. I know this stuff is going to happen and it really helps to have my brothers there to help deal with it.” Others agree that more diversity issues emanate from interacting with the community than from within the fire department.
Fire employees say they do not have negative stereotypes or attitudes about women or minorities in their department. One employee summarizes the group perspective, “We don’t have extremely prejudiced people in fire. Working in teams helps because we can use different people with different skills to deal with public situations.” Another elaborates, “We know each other well, including our strengths and weaknesses. Some of us have more tolerance for certain situations like dealing with a drunk or belligerent citizen, and we use our differences to our advantage.”
Police employees acknowledge that there are some negative attitudes based upon age. For example, they see culture clashes between new employees and ‘old-timers.’ They also see different levels of diversity awareness and tolerance based upon age. As one employee sees it, “You see a noticeable difference between younger officers and new recruits who are more open to diversity and more savvy about it. New recruits also get exposure to diversity in the Police Academy.” Some contend that old-timers are more resistant to change. A few argue that this is a stereotype in itself and that there is discrimination against older workers. These respondents say that the experience and input of older workers is often ignored or even ridiculed.
Some employees argue that management’s negative attitudes about ‘low-level’ employees is most damaging. One employee explains, “We are talked down to and treated poorly because of our low status, not because we are a particular race or color.” Many employees, especially those who work in entry-level or blue-collar positions, say they have experienced the same types of negative, demeaning attitudes in their departments. Several agree that women and minorities are treated the worst, but they argue that being white or male doesn’t protect workers who stand up to their supervisor. A white PW employee explains, “The lists are still being kept in our group. Hispanics who buck the new, improved system are labeled ‘lemon suckers’ by managers and if you say anything, your name is added to the list too.”
Managers and supervisors say Public Works did have a pattern of stereotyping and discriminating against employee based upon race. Most have no idea of how pervasive these type of attitudes and behaviors are within the City. None have been briefed about what really happened in Public Works and only one had any firsthand knowledge of the situation. One supervisor acknowledges that the Planning and Development Director was replaced as part of the Public Works fallout and that his leaving has had very positive impact on group morale. As to their own groups, supervisors say they are not aware of any prevailing attitudes or stereotypes that are impeding work in their areas.
Gender
Discrimination
Police employees say that gender is the biggest issue in PD. One employee asserts, “The good old boy network drives hiring, promotions and job assignments. That’s our biggest diversity barrier especially for women.” Another shares his view, “PD is very clever about getting away with sexual harassment. The male offender is kept out of the process and another supervisor is brought in to do the hatchet job. The male who is interested in her never personally does the firing.” Others agree that there have been sexual harassment issues in PD.
Female police employees appear reticent to speak to the issue of gender bias. Several say that yes, there are some attitudes and behaviors that are not ‘strictly appropriate’ but that PD is no worse than most environments. One woman shares her view, “It’s really a matter of one’s attitude. You can be upset and be a victim, or you can handle it. Most of us have learned to deal with it directly. I don’t let it interfere with my job.” Most women agree that some degree of gender bias exists everywhere and that ‘you just learn to deal with it.’ Another female police respondents asserts, “My experience with gender discrimination in PD is based on my immediate supervisor and is not a pattern of behavior I’ve seen or experienced with other managers or supervisors.”
The male respondents assert that gender is a problem in PD. Several see sexual harassment, favoritism and differential treatment based upon gender. One employee posits, “Daily assignments, training opportunities, perks and promotions may be denied to certain employees based upon gender.” Respondents agree that there is a glass ceiling in PD, but that some women have broken through it by becoming friends with the right people. Many say that the highest level a woman could rise to in PD is the Assistant Chief.
The majority of women in other groups, most of whom are white, say that they don’t feel held back by a ‘glass ceiling.’ For example, they cite senior women in the courts as an example of senior female leadership. Women of color are the most likely to see themselves as being treated differently or inappropriately based on gender; however, they believe that race is overriding factor in how they are treated. Supervisors and managers say that the glass ceiling is largely a thing of the past. In their view, there is a level playing field for hiring and promotion based upon gender. Further, in their opinion sexual harassment occurs infrequently and is not a widespread problem.
