- Collection:
- Georgia Government Publications
- Title:
- Report on the findings of a survey of Georgia state employees about GeorgiaGain and Act 816 for the Georgia Merit System / J. Edward Kellough, Lloyd G. Nigro
- Creator:
- Kellough, J. Edward
- Contributor to Resource:
- Nigro, Lloyd G
Georgia. State Merit System of Personnel Administration - Publisher:
- [Atlanta, Ga. : State Merit System of Personnel Administration, 2000]
- Date of Original:
- 2000
- Subject:
- GeorgiaGain
Georgia. Act 816
Job satisfaction--Georgia--Statistics - Location:
- United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018
- Medium:
- state government records
- Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- Description:
- Cover title
"12 September, 2000"--Cover - External Identifiers:
- OCLC 64631062
NZ MMS ID 9910357601102931
Call Number M300 .M1 2000 G3 - Metadata URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bm300-b-pm1-b2000-bg3
- Digital Object URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bm300-b-pm1-b2000-bg3
- Extent:
- ii, 146 leaves ; 28 cm.
- Holding Institution:
- University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library
- Rights:
-
Report on the Findings of a Survey of Georgia State Employees
About GeorgiaGain and Act 816 for
The Georgia Merit System
Submitted to Marjorie H. Young, Commissioner Georgia Merit System 12 September, 2000
Dr. J. Edward Kellough, Principal Investigator
Dr. Lloyd G. Nigro, Principal Investigator Dr. Grady Cornish, Project Director Carl Vinson Institute of Government University of Georgia
geographic location of work site constituted a reasonable cross-section of the state workforce. Questions to guide the focus group discussions were initially formulated by the principal researchers and reviewed by State Merit System staff. The resulting discussion items and sequences of questions were administered by a professional facilitator from the Applied Research Center (ARC) of Georgia State University.
While the information collected from the focus groups could not be generalized to the entire state workforce, it was used to help confirm that certain issues were significant to employees and to identify "new" issues and concerns deserving further inquiry through the more systematic survey. In other words, this was one valuable way to ensure that the survey did not overlook important issues from the employee's perspective.
Following analysis of the transcripts of the focus group discussions, the principal researchers developed a first draft of the survey instrument. That draft was provided to the State Merit System for expert review by top staff members to make certain that technical language and details of the description of aspects of the personnel process addressed in the survey were correct. After needed revisions were made, a final draft of the survey was prepared and submitted to a review procedure focused on the clarity and intelligibility of all questions by a small group of state employees. Several revisions to items resulted from this process, but no substantial problems were found. A final version of the instrument with a cover letter prepared by Commissioner Young was created and sent to the ARC. The ARC then executed the survey and provided the resulting data to the principal investigators for analysis.
Survey Methodology
The survey employed a stratified random sampling methodology. Under this procedure, simple random samples of 2,542 non-supervisory personnel and 452 supervisory personnel were drawn from data nles maintained by the State Merit System. Each of these samples comprised approximately 5 percent of the respective populations. The sub-samples were combined to produce a total sample of 2994 employees.
6
Q23 Performance Management Forms are useful because they can be used to identify real performance objectives for my job
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 284 331 247 446 482 85
1875 73
1948
Percent 14.0 17.0 12.7 22.9 24.7 4.4 96.3 3.7
100.0
Valid Percent
15.1
17.7 13.2 23.8 25.7 4.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.1
32.8 46.0 69.8 95.5 100.0
Q24 It takes a lot of effort to get a 'met expectations' rating these days
valla
Missing Total
1 ~LrOnglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 140 397 244 278 383 451
1899 49
1948
Percent
(.0
20.4 12.5 14.3 19.7 23.2 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
(./
20.9 12.8 14.6 20.2 23.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
(./
28.6 41.4 56.1 76.3 100.0
Q25 I believe my supervisor rated my performance as 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' expectations, but that rating was changed to 'met expectations' by higher management due to budgetary constraints
valla
Missing Total
I ~rronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 202 492 121 190 307 505
1817 131
1948
Percent 10.4 25.3 6.2 9.8 15.8 25.9 93.3 6.7
100.0
Valid Percent
11.1
27.1 6.7 10.5
16.9 27.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
11.1
38.2 44.9 55.3 72.2 100.0
Q26 It is easier to get a performance rating of 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' if you work in the Atlanta area
valla
Missing Total
1 ~-u-onglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree' 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
2B1
433 211 228 278 230 1661 287 1948
Percent 14.4 22.2 10.8 11.7 14.3 11.8 85.3 14.7 100.0
Valid Percent
10.9
26.1 12.7 13.7 16.7 13.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.l:I 43.0 55.7 69.4 86.2 100.0
Appendix V
90
Q27 Office politics has more to do with performance ratings than actual performance on the job
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 76
227 158 296 410 693 1860 88 1948
Percent 3.9
11.7 8.1 15.2 21.0 35.6 95.5 4.5 100.0
Valid Percent
4.1 12.2 8.5 15.9 22.0 37.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.1 16.3 24.8 40.7 62.7 100.0
Q28 Performance ratings of better than 'met expectations' are 'rotated' among employees who deserve meaningful pay raises
valla
Missing Total
I ;:)uongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 412 516 241 216 239 165
1789 159
1948
Percent 21.1 26.5 12.4 11.1 12.3 8.5 91.8 8.2
100.0
Valid Percent
23.0 28.8 13.5 12.1 13.4
9.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 23.0 51.9 65.3 77.4 90.8 100.0
Q29 I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations'
valla
Missing Total
1 ::jtrongIY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly ~gree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 00
121 102 207 389 963 1838 110 1948
Percent
2.~
6.2 5.2 10.6 20.0 49.4 94.4 5.6 100.0
Valid Percent
3.0 6.6 5.5 11.3 21.2 52.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.U 9.6 15.2 26.4 47.6 100.0
Q30 My most recent performance rating accurately reflected my performance
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:)U"ongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 391 324 206 257 541 154
1873 75
1948
Percent 20.1 16.6 10.6 13.2 27.8 7;9 96.1 3.9
100.0
Valid Percent
20.9 17.3 11.0 13.7 28.9 8.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
;;::U.~
38.2 49.2 62.9 91.8 100.0
Appendix V
91
Q31 Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglyalsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 375 305 243 330 515 91
1859 89
1948
Percent 19.3 15.7 12.5 16.9 26.4 4.7 95.4 4.6
100.0
Valid Percent
20.2 16.4 13.1 17.8 27.7 4.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~u.~
36.6 49.7 67.4 95.1 100.0
Q32 My supervisor really doesn't know enough about what I am doing to evaluate my performance accurately
valla
Missing Total
1 :suongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~~u
559 229 276 251 301 1896
52 1948
Percent 14.4 28.7 11.8 14.2 12.9 15.5 97.3 2.7
100.0
Valid Percent
14./i 29.5 12.1 14.6 13.2 15.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14./i 44.3 56.3 70.9 84.1 100.0
Q33 The pay-far-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees
valla
Missing Total
1 :suongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 681 469 171 252 243 69
1885 63
1948
Percent 35.U 24.1 8.8 12.9 12.5 3.5 96.8
32
100.0
Valid Percent
30.1 24.9
9.1 13.4 12.9 3.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 36.1 61.0 70.1
83.4 96.3 100.0
Q34 There has been too much stress on money as an incentive and not enough on other sources of motivation
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
271
391 209 338 396 245 1850
98 1948
Percent
13.~
20.1 10.7 17.4 20.3 12.6 95.0
5.0 100.0
Valid Percent
14.0 21.1 11.3 18.3 21.4 13.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14.0
35.8 47.1 65.4 86.8 100.0
Appendix V
92
Q35 My pay Is based on how weill do my job
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~[rongIY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 070 581 225 170 188 51
1890 58
1948
Percent
34.7
29.8 11.6
8.7 9.7 2.6 97.0 3.0 100.0
Valid Percent
35.7
30.7 11.9
9.0 9.9 2.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
30.7
66.5 78.4 87.4 97.3 100.0
Q37 Hlgh-perfonning employees In my work unit consistently are rewarded with pay increases greater than those awarded to average perfonnlng employees
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~IronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~
301 193 276 521 471 1856 92 1948
Percent
4.l:S
15.5 9.9 14.2 26.7 24.2 95.3 4.7 100.0
Valid Percent
5.1 16.2 10.4 14.9 28.1 25.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.1 21.3 31.7 46.6 74.6 100.0
Q36 Pay raises in my work unit often are not really related to perfonnance
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~IronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
5 Agree -
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4l:Sl:S
556 242 202 230
95 1813
135 1948
Percent
~0.1
28.5 12.4 10.4 11.8 4.9 93.1 6.9 100.0
Valid Percent
~tU:l
30.7 13.3 11.1 12.7 5.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~0.!::1
57.6 70.9 82.1 94.8 100.0