Racial/Ethnic Discrimination
Most police employees do not see any overt pattern of discrimination against employees based upon race, i.e. name calling, racist jokes or the like. One black employee says, “I haven’t experienced anything personally or see any racist behavior against black employees.” Another adds, “I don’t see it either, but I’m a white male surrounded by white males. It could be there but I’m not aware of it.” However, several question the predominantly white composition of the street crime and gang units. They argue that these ‘all white units’ are evidence of racial discrimination in hiring and staffing. Again, most say the good old boy network in PD is ‘calling the shots.”
Non-safety employees say that racial and ethnic discrimination is the biggest diversity issue they face. The majority of Hispanic employees and about half of the Black employees say that they and/or other minority have been discriminated against in several ways. In their opinion people of color are not given the same opportunities for plum job assignments, promotions, rewards and training.
The majority of Hispanic employees feel ignored and disrespected in their groups. One employee shares his story, “I recently transferred into a department that is very diverse and everyone works well together. It is completely different from my old job where all Hispanic employees were treated poorly. There I was ignored and shut down; my ideas weren’t welcomed at all and I wasn’t listened to.” Another employee agrees, “The same thing goes on in my department. When we push back or question it we get labeled as an instigator. Your really can’t fight the system. It’s best to keep things to yourself.”
A white employee suggests, “Some of what may look like discrimination may be managers asking for employee input and then not using it.” Several minority respondents strongly disagree. One employee summarizes the group sentiment, “In my group there was no question about it being racism. Hispanic employees are ignored and white employees make the decisions and set the goals.” Other minority respondents agree, the ‘color line is unmistakable’ in their view.
Most of the non-minority employees say they don’t see any pattern of discrimination based upon race, ethnicity or gender. They agree that most of the discrimination that occurs in the City of Tempe is the result of the good old boy network. Several argue that if problems occur, it is based upon the poor management skills of one’s supervisors. One Hispanic employee counters, “That’s what I thought at first. I thought may be it was just my supervisor and changed jobs. But I’ve worked for three different supervisors in two different departments and I continue to experience racial prejudice. You can look at my record; I’m not a troublemaker. I get good reviews, but I’m aggressive about wanting to advance and supervisors don’t expect that and they don’t like it.” Several minority employees agree that they too have worked for supervisors that have discouraged them for applying for other jobs or promotions.
Managers and supervisors do not see any systematic pattern of racial or ethnic discrimination. Only two supervisors had any direct experience dealing with minority issues and both say that these situations were relatively isolated cases that they were able to deal with effectively. One minority supervisor remained behind after the focus group to share his view. He strongly believes that there is a pattern of racial discrimination in his group emanating from the highest levels. He apologizes for not discussing his observations during the group, but he says he felt uncomfortable with a participant that he believes will report his comments back to his director. He adds, “Job assignments, resources, promotions and bonuses are handed out to the ‘chosen few’ white males in my department. I wish I could have said more during the focus group, but I’m worried that I’m already in trouble with what I did say.”
The overwhelming diversity issue for most Tempe employees and managers is the presence of what they call the ‘good old boy network.’ Employee perceptions of favoritism and the good old boy network are woven throughout this report. In short they see the good old boy network as the informal system that wields the real power and influence in the City. In their view, the good old boy network runs the daily operation, hires, fire and promotes their favorites and has ‘carte blanche’ to discriminate against those outside of the inner circle.
Non-safety employees agree that the City’s systems and mechanisms for resolving employee conflicts are ineffective and inadequate. Only two employees out of over twenty say that the issues in their groups are handled effectively. The overwhelming majority has had significant problems in resolving issues. For example, one employee relays his experience, “An issue came up in our group and I had to go with my supervisor to HR to discuss it. I was told by my supervisor what I could and could not say. HR told me I could speak freely and that it would not be held against me and when I got my performance review there it was, written up just as I had feared.”
Another employee adds, “I went up two levels to my director to try and get an issue resolved and I got reamed by my supervisor.” Employees agree the system for resolving issues does not support employees. Many believe that Human Resources is the last place an employee should go for help. One employee summarizes the group perspective, “Employees are dead in the water at the supervisor level and if you go to HR, they don’t even know you. If you make a charge about your immediate supervisor HR tells you, ‘oh no, I know so and so and they’d never do that. End of story.” Another employee agrees, “The way I get conflicts resolved is I make sure I bypass HR and go directly to the state and the EEOC to get a fair hearing.”
In sum, most employees say they don’t know how to get a conflict fairly resolved. Many say that there is no safe or effective method for employees to resolve their grievance. Several agree that issues are not elevated from the supervisory level. And some say that they are uncomfortable working issues through the chain of command because fear of retaliation and punishment by their supervisors.
Police employees assert that the system for resolving problems is totally ineffective. In their view many employee issues are not taken seriously. One respondent describes a well-known incident where a routine issue took over a year to resolve and then management failed to implement the solution proposed by HR. Most agree that the fact that a formal complaint had to be filed was ‘ridiculous.’ Further, employees agree that all that was accomplished in this case was to create ongoing animosity between the supervisor and his employees. Most significant, they all agree that the specifics of this case cannot be revealed without negative repercussions for the employees involved.
In contrast, fire employees say that they have no experience with the City’s conflict resolution or grievance systems other than what they study as part of their tests for advancement and promotions. One fire employee explains, “It looks logical on paper, but we’ve never had to put it to the test.” Others agree that fire employees are able to resolve their issues internally. According to them, they do not have diversity issues; they focus on issues pertaining to benefits and things that support the larger group. In their opinion, issues are rare and they are very satisfied with how they get resolved.
Two respondents contact us after the fire focus group to let us know that in their opinion, the discussion has been stifled because of the presence of an employee with ‘a direct line to the Chief.’ Both suggest that the group was not as forthcoming as they would have been had this particular employee not been present. They contend that even in Fire, employees need to be careful about what they say or how they approach problems because select employees have a ‘direct line to upper management.’
One Fire respondent felt comfortable that her additional input would be reflected in the employee survey. The other wanted to add, “To hear us talk, you’d think we live in a utopia. I just wanted to let you know we have problems too. Part of the fire culture is not to confront sensitive issues so there may be some diversity issues that are not addressed. Personally, I don’t think we have any major ones, but some issues could fall through the cracks. As far as action planning goes, communication could be improved across the department and up and down the chain. Everything else I need to say can be said in the survey.”
Managers and supervisors say that the effectiveness of Tempe’s conflict resolution processes is almost entirely dependent upon one’s supervisor. One manager summarizes the group view, “Things get handled if you have a good supervisor. Good supervisors stand up for their employees.” Most agree that employees who don’t have a good supervisor are ‘on their own.’ Additionally, they agree that the TEC and the TOA are not effective employee advocates and neither is Human Resources.
Most non-safety employees agree that the City’s policies and procedures are not effective. Many assert that their groups follow the policy and procedures but that doing so does not solve the problem. In their opinion, the critical factor in getting an issue resolved is the effectiveness of one’s supervisor. One employee explains, “The individual supervisor and how he or she handles the problem is the biggest factor in whether an issue is elevated and resolved. If the supervisor chooses not to address an issue, then that generally is where it stops.”
Employees agree that it is extremely difficult to work up the management chain per the stated policy. One employee summarizes the group experience, “First of all many employees are uncomfortable working issues with the chain of command especially if it involves their supervisor and secondly, they distrust HR.” Another adds, “Employees go to HR and they don’t get the help they need. Many just give up at this point.” Employees acknowledge that the TEC is suppose to support employees by providing consultation on how to follow the chain of command; however, in their experience, few employees are successful using the TEC to resolve their issues.
At least two-thirds of the minority employees contend that the way policies and procedures are applied is racist and discriminatory. A Hispanic males shares his story, “I’m very disappointed and frustrated. I worked very hard to get into Tempe and can’t believe how I have been treated. I’ve tried to address my issues with my supervisor like the policy says, but nothing improves. I didn’t want to believe Tempe could be this way so I changed jobs thinking that maybe it was just my supervisor, but the same things kept happening to me. I try not to think about it, but it bothers me. I have nightmares about it.”
This employee and others describe being warned by their supervisors not to raise issues, particularly allegations of racism or discrimination. Most agree that their diversity issues are not elevated beyond the supervisory level and they say that other avenues of redress such as HR and TEC are ineffective. In their view the current policies and procedures permit discrimination and prejudice to persist.