Q38 Getting a 'met' rating only means you are going to get the equivalent of a 'cost of living' raise
valla
Missing Total
1 ~Irongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 49 69 52
158 762 812 1902
46 1948
Percent 2.5 3.5 2.7 8.1
39.1 41.7 97.6
2.4 100.0
Valid Percent'
2.6 3.6 2.7 8.3 40.1 42.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.6 6.2 8.9 17.2 57.3 100.0
Appendix V
93
Q39 Pay is the most important part of the GeorgiaGain process
valla
Missing Total
1 ~IronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
144
307 248 289 463 391 1842 106 1948
Percent
f.4
15.8 12.7 14.8 23.8 20.1 94.6 5.4 100.0
Valid Percent
l.~
16.7 13.5 15.7 25.1 21.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
f.~
24.5 37.9 53.6 78.8 100.0
Q40 Although I deserved one, I could not get a pay raise because I had reached the top or ceiling of my pay range
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 331 749 115 124 193 222
1734 214
1948
Percent 17.0 38.4 5.9 6.4 9.9 11.4 89.0 11.0
100.0
Valid Percent
19.1 43.2
6.6 7.2 11.1 12.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 19.1 62.3 68.9 76.1 87.2 100.0
Q41 Making bonuses available to high performers who are at the top of their pay grade would do a great deal to improve fairness and equity in the system
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
5 Agree -
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1O~
163 93 291 583 642 1874 74 1948
Percent
o.~
8.4 4.8 14.9 29.9 33.0 962 3.8 100.0
Valid Percent
0.4 8.7 5.0 15.5 31.1
34.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 0.4 14.1 19.1 34.6 65.7-
100.0
Q42 There is a lot of conflict between employees over annual pay raises in my work group
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1~0
537 219 283 380 331 1876
72 1948
Percent 0.0
27.6 11.2 14.5 19.5 17.0 96.3 3.7 100.0
Valid Percent
oj
28.6 11.7 15.1 20.3 17.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 0.1 35.3 47.0 62.1 82.4 100.0
Appendix V
94
Q43 Favoritism is a problem for the pay for performance program In my agency
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lfong'Y olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
111
332 156 265 361 649 1874 74 1948
Percent
bJ
17.0 8.0 13.6 18.5 33.3 96.2 3.8 100.0
Valid Percent
b.~
17.7 8.3 14.1 19.3 34.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
b.~
23.6 32.0 46.1 65.4 100.0
Q44 Performance appraisals are very helpful in determining my training and development needs
valla
Missing Total
1 ~1fongIY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 264 511 192 393 451 90
1901 47
1948
Percent 13.6 26.2 9.9 20.2 23.2 4.6 97.6 2.4
100.0
Valid Percent
13.9
26.9 10.1 20.7 23.7 4.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
13.9
40.8 50.9 71.5 95.3 100.0
Q45 It is possible to identify employee weaknesses and related training needs during the performance development process
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lfong'Y clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
- 5 Agree
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
14~
359 178 491 633 91 1900 48 1948
Percent
f.tj
18.4 9.1 25.2 32.5 4.7 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
l.~
18.9 9.4 25.8 33.3 4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.8 26.7 36.1 61.9 95.2 100.0
Q46 There is a lot of effective teaching, training, and coaching of subordinates by my supervisor
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lfong'Y clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4(/j
516 237 292 308
75 1906
42 1948
Percent
~4.b
26.5 12.2 15.0 15.8 3.9 97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
~b.1
27.1 12.4 15.3 16.2 3.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~5.1
52.2 64.6 79.9 96.1 100.0
Appendix V
95
Q47 Training is identified in performance development plans and is available to employees in my agency
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 290 395 232 367 519 81
1890 58
1948
Percent 15.2 20.3 11.9 18.8 26.6 4.2 97.0 3.0
100.0
Valid Percent
10.7 20.9 12.3 19.4 27.5
4.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.1 36.6 48.8 68.3 95.7 100.0
Q48 The State offers me enough training to grow and develop
valla
Missing Total
1 ::strongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 317 441 250 342 460 92
1902 46
1948
Percent 16.3 22.6 12.8 17.6 23.6 4.7 97.6 2.4
100.0
Valid Percent
16.7 23.2 13.1 18.0 24.2
4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.7 39.9 53.0 71.0 95.2 100.0
Q49 Adequate resources and opportunities for career development are available to state employees
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
41~
468 276 322 342
52 1879
69 1948
Percent 21.5 24.0 14.2 16.5 17.6 2.7 96.5
3.5
100.0
Valid Percent
22.3 24.9 14.7 17.1 18.2
2.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent ll.3 47.2 61.9 79.0 97.2 100.0
Q50 My work unit has very high performance expectations for employees
valla
Missing Total
1 ::strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 84
200 152 366 750 355 1907 41 1948
Percent 4.3 10.3 7.8
18.8 38.5 18.2 97.9
2.1 100.0
Valid Percent
4.4 10.5 8.0 19.2 39.3 18.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.4 14.9 22.9 42.1 81.4 100.0
Appendix V
96
Q51 State money has not been made available to reward good performers with good pay increases
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 41 68 66
217 593 899 1884
64 1948
Percent 2.1 3.5 3.4 11.1 30.4 46.1 96.7 3.3
100.0
Valid Percent
~.~
3.6 3.5 11.5 31.5 47.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.~
5.8 9.3 20.8 52.3 100.0
Q52 Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 622 433 264 249 217 54
1839 109
1948
Percent 31.9 22.2 13.6 12.8 11.1 2.8 94.4 5.6
100.0
Valid Percent
33.8 23.5 14.4 13.5 11.8
2.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 33.8 57.4 71.7 85.3 97.1 100.0
Q53 GeorgiaGain has not been completely implemented
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
10~
262 197 399 502 301 1763
185
1948
Percent
o.~
13.4 10.1 20.5 25.8 15.5 90.5 9.5 100.0
Valid Percent
0.8 14.9 11.2 22.6 28.5 17.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
b.8
20.6 31.8 54.5 82.9 100.0
Q54 It is possible to administer discipline effectively when needed
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 197 273 226 370 663 107
1836 112
1948
Percent 10.1 14.0 11.6 19.0 34.0 5.5 94.3 5.7
100.0
Valid Percent
10.7 14.9 12.3 20.2 36.1
5.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.7 25.6 37.9 58.1 94.2 100.0
Appendix V
97
QSS Training on how to carry out provisions of GeorglaGaln is adequate
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY ofsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
,U~
462 312 427 362
29 1801
147 1948
Perc~nt 10,(
23.7 16.0 21.9 18.6
1.5 92.5
7.5 100.0
Valid Percent
lUi
25.7 17.3 23.7 20.1
1.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
11.0 37.3 54.6 78.3 98.4 100.0
QS6 Management's commitment to fully implementing GeorgiaGain has declined steadily over the past f'lVe years
vaflo
Missing Total
1 ~trOngfY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4~
204 254 461 528 252 1748 200 1948
Percent Lo 10.5 13.0
23.7 27.1 12.9 89.7 10.3 100.0
Valid Percent
,.~
11.7 14.5 26.4 30.2 14.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
'.ts
14.5 29.0 55.4 85.6 100.0
QS7 Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place
Valid
Missing Total
1 :strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency 587 521 264 223 123 24
1742 206
1948
Percent 30.1 26.7 13.6 11.4 6.3 1.2 89.4 10.6
100.0
Valid Percent
~~.f
29.9 15.2 12.8 7.1
1.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~~.{
63.6 78.8 91.6 98.6 100.0-
QSS The pay I receive is not competitive with what private employers are offering
valid
Missing Total
1 :strongly dIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 42 94 95 174
482 1006 1893
55 1948
Percent 2.2 4.8 4.9 8.9
24.7 51.6 97.2
2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
2.2 5.0 5.0 9.2 25.5 53.1 100.0
Cumulative
,., Percent
7.2 12.2 21.4 46.9 100.0
Appendix V
98
Q59 It is hard to recruit qualified job applicants
valla
Missing Total
I ;:'lfonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
41
137 105 236 530 824 1873 75 1948
Percent
~.1
7.0 5.4 12.1 27.2 42.3 96.1 3.9 100.0
Valid Percent
~.~
7.3 5.6 12.6 28.3 44.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.~
9.5 15.1 27.7 56.0 100.0
Q60 The benefits available to state employees are competitive with those offered in the private sector
valid
Missing Total
1 :strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 345 294 163 327 561 202
1892 56
1948
Percent
lfJ
15.1 8.4 16.8 28.8 10.4 97.1 2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
Hi2
15.5 8.6 17.3 29.7 10.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
Hj.~
33.8 42.4 59.7 89.3 100.0
Q61 I am motivated to be responsive to my customers and clients
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly.agree Total System
Frequency 61 118 94
266 828 502 1869
79 1948
Percent
;:S.l
6.1 4.8 13.7 42.5 25.8 95.9 4.1 100.0
Valid Percent
;:S.3
6.3 5.0 142 44.3 26.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.;:S
9.6 14.6 28.8 73.1 100.0
Q62 My work group is highly committed to public service
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 SlighUy disagree 4 SlighUy agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 63 129
105 338 797 454 1886
62 1948
Percent 3.2 6.6 5.4
17.4 40.9 23.3 96.8 3.2 100.0
Valid Percent
3.3 6.8 5.6 17.9 42.3 24.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.3 10.2 15.7 33.7 75.9 100.0
Appendix V
99
During the last week of April, 2000, postcards were mailed by the ARC to all sample members at their home addresses. This postcard provided a brief explanation of the research project and its purpose, notified the recipient that they had been randomly selected for participation in the study, and asked that they help in the research effort by completing the survey when they received it.