Some argue that the existing policies and procedures make no sense. The most frequently mentioned example is the oral reprimand, which according to employees requires written documentation. One employee asserts, “Oral is not oral, it’s written and documented in HR. Supervisors keep detailed diaries of conversations with employees that may or may not go to HR. Most employees would faint dead away if they knew what their supervisor was formally documenting.”
Fire employees believe that the City’s policies and procedures are not applied evenly and fairly across the board. They say that the loose guidelines give managers and supervisors total discretion and do not assure employees of a fair and impartial hearing. One fire employee elaborates, “There doesn’t seem to be a pattern of discrimination based upon diversity characteristics per se. It seems to be based on favoritism and the buddy systems. The way policies and procedures are applied boils down to who you are friends with.”
Fire employees agree the City’s policies and procedures need to be reviewed and safeguards for how they are applied need to be put in place to ensure fairness. In their view too much management discretion contributes to discrimination against certain groups or individuals. Police concur with fire. One police employee sums it up, “Policies and procedures are not fairly and evenly applied due to management discretion. If your manager doesn’t support you, you have no viable alternative under the present system.”
Managers and supervisors say some policies and procedures, such as the oral reprimand, need improvement or have already been updated. One manager explains, “We are all going through mandated supervisory training which covers the oral process. It’s been updated to be more collaborative; now the employee signs off on it.” Another adds, “We’ve had an issue in the City with respect to our policies in that each department has had its own discretion in following procedure. I’d like to see us tighten up the guidelines to ensure equity. For example, in our group our manager foregoes using a diverse hiring panel in order to hire his preferred candidate. If a panel were dictated, we’d have a more equitable hiring practice in our group.” Others agree that the biggest issue with policies and procedures is how they are applied. Another supervisor summarizes the group perspective, “The City needs more consistency across the board to improve fairness and manage its diversity issues.”
Managers and employees agree that traditionally the Human Resources Department has not been an effective employee advocate. A Fire employee shares his view, “HR is misnamed. It should be called the anti-human resource department. The role of HR is to protect management.” Fire employee agree that this is how the previous and current HR department works; however, only one employee has had direct experience with HR under the current director’s leadership. This employee admits, “I’ve been in a couple of meetings with the new director and he asked for feedback on HR. I had a generally positive impression.” Others were skeptical about the HR based on their past experience.
Police have an equally negative view. One employee says, “HR is a joke. I go over there to get my movie tickets and that’s it. If you go to them with an issue, all you get is double talk.” Others agree. Another adds, “HR employees are linked to various City groups, some are tight with PD, others with other departments. None are there to support the employee; they’re management spies for the City.”
Police employees are particularly angry about how HR treated officers who were recently shot. One employee tells the story, “HR and PD were not there when we needed them. Two of our officers were seriously injured and needed to be retrained. We were promised money to cover this type of situation and when it happened selective memory kicked in and there was no money to be found.” Others are very angry about this situation. An employee expresses the group sentiment, “Every time we turn to HR for something it’s smoke and mirrors. The role of HR is to save the City money.”
The majority of non-safety employees strongly agree that HR ‘doesn’t support employees, they support managers and supervisors.’ A few disagree. One employee suggests, “HR has changed under the leadership of the new director. A new structure is in place where each department has a HR representative that works for them.” Another agrees, “The support and philosophy of HR is better today.” Yet another argues, “I see HR and TEC working together to focus on employee growth. I see more promotion of education than in the past and there seems to be more support for helping employees use their education.”
Most employees acknowledge that they have little knowledge or direct experience with the current HR administration. Most stress that they know of no employees that have gone to HR past or present that are satisfied with the results. One PW employee says, “I had a good impression of the new director. He came in and told us to tell it like it is. That was months ago. Nothing has happened and there has been no follow through. I don’t know whether he (the director) was overwhelmed or whether it’s just more of the same.” Another PW employee adds, “I’m not sure what HR is supposed to be doing. They should be helping us with all of our problems, yet I am starting to see the old patterns emerge. The new supervisors are already picking their favorites and the cliques are re-forming.” Another PW employee concurs, “Bill seemed to be open with us initially, but he’s starting to look as though he is siding with the supervisors like the last HR Director we had.”