One week after the mailing of the notification postcard, surveys actually were mailed (via US mail) to all sample members. The mailing included the introductory cover letter from the Commissioner of the State Merit System, a copy of the survey instrument, a postage-paid return envelope, and a postage-paid postcard with a unique respondent identification number. Respondents were instructed to return the completed survey and the postcard to the ARC separately. Receipt of the returned postcard by the ARC would indicate that the employee had returned the survey, but obviously there would be noway of knowing which completed survey came from which respondent and in this way respondent anonymity was protected. Those who returned their respondent postcards were subsequently removed from the list used for follow-up mailings.
Approximately one week after the first mailing, postcards were sent to all sample members reminding them of the importance of the study and encouraging them to complete and return their surveys and respondent postcards as soon as possible. One week later, a second copy of the survey, a postage-paid return envelope, and a respondent postcard were sent to those employees in the sample who had not yet participated in the study. In a final effort to obtain the best possible response rate, a third mailing was made to all of those who had not responded to the first two mailings. This last mailing took place about six weeks after the initial mailing of the survey. On this occasion, the package was sent via Priority US Mail. It included a colorful cover sheet stressing the importance of participation and urging the recipients to return their surveys.
As they were received by the Applied Research Center, surveys were electronically scanned and the data were maintained by ARC staff until the data entry process was completed during the third week of July, 2000. At this point, the data files were provided to the principal researchers for analysis.
7
Q63 GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state employees without having to provide any real extra benefits
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 78
205 216 336 443 579 1857
91 1948
Percent 4.0 10.5
11.1 17.2 22.7 29.7 95.3 4.7 100.0
Valid Percent
4.2 11.0 11.6 18.1 23.9 31.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.2 15.2 26.9 45.0 68.8 100.0
064 The real purpose of GeorgiaGain is to control the state's payroll costs
valla
Missing Total
I '>uonglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~I
149 144 315 530 653 1828 120 1948
Percent
U:j
7.6 7.4 16.2 27.2 33.5 93.8 6.2 100.0
Valid Percent
~.U
8.2 7.9 17.2 29.0 35.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.u
10.2 18.1 35.3 64.3 100.0
Appendix V
100
Q11 I don't want to do things that are not specifically included in my performance plan - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 71
165 45 35 28
7 351
5 356
Percent 19.9 46.3 12.6 9.8 7.9 2.0 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
20.2 47.0 12.8 10.0
8.0 2.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.2 67.2 80.1 90.0 98.0 100.0
Q12 My immediate supervisor works with me to set performance goals and targets - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~uonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
b~
80 44 56 89
22
350 6
356
Percent
10.0
22.5 12.4 15.7 25.0
6.2 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
10.~
22.9 12.6 16.0 25.4
6.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.9 39.7 52.3 68.3 93.7 100.0
Q13 The performance standards for my job are related to what I do - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly..agree Total System
Frequency 11 33 31 65
169 30
345 11
356
Percent 4.ts 9.3 8.7 18.3
47.5 8.4
96.9 3.1
100.0
Valid Percent
4.9 9.6 9.0 18.8 49.0 8.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
4.~
14.5 23.5 42.3 91.3 100.0
Q14 On my job I know what is expected of me - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
'I ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~
20
22
50 175
69 345
11 356
Percent 2.b 5.6 6.2
14.0 49.2 19.4 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
2.0 5.8 6.4 14.5 50.7 20.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.0 8.4 14.8 29.3 80.0 100.0
Appendix V
101
Q15 My supervisor is able to accurately determine different levels of employee performance - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ::>tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 43 70 42 60
107 26 348
8 356
Percent 12.1 19.7 11.8 16.9 30.1 7.3 97.8 2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
1~.4
20.1 12.1 17.2 30.7 7.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1~.4
32.5 44.5 61.8 92.5 100.0
Q16 There is too much paperwork for supervisors in relation to performance management forms - Supervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::>trongly dIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 3
30 32 53 96 135 349
7 356
Percent .8
8.4 9.0 14.9 27.0 37.9 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
.9 8.6 9.2 15.2 27.5 38.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent .9 9.5 18.6 33.8 61.3 100.0
Q17 It is very important that I carefully document my own performance - Supervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::>tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 9
33 21 53 134 99 349 7 356
Percent 2.5 9.3 5.9
14.9 37.6 27.8 98.0
2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
2.6 9.5 6.0 15.2 38.4 28.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.6 12.0 18.1 33.2 71.6 100.0
Q18 Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance - Supervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::>trongly dIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 34 77 34 78
107 19
349 7
356
Percent 9.6
21.6 9.6
21.9 30.1
5.3 98.0
2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
9.7 22.1
9.7 22.3 30.7
5.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.7 31.8 41.5 63.9 94.6 100.0
Appendix V
102
Q19 I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 33 64 35 66 128 19
345 11
356
Percent
~.~
18.0 9.8 18.5 36.0 5.3 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
~.b
18.6 10.1 19.1 37.1 5.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent !:l.b 28.1 38.3 57.4 94.5 100.0
Q20 There are too many performance rating categories under GeorglaGaln - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ;:)U"ongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1U
58 50 58 90 79 345 11 356
Percent
~.l:S
16.3 14.0 16.3 25.3 22.2 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
2.9 16.8 14.5 16.8 26.1 22.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.!:l 19.7 34.2 51.0 77.1 100.0
Q21 My supervisor's evaluation provides feedback that often helps me improve my job performance - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ;:)U"ongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4l:S
72 45 79 90 14 348
8 356
Percent
l~.:>
20.2 12.6 22.2 25.3 3.9 97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
l~.ts
20.7 12.9 22.7 25.9 4.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1~.ts
34.5 47.4 70.1 96.0 100.0
022 My job description provides the Information needed to establish clear standards and expectations used to evaluate my performance - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 30 60 53 78 108 15
349 7
356
Percent
~.ts
16.9 14.9 21.9 30.3 4.2 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
1U.U
17.2 15.2 22.3 30.9 4.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.0
27.2 42.4 64.8 95.7 100.0
Appendix V
103
Q23 Performance Management Forms are useful because they can be used to identify real performance objectives for my job - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 58 63 42 80 91 11
345 11
356
Percent 16.3 17.7 11.8 22.5 25.6 3.1 96.9 3.1
100.0
Valid Percent
16.8 18.3 12.2 23.2 26.4 3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.8 35.1 47.2 70.4 96.8 100.0
Q24 It takes a lot of effort to get a 'met expectations' rating these days - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~LfonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~o
83 34 50 76 82 351
5 356
Percent I."J
23.3 9.6 14.0
21.3 23.0 98.6
1.4 100.0
Valid Percent
1.4
23.6 9.7 14.2
21.7 23.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.4
31.1 40.7 55.0 76.6 100.0
Q25 I believe my supervisor rated my performance as 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' expectations, but that rating was changed to 'met expectations' by higher management due to budgetary constraints - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 42 91 16 46 51 91
337 19
356
Percent 11.8 25.6 4.5 12.9 14.3 25.6 94.7 5.3
100.0
Valid Percent
12.5 27.0
4.7 13.6 15.1
27.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
l~.O
39.5 44.2 57.973.0 100.0
Q26 It is easier to get a performance rating of 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' if you work in the Atlanta area - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~rrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 66 95 41 34 41 39
316 40
356
Percent 18.5 26.7 11.5 9.6 11.5 11.0 88.8 11.2
100.0
Valid Percent
20.9 30.1 13.0 10.8 13.0 12.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.9 50.9 63.9 74.7 87.7 100.0
Appendix V
104
Q27 Office politics has more to do with performance ratings than actual performance on the job - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 17 64 27 56 74
109 347
9 356
Percent 4.8 18.0 7.6 15.7
20.8 30.6 97.5
2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
4.9 18.4 7.8 16.1 21.3 31.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.9 23.3 31.1 47.3
68.6 100.0
Q28 Performance ratings of better than 'met expectations' are 'rotated' among employees who deserve meaningful pay raises - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 62 75 45 50 56 47
335 21
356
Percent 17.4 21.1 12.6 14.0 15.7 13.2 94.1 5.9
100.0
Valid Percent
18.5 22.4 13.4 14.9 16.7 14.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
HS.o
40.9 54.3 69.3 86.0 100.0
Q29 I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations' - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ;:)lronglyalsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly ~gree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
l~
15 12 37 73 196 345 11 356
Percent
;j.4
4.2 3.4 10.4 20.5 55.1 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
;j.O
4.3 3.5 10.7 21.2 56.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.5 7.8 11.3 22.0 43.2 100.0
Q30 My most recent performance rating accurately reflected my performance - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 77 51 33 39
113 32 345 11 356
Percent 21.6 14.3 9.3 11.0 31.7 9.0 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
a.~
14.8 9.6 11.3 32.8 9.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
a.3
37.1
46.7
58.0
90.7
100.0
Appendix V
105
Q31 Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 55 52 51 52
115 18
346 10
356
Percent
10.3
14.6 14.3 14.6 32.3 5.1 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
10.l:S
15.0 14.7 15.0 33.2
5.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.l:S
31.8 46.5 61.6 94.8 100.0
Q32 My supervisor really doesn't know enough about what I am doing to evaluate my performance accurately - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4~
118 35 53 47 55 350
6 356
Percent
11.ts
33.1 9.8 14.9
13.2 15.4 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
l~.U
33.7 10.0 15.1 13.4 15.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 12.0 45.7 55.7 70.9 84.3 100.0
Q33 The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
141
97 33 40 29 11 351
5 356
Percent
3~.o
27.2 9.3 11.2 8.1 3.1
98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
4U.~
27.6 9.4 11.4 8.3 3.1
100.0
Cumulative Percent
4U.~
67.8 77.2 88.6 96.9100.0
Q34 There has been too much stress on money as an incentive and not enough on other sources of motivation - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I i:>uongly Otsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4~
73 36 71 69 47 345 11 356
Percent
1 ;:S.ts
20.5 10.1 19.9 19.4 13.2 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
14.2 21.2 10.4 20.6 20.0 13.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14.2
35.4 45.8 66.4 86.4 100.0
Appendix V
106
Q35 My pay is based on how well I do my job - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>lrongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 110 100 52 33 40 8 348 8 356
Percent
;J2.j
28.1 14.6 9.3 11.2 2.2 97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
jj.U
28.7 14.9 9.5 11.5 2.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
j;j.U
61.8 76.7 86.2 97.7 100.0
Q37 High-performing employees in my work unit consistently are rewarded with pay increases greater than those awarded to average performing employees - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>uongIY clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 26 77 38 54 88 65
348 8
356
Percent 7.3
21.6 10.7 15.2 24.7 18.3 97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
7.5 22.1 10.9 15.5 25.3 18.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.5 29.6 40.5 56.0 81.3 100.0
Q36 Pay raises in my work unit often are not really related to performance - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>uongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
5 Agree -
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 83
104 41 41 58 13 340 16 356
Percent 23.3 29.2 11.5 11.5 16.3 3.7 95.5 4.5
100.0
Valid Percent
24.4
30.6 12.1 12.1 17.1 3.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 24,4 55.0 67.1 79.1 96.2 100.0
Q38 Getting a 'met' rating only means you are going to get the equivalent of a 'cost of living' raise - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>uongly clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 10 19 7 24
141 146 347
9 356
Percent 2.8 5.3 2.0 6.7
39.6 41.0 97.5
2.5 100.0
Valid Percent.
~.~
5.5 2.0 6.9 40.6 42.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
.~
8.4 10.4 17.3 57.9 100.0
Appendix V
107
Q39 Pay is the most important part of the GeorgiaGaln process - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 20 58 50 47 93 70
344 12
356
Percent 7.3 16.3 14.0 13.2
26.1 19.7 96.6 3.4 100.0
Valid Percent
r.o
16.9 14.5
13.7
27.0
20.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.0 24.4 39.0 52.6 79.7 100.0
Q40 Although I deserved one, I could not get a pay raise because I had reached the top or ceiling of my pay range - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY a1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 63
154 23 17 32 42 331 25 356
Percent 17.7 43.3 6.5 4.8 9.0 11.8 93.0 7.0
100.0
Valid Percent
19.0 46.5
6.9 5.1 9.7 12.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 19.0 65.6 72.5 77.6 87.3 100.0
Q41 Making bonuses available to high performers who are at the top of their pay grade
would do a great deal to Improve fairness and equity In the system - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 12 35 18 61 86
133 345
11 356
Percent 3.4 9.8 5.1 17.1
24.2 37.4 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
3.5 10.1
5.2 17.7 24.9 38.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.5 13.6 18.8 36.5 61.4 100.0
Q42 There is a lot of conflict between employees over annual pay raises In my work group - Supervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 19 83 43 59 91 50
345 11
356
Percent 5.3
23.3 12.1 16.6 25.6 14.0 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
5.5 24.1 12.5 17.1 26.4 14.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.5 29.6 42.0 59.1 85.5 100.0
Appendix V
108
Q43 Favoritism is a problem for the pay for performance program In my agency - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 19 68 33 52 72
103 347
9 356
Percent 5.3
19.1 9.3 14.6 20.2 28.9 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
5.0 19.6
9.5 15.0 20.7 29.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 0.5
25.1 34.6 49.6 70.3 100.0
Q44 Performance appraisals are very helpful in determining my training and development needs - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 50
102 27 76 78
9 352
4 356
Percent 15.9 28.7 7.6 21.3 21.9 2.5 98.9 1.1
100.0
Valid Percent
17.U
29.0 7.7
21.6 22.2
2.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
H.U
46.0 53.7 75.3 97.4 100.0
Q45 It is possible to identify employee weaknesses and related training needs during the performance development process - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree _
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~.<::
56 32 101 121 10 352 4 356
Percent
~.U
15.7 9.0 28.4 34.0 2.8 98.9 1.1 100.0
Valid Percent
~.1
15.9 9.1 28.7 34.4 2.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.1
25.0 34.1 62.8 97.2100.0
Q46 There is a lot of effective teaching, training, and coaching of subordinates by my supervisor - Supervisors
Valia
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY Olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency ts.<::
101 40 53 62 12 350
6 356
Percent
L~.U
28.4 11.2 14.9 17.4 3.4 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
L~.4
28.9 11.4 15.1 17.7 3.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
'<::~.4
52.3 63.7 78.9 96.6 100.0
Appendix V
109
Survey Return Rates and Representativeness of Respondents
The survey substantially exceeded its target return rate of 60 percent, achieving an overall rate of 68.02 percent (1948 useable completed surveys out of 2864 from the sample with valid addresses). For supervisors, the return rate was 80.36 percent or 356 of 443 supervisors in the sample with valid addresses. For non-supervisory line personnel, the return was 65.75 percent (1592 out of a total of 2421 non-supervisory personnel for whom we had valid addresses. For survey research o/this kind, this return rate is exceptionally high, allowing in turn a high level ofconfidence in the representativeness ofthe respondents and accuracy ofthe data setforth below. In terms of factors or characteristics such as agency, supervisory status, race, sex, and age, those who responded to the survey are highly representative of the original random sample of state employees provided by the State Merit System. Based on the return rate and representativeness ofthat return, it is reasonable to conclude that the attitudes andperceptions ofstate employees reported here accurately reflect those ofthe state workforce at large, subject to a
statistical margin oferror of+ 1.10 percentage points (see Appendix 11). In
other words, these responses present a highly representative picture of how the state's employees see and feel about their work, GeorgiaGain, and Act 816.