Managers and supervisors agree that traditionally HR has not done a good job in supporting employees. One supervisor asserts, “HR is not an employee advocate. HR works for management and should be more independent and objective.” The majority of supervisors agree. Another sees HR as working directly against employee interests. In this experience, “A salary survey came out in support of raises for employees to bring the City up to competitive levels. When our union went to HR to get the data, they claimed the study wasn’t complete and refused to release the data. We had to go around them to get the results and they tried to stall by charging us to copy each page.”
Only one supervisor had direct experience or knowledge of the current HR director. In her view, “May be I got totally snowed, but Bill impressed me in handling a diversity issue I brought to HR. I have not gotten good support in the past, but recently I got the support I needed.” Another supervisor adds, “He came in to our group and talked about the oral reprimand not needing to be documented. I liked his straightforward approach. We need a fresh perspective in HR.”
Managers and supervisors acknowledge that meritocracy is the ideal, but that in ‘real life’ it is difficult to achieve. One supervisor asserts, “Is there a level playing field? Are we fair? I’d say so, for the most part. In PD the hiring and promotion is based upon performance criteria first and on human factors second. However, as you go higher up the chain other factors come into play.” Others agree. Most see Tempe as doing an ‘excellent job’ of hiring and promoting employees based upon performance; however, they acknowledge that favoritism and politics do come into play in some cases. In their view, human biases make meritocracy difficult at best. One supervisor summarizes the group sentiment, “In real life biases affect hiring and promotion. Consider how difficult it would be to find a job today if you were Middle Eastern.” In sum, supervisors give Tempe high marks for fairness, but acknowledge the reality of bias in hiring and promotions.
Fire employees say that their union provides protection against inequities or systematic biases. In their view the performance standards are clear and most feel that employees are rewarded fairly for their contribution. However, fire employees do not see PD operating as a meritocracy.
Police employees say that PD is not a meritocracy. One employee describes his view, “The best people are not rewarded, we’re not performance driven like private industry. Favoritism drives PD rather than diversity aspects like gender or race.” Others agree that there is not a ‘level playing field’ in the City or PD. One employee relays a story about the interim City Manager, “John Greco told an employee over in traffic, ‘I can fire your butt with four lines on a piece of paper’ and he can. Does that sound like a meritocracy to you?”
Police employees are particularly upset about recent salary increases given to the Lieutenants and Commanders in PD. They say that the Chief ‘dangled a major pay increase for PD managers to get them to agree to work ‘at will.’ In their view this was a flagrant bribe. They say that as a result of this change, PD management has no position power to fight for their employees. One employee articulates the group view, “We don’t resent the fact that they got more money, the real issue is what went with it. Working at will means that they signed their life away for the money. Now they can be fired if they rock the boat. It was a payoff and everybody knows it.”
Others say some job positions are upgraded on the whim of PD Management and HR. In their view there is no logic to how things are done; it doesn’t look fair and equitable to most. One employee shares his perspective, “PD needs more focus on recognizing good work and rewarding employees for a job well done.” Another asserts, “None of this may seem like diversity to you, but it is. Our managers don’t seem to get it so let me explain – system problems hurt our diversity. Our system problems limit our ability to recruit and maintain good employees.” Another agrees, “Poor management practices are creating more diversity issues for us.”
Non-safety employees say favoritism, not meritocracy, drives the City of Tempe. One employee expresses the prevailing opinion, “In most cases we go through the motions of a selection process, but the end candidate is typically pre-selected by the hiring supervisor.” Another adds, “ Other candidates are there for show. Employees see it and know it is happening.” Many agree that it is the ‘buddy’ that is hired time and time again. In their view there is no other apparent explanation. One employee stresses, “ Differences in skill, knowledge and experience don’t account for who is chosen, otherwise a different candidate would have been selected.”
Several non-safety white employees assert that being a diversity candidate works toward your favor in the selection process. One employee shares his point of view, “In our group you have a better chance of being selected if you are Hispanic.” Employees point to the new slate of Hispanic supervisors in Public Works as a case in point. Some express frustration that the ‘pendulum’ is swinging in favor of minorities.
Minority employees disagree. One employee stresses, “Being Hispanic in my area is no advantage. I have been trying to get out of my department because of discrimination and my supervisor has blocked my efforts. I tried to apply for a job and she told me I needed to wait until it was officially posted. She knew I was very interested in the position and didn’t tell me that the job was not going to be posted, that they were hiring off a list. I had to find out from HR. When another position opened up I went through HR to get an interview, my supervisor didn’t lift a finger to help me.”