Section 4
Survey Findings
Section 4 provides an overview of the survey fIndings, with an emphasis on major findings as they relate to the goals and objectives of GeorgiaGain and Act 816. Section 4 is organized into 4 subsections:
Findings with regard to the characteristics and demographic traits of the respondents
8
Q47 Training is identified in performance development plans and Is available to employees in my agency - Supervisors
Yarra
Missing Total
1 ::'lrongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
5U
63 43 74 104 17 351
5 356
Percent 14.U 17.7 12.1 20.8 29.2 4.8 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
14.~
17.9 12.3 21.1 29.6 4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
14.~
32.2 44.4 65.5 95.2 100.0
Q48 The State offers me enough training to grow and develop - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 57 61 41 80 96 16
351 5
356
Percent 16.0 17.1 11.5 22.5 27.0 4.5 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
16.2 17.4 11.7 22.8 27.4 4.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.2
33.6 45.3 68.1 95.4 100.0
Q49 Adequate resources and opportunities for career development are available to state employees - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 74 80 58 68 60 11
351 5
356
Percent 20.8 22.5 16.3 19.1 16.9 3.1 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
21.1 22.8 16.5 19.4 17.1 3.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 21.1 43.9 60.4 79.8 96.9 100.0
Q50 My work unit has very high performance expectations for employees - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 15 29 30 65
140 68 347 9 356
Percent 4.2 8.1 8.4
18.3 39.3 19.1 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
4.3 8.4 8.6 18.7 40.3 19.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
4.;:S
12.7 21.3 40.1 80.4 100.0
Appendix V
110
Q51 State money has not been made available to reward good performers with good pay increases - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
7
10 11 47 98 179 352 4 356
Percent 2.U 2.8 3.1
13.2 27.5 50.3 98.9
1.1 100.0
Valid Percent
2.U 2.8 3.1 13.4 27.8 50.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.U 4.8 8.0 21.3 49.1 100.0
Q52 Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 129 89 49 36 27 15 345 11 356
Percent 36.2 25.0 13.8 10.1 7.6 4.2 96.9 3.1
100.0
Valid Percent
37.4 25.8 14.2 10.4
7.8 4.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 37.4 63.2 77.4 87.8 95.7 100.0
Q53 GeorgiaGain has not been completely implemented - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1~
62 30 68 88 73 339 17 356
Percent 5.1 17.4 8.4 19.1
24.7 20.5 95.2
4.8 100.0
Valid Percent
:>.;' 18.3 8.8 20.1 26.0 21.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.3 23.6 32.4 52.5 78.5 100.0-
Q54 It is possible to administer discipline effectively when needed - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4l:1
49 39 75 112 24 348
8 356
Percent 13.8 13.8 11.0 21.1 31.5 6.7 97.8 2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
14.1 14.1 11.2 21.6 32.2 6.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14.1 28.2 39.4 60.9 93.1 100.0
Appendix V
111
QSS Training on how to carry out provisions of GeorgiaGain Is adequate - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
;;S1
82 52 85 92
7 349
7 356
Percent
B.7
23.0 14.6 23.9 25.8 2.0 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
B.9
23.5 14.9 24.4 26.4 2.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 8.9 32.4 47.3 71.6 98.0 100.0
Q56 Management's commitment to fully implementing GeorgiaGain has declined steadily over .the past five years - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 3
37 47 78 109 65 339 17 356
Percent
.B
10.4 13.2 21.9 30.6 18.3 95.2 4.8 100.0
Valid Percent
.9
10.9 13.9 23.0 32.2 19.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
.9
11.8 25.7 48.7 80.8 100.0
QS7 Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
5 Agree -
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 136 93 47 36 19 3 334 22 356
Percent 382 26.1 13.2 10.1 5.3 .8 93.8 6.2
100.0
Valid Percent
40.7 27.8 14.1 10.8
5.7 .9
100.0
Cumulative Percent 40.7 68.6 82.6 93.4 99.1 -
100.0
QSS The pay I receive is not competitive with what private employers are offering - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 '=l-u"ongty Olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
9
18 16 32 80 192 347 9 356
Percent :l.o 5.1 4.5 9.0
22.5 53.9 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
:l.t> 5.2 4.6 9.2 23.1 55.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent :l.t> 7.8 12.4 21.6 44.7 100.0
Appendix V
112
Q59 It is hard to recruit qualified job applicants - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::itrongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4
15 8 36 90 196 349 7 356
Percent 1.1 4.2 2.2
10.1 25.3 55.1 98.0
2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
1.1 4.3 2.3 10.3 25.8 56.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.1 5.4 7.7 18.1 43.8 100.0
Q60 The benef'rts available to state employees are competitive with those offered in the private sector Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::iuongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 50 47 26 64
108 39
350 6
356
Percent
1~.o
13.2 7.3
18.0 30.3 11.0 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
1~.~
13.4 7.4 18.3 30.9 11.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1~.~
32.3 39.7 58.0 88.9 100.0
Q61 I am motivated to be responsive to my customers and clients - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::itfongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency
1;;5
18 17 41 160 98 347 9 356
Percent
;;5./
5.1 4.8 11.5 44.9 27.5 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
;;5./
5.2 4.9 11.8 46.1 28.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
:J.l
8.9 13.8 25.6 71.8 100.0
Q62 My work group is highly committed to public service - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::iuongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1L
16 19 64 155 84 350
6 356
Percent
~.4
4.5 5.3 18.0 43.5 23.6 98.3 1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
~.4
4.6 5.4 18.3 44.3 24.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.4
8.0 13.4 31.7 76.0 100.0
Appendix V
113
Q63 GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state employees without having to provide any real extra benefits - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
l-sfrongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 14 50 43 62 72
107 348
8 356
Percent
:5.9
14.0 12.1 17.4 20.2 30.1 97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
4.0 14.4 12.4 17.8 20.7 30.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.0 18.4 30.7 48.6 69.3 100.0
Q64 The real purpose of GeorgiaGain is to control the state's payroll costs - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 0
37 34 41 104 121 342 14 356
Percent 1.4 10.4 9.6
11.5 29.2 34.0 96.1
3.9 100.0
Valid Percent
1.5 10.8 9.9 12.0 30.4 35.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.0 12.3 22.2 34.2 64.6 100.0
Appendix V
114
Q11 I don't want to do things that are not specifically included in my performance plan - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Strongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 262 629 262 198 146 54
1551 41
1592
Percent 10.:> 39.5 16.5 12.4 9.2 3.4 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
10.9 40.6 16.9 12.8
9.4 3.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.~
57.4 74.3 87.1 96.5 100.0
Q12 My immediate supervisor works with me to set performance goals and targets - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 251 294 145 269 449 147
1555 37
1592
Percent 15.8 18.5 9.1 16.9 28.2 9.2 97.7 2.3
100.0
Valid Percent
16.1 18.9 9.3 17.3 28.9 9.5 100.0
<.;umulative Percent 16.1 35.0 44.4 61.7 90.5 100.0
Q13 The performance standards for my job are related to what I do - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency 9f 132 114
296 758 149 1546 46 1592
Percent 6.1 8.3 7.2
18.6 47.6
9.4 97.1 2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
6.3 8.5 7.4 19.1 49.0 9.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 6.3 14.8 22.2 41.3 90.4 100.0
Q14 On my job I know what is expected of me - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY msagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 48 70 82 169
794 390 1553
39 1592
Percent
3.U
4.4 5.2 10.6 49.9 24.5 97.6 2.4 100.0
Valid Percent
3.1
4.5 5.3 10.9 51.1 25.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.1
7.6 12.9 23.8 74.9 100.0
Appendix V
115
Q15 My supervisor is able to accurately determine different levels of employee performance - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~"lrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 242 237 196 265 489 120
1549 43
1592
Percent 15.2 14.9 12.3 16.6 30.7 7.5 97.3 2.7
100.0
Valid Percent
1:1.0
15.3 12.7 17.1 31.6 7.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1:>.0
30.9 43.6 60.7 92.3 100.0
Q16 There is too much paperwork for supervisors in relation to performance management forms - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lI'onglY olSagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
((
221 198 331 390 291 1508 84 1592
Percent
4.t)
13.9 12.4 20.8 24.5 18.3 94.7 5.3 100.0
Valid Percent
0.1
14.7 13.1 21.9 25.9 19.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
:1.1
19.8 32.9 54.8 80.7 100.0
Q17 It is very important that I carefully document my own performance - Nonsupervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 36
142 99 207 571 496 1551 41 1592
Percent 2.3 8.9 6.2
13.0 35.9 31.2 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
2.3 9.2 6.4 13.3 36.8 32.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
;,,::.~
11.5 17.9 31.2 68.0 100.0
Q18 Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~'trongly OlSagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 144 241 139 301 559 159
1543 49
1592
Percent 9.0
15.1 8.7 18.9 35.1 10.0 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
9.3 15.6 9.0 19.5 36.2 10.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.3 25.0 34.0 53.5 89.7 100.0
Appendix V
116
Q19 I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ;:;tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 199 233 144 264 605 105
1550 42
1592
Percent 1:O::.b 14.6 9.0 16.6 38.0 6.6 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
1 :O::.ts
15.0 9.3 17.0 39.0 6.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1 :0::.1:1 27.9 37.2 54.2 93.2 100.0
Q20 There are too many pelformance rating categories under GeorglaGain - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:;uongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 49
223 241 330 391 267 1501
91 1592
Percent
;:S.1
14.0 15.1 20.7 24.6 16.8 94.3 5.7 100.0
Valid Percent
;:S.;:S
14.9 16.1 22.0 26.0 17.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.3
18.1 34.2 56.2 82.2 100.0
Q21 My supervisor's evaluation provides feedback that often helps me improve my job pelformance - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;::>trongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly -agree Total System
Frequency :.::-a 296 204 300 432 94
1548 44
1592
Percent
l;;S.l:I
18.6 12.8 18.8 27.1 5.9 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
14.;;S
19.1 13.2 19.4 27.9 6.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
14.3
33.5 46.6 66.0 93.9 100.0
Q22 My job description provides the Information needed to establish clear standards and expectations used to evaluate my performance - Nonsupervlsors
vallo
Missing Total
I ;::>trongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 1b1 233 176 329 549 101
1549 43
1592
Percent 1U.1 14.6 11.1 20.7 34.5 6.3 97.3 2.7
100.0
Valid Percent
10.4
15.0 11.4 21.2 35.4 6.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1U.4 25.4 36.8 58.0 93.5 100.0
Appendix V
117
Q23 Performance Management Forms are useful because they can be used to identify real performance objectives for my job - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 :strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 226 268 205 366 391 74
1530 62
1592
Percent 14.2 16.8 12.9 23.0 24.6 4.6 96.1 3.9
100.0
Valid Percent
14.8 17.5 13.4 23.9 25.6 4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14.8 32.3 45.7
69.6 95.2 100.0
Q24 It takes a lot of effort to get a 'met expectations' rating these days - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 12U 314 210 228 307 369
1548 44
1592
Percent
l.b
19.7 13.2 14.3 19.3 23.2 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
7.8 20.3 13.6 14.7 19.8 23.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.8 28.0 41.6 56.3 76.2 100.0
Q25 I believe my supervisor rated my performance as 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' expectations, but that rating was changed to 'met expectations' by higher management due to budgetary constraints - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 16U 401 105 144 256 414
1480 112
1592
Percent 10.1 25.2 6.6 9.0 16.1 26.0 93.0 7.0
100.0
Valid Percent
10.8 27.1
7.1 9.7 17.3 28.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.8 37.9 45.0 54.7
72.0 100.0
Q26 It is easier to get a performance rating of 'exceeded' or 'far exceeded' if you work in the Atlanta area - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~~onglY Qlsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~1b
338 170 194 237 191 1345 247 1592
Percent 1;;S.b 21.2 10.7 12.2 14.9 12.0 84.5 15.5
100.0
Valid Percent
16.0 25.1 12.6 14.4 17.6 14.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.0 41.1 53.8 68.2 85.8 100.0
Appendix V
118
Q27 Office politics has more to do with performance ratings than actual performance on the job - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 59
163 131 240 336 584 1513
79 1592
Percent ;j,{
10.2 8.2
15.1 21.1 36.7 95.0
5.0 100.0
Valid Percent
;j.9
10.8 8.7
15.9 22.2 38.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.9 14.7 23.3 39.2 61.4 100.0
Q28 Performance ratings of better than 'met expectations' are 'rotated' among employees who deserve meaningful pay raises - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~Lrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 350 441 196 166 183 118
1454 138
1592
Percent 22.0 27.7 12.3 10.4 11.5 7.4 91.3 8.7
100.0
Valid Percent
24.1 30.3 13.5 11.4 12.6
8.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 24.1 54.4 67.9 79.3 91.9 100.0
Q29 I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations' - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~Lrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 44 106 90 170
316 767 1493
99 1592
Percent 2.!:S 6.7 5.7
10.7 19.8 48.2 93.8 6.2 100.0
Valid Percent
2.9 7.1 6.0 11.4 21.2 51.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.9 10.0 16.1 27.5 48.6 100.0
Q30 My most recent performance rating accurately reflected my performance - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lTonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 314 273 173 218 428
122
1528 64
1592
Percent 19'{
17.1
10.9 13.7 26.9
7.7
96.0
4.0 100.0
Valid Percent
2U.5 17.9 11.3 14.3 28.0
8.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.5 38.4 49.7
64.0 92.0 100.0
Appendix V
119
Findings related to the respondents' job satisfaction, their attitudes about working for their agencies, and their feelings about employment with the State of Georgia
Findings concerning how state employees perceive several dimensions of the GeorgiaGain system and its implementation
Findings related to state employees' perceptions about the implementation and impact Civil Service Reform (Act 816)
Each subsection provides a narrative description and commentary on state employee's responses to selected survey items. The actual data, in the form of frequency distributions of responses to all survey items, are set forth in Appendices III - VI. The narrative contains references to these appendices for interested readers. For selected findings, figures are provided at the end of Section 5
Subsection 4 - A
Characteristics of Those Responding to the Survey
As noted previously, the random sampling methodology used yielded a population of respondents that closely mirrored those of the state workforce at large, as reported by the Merit System and other sources. All of the data obtained in this area may be found in Appendix III.
9
Q31 Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
31f
253 192 278 400 73 1513 79 1592
Percent
Hj.~
15.9 12.1 17.5 25.1 4.6 95.0 5.0 100.0
Valid Percent
21.U
16.7 12.7 18.4 26.4 4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
21.U
37.7 50.4 68.7 95.2 100.0
Q32 My supervisor really doesn't know enough about what I am doing to evaluate my performance accurately - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
2~
441 194 223 204 246 1546 46 1592
Percent
14.~
27.7 12.2 14.0 12.8 15.5 97.1 2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
10.4 28.5 12.5 14.4 13.2 15.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 15.4 43.9 56.5 70.9 84.1 100.0
Q33 The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY alsagree
2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 540 372 138 212 214 58
1534 58
1592
Percent 33.9 23.4 8.7 13.3 13.4 3.6 96.4 3.6
100.0
Valid Percent
30.:0:: 24.3
9.0 13.8 14.0 3.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
30.2 59.5 68.4 82.396.2 100.0
Q34 There has been too much stress on money as an incentive and not enough on other sources of motivation - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ::>1rongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
;aL
318 173 267 327 198 1505
87 1592
Percent
13.~
20.0 10.9 16.8 20.5 12.4 94.5
5.5 100.0
Valid Percent
14JS 21.1 11.5 17.7 21.7 13.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 14.6 35.9 47.4 65.1 86.8 100.0
Appendix V
120
Q35 My pay Is based on how weill do my job - Nonsupervlsors
valid
Missing Total
, ~1TongIY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 560 481 173 137 148 43
1542 50
1592
Percent
3b.2
30.2 10.9 8.6 9.3 2.7 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
36.3 31.2 11.2
8.9 9.6 2.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
30.3 67.5 78.7 87.6 97.2 100.0
Q37 High-performing employees In my work unit consistently are rewarded with pay increases greater than those awarded to average performing employees - Nonsupervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ~'trOng'Y clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
6tl
224 155 222 433 406 1508 84 1592
Percent 4.3 14.1 9.7 13.9
27.2 25.5 94.7
5.3 100.0
Valid Percent
4.5 14.9 10.3 14.7 28.7 26.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.5 19.4 29.6 44.4 73.1 100.0
Q36 Pay raises in my work unit often are not really related to performance - Nonsupervisors
Valid
Missing Total
, ~'U"ongIY clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly..agree Total System
Frequenev 405 452 201 161 172 82
1473 119
1592
Percent 25.4 28.4 12.6 10.1 10.8 5.2 92.5 7.5
100.0
Valid Percent
27.5 30.7 13.6 10.9 11.7
5.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 27.5 58.2 71.8 82.8 94.4 100.0
Q38 Getting a 'met' rating only means you are going to get the equivalent of a 'cost of living' raise - Nonsupervisors
VaTid
Missing Total
1 ~'U"ongly clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 39 50 45 134
621 666 1555 37 1592
Percent 2.4 3.1 2.8 8.4
39.0 41.8 97.7 2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.5 3.2 2.9 8.6 39.9 42.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent .b 5.7 8.6 17.2 57.2 100.0
Appendix V
121
Q39 Pay is the most important part of the GeorgiaGaln process - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongry olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 111::1 249 198 242 370 321
1498 94
1592
Percent
1.4
15.6 12.4 15.2 23.2 20.2 94.1 5.9 100.0
Valid Percent
I.~
16.6 13.2 16.2 24.7 21.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
I.~
24.5 37.7 53.9 78.6 100.0
Q40 Although I deserved one, I could not get a pay raise because I had reached the top or ceiling of my pay range - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~ots
595 92
107 161 180 1403 189 1592
Percent 10.ts 37.4 5.8 6.7 10.1 11.3 88.1 11.9
100.0
Valid Percent
H/.1
42.4 6.6 7.6
11.5 12.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1~.1
61.5 68.1 75.7 87.2 100.0
Q41 Making bonuses available to high performers who are at the top of their pay grade would do a great deal to Improve fairness and equity In the system - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tTongty olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 9U
128 75
230 497 509 1529
63 1592
Percent 5.7 8.0 4.7 14.4
31.2 32.0 96.0
4.0 100.0
Valid Percent
5.9 8.4 4.9 15.0 32.5 33.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.9 14.3 19.2 34.2 66.7-
100.0
Q42 There is a lot of conflict between employees over annual pay raises In my work group - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 "ll'Ongry olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency lUI 454 176 224 289 281
1531 61
1592
Percent 0.1
28.5 11.1 14.1 18.2 17.7 96.2
3.8 100.0
Valid Percent