Another Hispanic employee contends that his supervisor resents his efforts to advance himself. He explains, “I am always asking for what I need to do to advance. I take the classes I can take and do what my supervisor says is needed and I still don’t get the promotion. When I ask for feedback or ask what else should I do, he gets mad. He’s irritated that I’m not happy in my job. He acts like I should just shut up and stay in my place.”
Employees, minority and non-minority agree that the majority of employees would strongly support a hiring practice that truly operated as a meritocracy. Most agree that hiring frequently seems to be based upon personalities, friendships and other criteria that have nothing to do with job qualifications and competence.
No one is in favor of quotas. Non-safety employees are not overly concerned about affirmative action or quotas. They all believe diversity is an important hiring factor and most agree there are plenty of highly qualified minority candidates. A few, especially those in Public Works, express some concerns about the ‘pendulum swinging the other way,’ that is, toward hiring Hispanic employees. However most say they support diversity recruitment and recognize that there is a lack of minority representation especially in professional and management positions.
Fire employees agree that their department is not diverse enough and are in favor of increasing their team diversity; however, they do not advocate using quotas to accommodate diversity goals. A minority fire fighter explains his perspective, “Agility requirements were lowered when women were recruited. Some modification had to be made to bring women on board and that was not a problem because it didn’t impact our ability to do a good job.” Most agree fire should set diversity goals and that standards could be reviewed, even changed in light of such goals so long as it doesn’t pose a threat or danger on the job.
A few disagree. One fire fighter asserts, “I’ve seen some employees hired to meet diversity goals that could not do the job as well in an emergency situation and that’s scary.” Another adds, “The rationale that we have moved to a medical focus doesn’t cut it when more strength and stamina are needed and it’s not there. Lowering standards is a problem that affects quality and safety. We no longer take the top person.”
Overall, employees say that the Fire Department is effectively handling diversity. They believe most employees accept diversity and that the department is trying to increase diversity without resorting to quotas. However, a few acknowledge that the rumor in the last round of hiring was that it was quota driven. Others acknowledge that it may have been true because the ‘stats’ reveal that the pool contained an inordinate number of minority candidates. One fire employee posits, “That combined with the management attitude of ‘we’ll have to get back to you to’ begins to make you question management’s position on hiring.” Others agree that if quotas were being used in fire, it would be a big problem. This is not a big concern, but it bears watching in their opinion because they believe that other parts of the City do use quotas in hiring.
Police reiterate that they are not worried about quotas or affirmative action per se. They reiterate their concerns about favoritism and the good old boy network in PD. Managers and supervisors are not concerned about quotas or affirmative action either. They think that overall, the City does a good job in hiring the most qualified candidates; although they too acknowledge that favoritism exists in some areas. Asked whether a ‘good old boy network operates in the City as a whole,’ all but one supervisor agrees.
Managers and supervisors emphasize that the City is very fair especially as compared to other workplaces. They acknowledge that ‘fairness’ is in part, a matter of perception and that there is also employee resentment about how bonuses and rewards are distributed. They say inequities do exist, but are not widespread or endemic.
Police say that advancement in PD is based primarily upon the buddy system. Fire employees are split in their view. Two-thirds of the group argues that fire is a meritocracy when it comes to promotions. These respondents say that promotions are fair and that they are based upon standardized testing. They don’t believe that quotas are used at all. One-third of the group say quotas do drive promotions in Fire. An employee states, “The good old boy network is alive and well even in Fire; it is the principle that underlies how things get done including who gets promoted, disciplined and rewarded.”
Many non-safety employees see favoritism, the glass ceiling and racial prejudice affecting the advancement equation. Even those who do not share this view lament that the process itself has problems that impact fairness. One employee suggests, “The process of posting jobs is hit or miss. If you go about your business and do your job you are likely to miss out on the opportunities.” Several agree that the City lacks an effective means of keeping employees informed of job opportunities. Others argue that using pre-existing lists to fill positions cuts them out of the competition and is unfair. And many see supervisor discretion in hiring as inherently unfair.
Several employees admit that determining what is fair is difficult at best. The scales tip back and forth in their view as to what is most important – experience, skill, education, seniority, background and so forth. Most realize the ‘mix’ changes for each job, but things often appear arbitrary, erratic or blatantly manipulated by the hiring supervisor. Employees agree they can support, even welcome diversity so long as it doesn’t become another unfair advantage for career advancement.