I.U
29.7 11.5 14.6 18.9 18.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
I.U
36.6 48.1 62.8 81.6 100.0
Appendix V
122
Q43 Favoritism is a problem for the pay for performance program in my agency - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY clsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 92
264 123 213 289 546 1527 65 1592
Percent 5.8
16.6 7.7 13.4 18.2 34.3 95.9 4.1 100.0
Valid Percent
5.U
17.3 8.1 13.9 18.9 35.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 6.0 23.3 31.4 45.3 64.2 100.0
Q44 Performance appraisals are very helpful in determining my training and development needs - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~uongly a,sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 204 409 165 317 373 81
1549 43
1592
Percent 12.8 25.7 10.4 19.9 23.4 5.1 97.3 2.7
100.0
Valid Percent
13.2 26.4 10.7 20.5 24.1
5.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 13.2 39.6 50.2 70.7 94.8 100.0
Q45 It is possible to identify employee weaknesses and related training needs during the performance development process - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~U'ongIY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency
110
303 146 390 512 81 1548 44 1592
Percent
, :.s
19.0 9.2
24.5 32.2
5.1 97.2
2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
'.0 19.6
9.4 25.2 33.1
5.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.0 27.1 36.5 61.7 94.8 100.0-
Q46 There is a lot of effective teaching, training, and coaching of subordinates by my supervisor - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~vonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
390
415 197 239. 246 63 1556 36 1592
Percent 24.9 26.1 12.4 15.0 15.5 4.0 97.7 2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
25.4 26.7 12.7 15.4 15.8
4.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 25.4 52.1 64.8 80.1 96.0 100.0
Appendix V
123
Q47 Training is identified In performance development plans and Is available to employees In my agency - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~40
332 189 293 415 64 1539 53 1592
Percent
lb.b
20.9 11.9 18.4 26.1 4.0 96.7 3.3 100.0
Valid Percent
lO.U
21.6 12.3 19.0 27.0 4.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.0 37.6 49.8 68.9 95.8 100.0
Q48 The State offers me enough training to grow and develop - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ;:>U"ongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~bU
380 209 262 364
76 1551
41 1592
Percent 16.3 23.9 13.1 16.5 22.9 4.8 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
lO.~
24.5 13.5 16.9 23.5 4.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.8 41.3 54.7 71.6 95.1 100.0
Q49 Adequate resources and opportunities for career development are available to state employees - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:>uonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly. agree Total System
Frequency 345
388 218 254 282
41 1528
64 1592
Percent 21.7 24.4 13.7 16.0 17.7 2.6 96.0 4.0
100.0
Valid Percent
22.6 25.4 14.3 16.6 18.5 2.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent a.b
48.0 62.2 78.9 97.3 100.0_
Q50 My work unit has very high performance expectations for employees - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~LronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
6~
171 122 301 610 287 1560 32 1592
Percent 4.3 10.7 7.7 18.9
38.3 18.0 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
4.4 11.0 7.8 19.3 39.1 18.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.4 15.4 23.2 42.5 81.6 100.0
Appendix V
124
Q51 State money has not been made available to reward good perfonners with good pay increases - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:)1Tongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
;;s4
58 55 170 495 720 1532 60 1592
Percent 2.1 3.6 3.5
10.7 31.1 45.2 96.2
3.8 100.0
Valid Percent
2.2 3.8 3.6 11.1 32.3 47.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.2 6.0 9.6 20.7 53.0 100.0
Q52 Pay for performance was promised and delivered under Georg/aGain - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:)1Tongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4~~
344 215 213 190
39 1494
98 1592
Percent
~l.U
21.6 13.5 13.4 11.9 2.4 93.8 6.2 100.0
Valid Percent
~.U
23.0 14.4 14.3 12.7 2.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 33.0 56.0 70.4 84.7 97.4 100.0
Q53 GeorgiaGain has not been completely implemented - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:j1Tongly Olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree
- 6 Strongly agree
Total System
Frequency 84
200 167 331 414 228 1424 168 1592
Percent 5.3
12.6 10.5 20.8 26.0 14.3 89.4 10.6 100.0
Valid Percent
5.9 14.0 11.7 23.2 29.1 16.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.9 19.9 31.7 54.9 84.0 100.0
Q54 It is possible to administer discipline effectively when needed - Nonsupervlsors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:)1TOngly Olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
14l:S
224 187 295 551
83 1488
104 1592
Percent 9.3 14.1 11.7 18.5
34.6 5.2
93.5 6.5
100.0
Valid Percent
9.9 15.1 12.6 19.8 37.0
5.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.9 25.0 37.6 57.4 94.4 100.0
Appendix V
125
QSS Training on how to carry out provisions of GeorgiaGain is adequate - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~U"ongIY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
,,~
380 260 342 270
22 1452
140 1592
Percent
11.4::
23.9 16.3 21.5 17.0 1.4 91.2 8.8 100.0
Valid Percent
'4::.~
26.2 17.9 23.6 18.6
1.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.~
38.4 56.3 79.9 98.5 100.0
Q56 Managemenfs commitment to fully implementing GeorgiaGain has declined steadily over the past five years - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 40
167 207 383 419 187 1409 183 1592
Percent
2.~
10.5 13.0 24.1 26.3 11.7 88.5 11.5 100.0
Valid Percent
3.3 11.9 14.7 27.2 29.7 13.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.3 15.1 29.8 57.0 86.7 100.0
QS7 Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly: agree Total System
Frequency 451 428 217 187 104 21
1408 184
1592
Percent 26.3 26.9 13.6 11.7 6.5 1.3 88.4 11.6
100.0
Valid Percent
32.0 30.4 15.4 13.3
7.4 1.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 32.0 62.4 77.8 91.1 98.5 100.0_
QSS The pay I receive Is not competitive with what private employers are offering - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 33 76 79 142
402 814 1546 46 1592
Percent 2.1 4.8 5.0 8.9
25.3 51.1 97.1
2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
2.1
4.9 5.1 9.2 26.0 52.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.1
7.1 12.2 21.3 47.3 100.0
Appendix V
126
Q59 It is hard to recruit qualified job applicants - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 37 122 97
200 440 628 1524
68 1592
Percent 2.3 7.7 6.1 12.6
27.6 39.4 95.7
4.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.4
8.0 6.4 13.1 28.9 41.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.4
10.4 16.8 29.9 58.8 100.0
Q60 The benefits available to state employees are competitive with those offered in the private sector - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :strOnglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
"Lf'd
247 137 263 453 163 1542 50 1592
Percent H.o 15.5 8.6 16.5 28.5 10.2 96.9 3.1
100.0
Valid Percent
1l:S.1
16.0 8.9 17.1 29.4 10.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
HS.l
34.1 43.0 60.1 89.4 100.0
Q61 I am motivated to be responsive to my customers and clients - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency 48 100 77
225 668 404 1522
70 1592
Percent ;j.O 6.3 4.8 14.1
42.0 25.4 95.6
4.4 100.0
Valid Percent
3.2 6.6 5.1 14.8 43.9 26.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.2 9.7 14.8 29.6 73.5 100.0
Q62 My work group is highly committed to public service - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 :stronglY Olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 51
113 86
274 642 370 1536
56 1592
Percent 3.2 7.1 5.4
17.2 40.3 23.2 96.5
3.5 100.0
Valid Percent
~.~
7.4 5.6 17.8 41.8 24.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.3 10.7 16.3 34.1 75.9 100.0
Appendix V
127
Q63 GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state employees
without having to provide any real extra benefits - Nonsupervlsors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY dISagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 04 155 173
274 371 472 1509
83 1592
Percent
4.U
9.7 10.9 17.2 23.3 29.6 94.8 5.2 100.0
Valid Percent
4.2 10.3 11.5 18.2 24.6 31.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.2 14.5 26.0 44.1 68.7 100.0
Q64 The real purpose of GeorgiaGain is to control the state's payroll costs - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 \:itrongly dISagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 32 112
110 274 426 532 1486 106 1592
Percent 2.0 7.0 6.9
17.2 26.8 33.4 93.3
6.7 100.0
Valid Percent
2.~
7.5 7.4 18.4 28.7 35.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent L. 9.7 17.1 35.5 642 100.0
Appendix V
128
APPENDIX VI
129
Gender Slightly over 39 percent of the respondents were male and about 61 percent were female. In comparison to the overall state workforce, supervisors are more likely to be male. For those state employees who are not supervisors, 63 percent are female. In contrast, the state's supervisory ranks are almost equally divided among men and women.
Race and Ethnicity Over 62 percent (62.6) of the respondents who answered this question classified themselves as white, while 33.6 percent reported that they were African American. The balance (3.8 percent) were Asian, Hispanic, Multi Racial, and Native American. In the non-supervisory ranks, the percentage of whites was 61.4 and for African Americans it was 34.5, with 4.1 percent in the other categories. Among supervisors, these percentages were found to be significantly different, with 67.8 percent being white and 29.6 African American. Other categories comprised 2.6 percent of supervisory personnel. Figures 4 - A-I and 4 - A - 2 show these data.
Age State employees between the ages of 18 and 30 were 12.5 percent of the overall retu-rn. Forty-three percent fell into the age 31 to 45 category, while 41 percent were 46 to 60 years of age. A small proportion (3.4 percent) were 61 years old or older. The bulk of state employees (84 percent of the respondents) were between 31 and 60 years of age. As might be expected, supervisors tended to be somewhat older as a group. These findings are shown in Figures 4 - A - 3 and 4- A - 4.