Fire employees say that the City Manager needs to establish trust and communicate the vision for diversity in the City. They emphasize that diversity will grow and flourish within a healthy organization that ‘treats employees as the most important asset’ and that is characterized by ‘supportive, hands-on managers.’ In their view this is fundamental. One employee explains the group perspective, “A diversity plan that establishes goals without considering the broader City environment is doomed to failure. Specific goals can be identified, but the organization environment must be prepared to encourage and promote diversity.” Others agree the ‘stage must be set for success.’
Diversity goals that fire employees advocate include:
1. Developing and communicating the diversity vision and goals including diversity expectations & policies;
2. Rooting out all discriminatory practices;
3. Recruiting more diversity into the City;
4. Educating managers and supervisors on managing and supporting diversity;
5. Providing sensitivity/cultural awareness training for all employees; and
6. Ensuring key management systems including performance evaluations, promotions, conflict resolutions are clear, objective and implemented fairly across the board.
Police do not advocate diversity goals per se as part of their action plan recommendation. In their opinion the City’s diversity suffers from the system problems that impact its ability to attract, recruit and retain diverse recruits. Police argue that solving organizational and management systems issues will create the positive environment that will attract high quality diversity candidates and reduce conflict and misunderstanding once they get there. One employee expresses the group sentiment, “Fix the system and diversity will come and stay.” Others agree, make the City of Tempe a great place to work and diversity will take care of itself.
Police employees advocate:
1. Treating all employees with respect;
2. Training supervisors how to recognize and reward employees;
3. Implementing participatory management fully;
4. Listening to all employees and using their feedback and expertise in daily operations;
5. Eliminating the good old boy network; and
6. Implementing an objective, fair system of performance evaluation and employee rewards.
Police strongly agree diversity training is not needed. In their view, the aforementioned system changes must be put in place to create a healthy, effective workplace. Once this is accomplished, they advocate increasing the City’s diversity by recruiting more diverse employees, particularly where it would be an advantage such as in the gang or street unit in PD.
Non-safety employees emphasize making changes in the City’s management systems to increase diversity and to improve the City’s ability to manage conflict. They stress that change starts with the City Leadership. One employee explains the group perspective, “We look to the leadership to set the tone, to prioritize diversity as being important and to demonstrate that discrimination will not be tolerated. We need management role models and we need accountability top to bottom.
Employees advocate an action plan that entails:
1. Implementing professional standards of behavior for supervisors and managers;
2. Establishing a facilitative management style;
3. Training supervisors to manage and support diversity;
4. Eliminating ‘draconian’ managers and supervisors who blatantly discriminate against diverse groups;
5. Rooting out and eliminating discrimination;
6. Reinforcing and rewarding teamwork and team skills;
7. Utilizing a panel of diverse employees in hiring to ensure equity;
8. Providing effective conflict resolution methods for handling issues pertaining to one’s own supervisor;
9. Establishing measures of success and monitoring progress from the City Manager level;
10. Building accountability into the action plan.
Managers and supervisors agree with employees. One manager articulates the group perspective, “This is a leadership issue first and foremost. We don’t need more ‘how to’s’ or more diversity training. We need management by example. And we need accountability built into the system.” Another supervisor adds, “Upper management needs to communicate respect and understanding of the job being done in the trenches. Lack of respect and appreciation underlies many of our diversity issues.”
Supervisors emphasize the need for better communication to middle and frontline management. One supervisor explains, “We need to move away from the notion that knowledge is power and that power should be concentrated at the top. We need to share knowledge and power from the top to bottom to bring everyone together working as a team.” Others agree that including all employees and utilizing their talents is important. Another manager stresses, “Including and respecting all employees, especially diverse groups that feel left out of the mainstream, is critical to promoting and utilizing diversity.”
Managers and supervisors agree that a viable action plan:
1. Establishes guidelines for how we treat one another;
2. Eliminates bias and discrimination in formal and informal systems including the good old boy network;
3. Utilizes diverse employee hiring panels to ensure fairness and increase organizational diversity;
4. Eschews mandatory diversity training – this is not a training issue;
5. Leads by example.