Education As shown in Figure 4 - A - 5 (See also, Appendix III) nearly half of those responding to this survey did not have a college degree. About one third (37 percent) had at least a four-year college degree. For supervisors, as might be
10
Q6S I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
2ts!:l
1608 1897
51 1948
Percent
14.ts
82.5 97.4
2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
1b.~
84.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1b.2
100.0
Q66 I was solicited by someone in authority to make a campaign contribution
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No Total System
Frequency r2
1848 1920
28 1948
Percent :j. r
94.9 98.6
1.4 100.0
Valid Percent
:j.ts
96.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.8
100.0
Q67 I was asked to resign a position or transfer to another position on account of my political beliefs or political connections
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
~1
1888 1919
29 1948
Percent
1.t:>
96.9 98.5
1.5 100.0
Valid Percent
1.0
98.4 100.0
CumuJative Percent
1.0
100.0
Q68 I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward I was qualified for because of my political beliefs or the political connections of others
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
USb
1729 1914
34 1948
Percent
!:I.b
88.8 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
!:I.r
90.3 100.0
CumuJative Percent
!:IJ
100.0
Q69 The provisions and purposes of the civil service refonn law (Act 816) have been clearly communicated to state employees like me
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY Qlsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~7t:>
573 239 252 369
61 1870
78 1948
Percent
19.3
29.4 12.3 12.9 18.9
3.1 96.0 4.0 100.0
Valid Percent
2U.l 30.6 12.8 13.5 19.7
3.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.1 50.7 63.5 77.0 96.7 100.0
Appendix VI
130
Q70 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made that state wortd'orce more productive and responsive to the public
valid
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
374
668 312 267 155 22 1798 150 1948
Percent 19.2 34.3 16.0 13.7 8.0 1.1 92.3 7.7
100.0
Valid Percent
20.B 37.2 17.4 14.8
8.6 1.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.8 58.0 75.3 90.2 98.8 100.0
Q71 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made it easier to fire employees
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 102 206 155 349 556 446
1814 134
1948
Percent 5.2 10.6 8.0
17.9 28.5 22.9 93.1
6.9 100.0
Valid Percent
5.0 11.4 8.5 19.2 30.7 24.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.5 17.0 25.5 44.8 75.4 100.0
Q72 There has been little if any real change in the human resources practices of my agency since the civil service reform law (Act 816) was enacted
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 98
222 241 440 544 228 1n3 175 1948
Percent O.U
11.4 12.4 22.6 27.9 11.7 91.0 9.0 100.0
Valid Percent
0.:> 12.5 13.6 24.8 30.7 12.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
0.0
18.0 31.6 56.5 87.1 100.6
Q73 I believe my agency has made good use of the greater discretion it has under the civil service reform law (Act 816)
VallO
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 205 399 355 434 285 31
1710 238
1948
Percent
lU.b
20.5 18.2 22.3 14.6
1.6 87.8 12.2 100.0
Valid Percent
l:.!.U
23.3 20.8 25.4 16.7
1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
l:.!.U
35.4 56.1 81.5 98.2 100.0
Appendix VI
131
Q74 Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency can hire highly qualified people In a timely manner
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 315 459 308 345 300 29
1756 192
1948
Percent 16.2 23.6 15.8 17.7 15.4 1.5 90.1 9.9
100.0
Valid Percent
1f.~
26.1 17.5 19.6 17.1
1.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1 {.~
44.1 61.6 81.3 98.3 100.0
Q75 Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:suonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 245 468 379 383 213 20
1708 240
1948
Percent 12.6 24.0 19.5 19.7 10.9 1.0 87.7 12.3
100.0
Valid Percent
14.3 27.4 22.2 22.4 12.5
12 100.0
Cumulative Percent
14.3
41.7 63.9 86.4 98.8 100.0
Q76 It has been possible to tenninate low performers without major procedural delays in my agency
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency
233
365 310 338 389
98 1733
215 1948
Percent
12.U
18.7 15.9 17.4 20.0 5.0 89.0 11.0 100.0
Valid Percent
13.4
21.1 17.9 19.5 22.4 5.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
13.4
34.5 52.4 71.9 94.3 100.0
Qn Classified state employees really don't have any more job security in my agency than unclassified employees
valla
Missing Total
1 ~.,.ongIY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 165 328 305 305 439 248
1790 158
1948
Percent 8.5 16.8 15.7 15.7
22.5 12.7 91.9 8.1 100.0
Valid Percent
9.2 18.3 17.0 17.0 24.5 13.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.2 27.5 44.6 61.6 86.1 100.0
Appendix VI
132
Q78 Unclassified state employees tend to work harder than classified employees
vallo
Missing Total
, :strongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 510 635 249 171 132 84
1781 167
1948
Percent
~b.L
32.6 12.8 8.8 6.8 4.3 91.4 8.6 100.0
Valid Percent
~~.b
35.7 14.0
9.6 7.4 4.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
L~.O
64.3 78.3 87.9 95.3 100.0
Q79 Because of the civil service reform law (Act 816), I believe that now there is no job security in state employment
valla
Missing Total
-, ;:)lTOngfy olsagree 2 Disagree 3 SlighUy disagree 4 SlighUy agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
:ll:l
236 254 378 427 429 1783 165 1948
Percent ;;s.u 12.1 13.0
19.4 21.9 22.0 91.5
8.5 100.0
Valid Percent
;;S.;;S
13.2 142 212 23.9 24.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent ;;s.;;s
16.5 30.8 52.0 75.9 100.0
Q80 Leaving a classified position for an unclassified position is a very risky step
valla
Missing Total
, :strongly afsagree
2 Disagree
3 SlighUy disagree
4 SlighUy agree
5 Agree
6 Strongly agree
Total
-
System
Frequency 24
191 163 345 499 599 1821 127 1948
Percent 12 9.8 8.4
17.7 25.6 30.7 93.5 6.5 100.0
Valid Percent
1.3 10.5 9.0 18.9 27.4 32.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.3 11.8 20.8 39.7 67.1 100.0
Q81 The civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees to be more
responsive to the goals and priorities of agency administrators
valla
Missing Total
, :strongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 SJighUy disagree 4 SlightJy agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 232 454 326 410 253 59
1734 214
1948
Percent 11.9 23.3 16.7 21.0 13.0 3.0 89.0 11.0
100.0
Valid Percent
13.4 26.2 18.8 23.6 14.6
3.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 13.4 39.6 58.4 82.0 96.6 100.0
Appendix VI
133
Q82 Supervising workers In unclassified positions Is easier than supervising wortl:ers in classified positions
vaIJa
Missing Total
1 ~rronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 267 674 334 207 166 47
1715 233
1948
Percent 14.7 34.6 17.1 10.6 8.5 2.4 88.0 12.0
100.0
Valid Percent
16.7 39.3 19.5 12.1
9.7 2.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 16.7 56.0 75.5 87.6 97.3 100.0
Appendix VI
134
Q6S I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 res
2 No Total System
Frequency
4~
301 349
7 356
Percent
1j.o
84.6 98.0
2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
1j.~
86.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1j.~
100.0
Q66 I was solicited by someone in authority to make a campaign contribution - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 yes
2 No Total System
Frequency 12
341 353
3 356
Percent 3.4
95.8 99.2
.8 100.0
Valid Percent
3.4
96.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.4
100.0
Q67 I was asked to resign a position or transfer to another position on account of my political beliefs or political connections - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 yes
2 No Total System
Frequency
I
346 353
3 356
Percent
",.U
97.2 99.2
.8 100.0
Valid Percent
"'.U
98.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
"'.U
100.0
Q6S I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward I was qualified for because
of my political beliefs or the political connections of others - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Yes
2 No Total System
Frequency
-
4U
312
352
4
356
Percent
11.",
87.6 98.9
1.1 100.0
Valid Percent
11.4
88.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
11.4
100.0
Q69 The provisions and purposes of the civil service reform law (Act 816) have
been clearly communicated to state employees like me - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1
'olsagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Slightly agree
5 Agree
6 Strongly agree
Total
System
Frequency
71
95 36 46 79 14 347
9 356
Percent 21.0 26.7 10.1 12.9 22.2 3.9 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
ZZ.2 27.4 10.4 13.3 22.8
4.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 22.2 49.6 59.9 73.2 96.0 100.0
Appendix VI
135
Q70 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made that state workforce more productive and responsive to the public - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 78
123 53 50 30
6 340
16 356
Percent 2U:I 34.6 14.9 14.0 8.4 1.7 95.5 4.5
100.0
Valid Percent
22.9 36.2 15.6 14.7
8.8 1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 22.9 59.1 74.7 89.4 98.2 100.0
Q71 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made it easier to fire employees - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 35 58 29 76 83 58
339 17
356
Percent 9.8 16.3 8.1
21.3 23.3 16.3 95.2
4.8 100.0
Valid Percent
10.3 17.1
8.6 22.4 24.5 17.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.3 27.4 36.0 58.4 82.9 100.0
Q72 There has been little if any real change in the human resources practices of my agency since the civil service reform law (Act 816) was enacted - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trOnglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree _ 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 1b 38 45 79
107 56 340 16 356
Percent 4.2 10.7
12.6 22.2 30.1 15.7 95.5
4.5 100.0
Valid Percent
4.4 11.2 13.2 23.2 31.5 16.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.4 15.6 28.8 52.1 83.5_ 100.0
Q73 I believe my agency has made good use of the greater discretion It has under the civil service reform law (Act 816) - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:,-uongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
44
n
62 91 56
6 336
20 356
Percent 12.4 21.6 17.4 25.6 15.7 1.7 94.4 5.6
100.0
Valid Percent
13.1 22.9 18.5 27.1 16.7
1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 13.1 36.0 54.5 81.5 98.2 100.0
Appendix VI
136
Q74 Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency can hire highly qualified people in a timely manner - Supervisors
vallO
Missing Total
1 ::stronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 67 86 50 58 50 4
335 21
356
Percent
~4A
24.2 14.0 16.3 14.0
1.1 94.1
5.9 100.0
Valid Percent
~t5.U
25.7 14.9 17.3 14.9
1.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~t5.U
51.6 66.6 83.9 98.8 100.0
Q75 Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 :::iuongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
o~
82 70 73 36
3 326
30 356
Percent
1/04
23.0 19.7 20.5 10.1
.8 91.6
8.4 100.0
Valid Percent
l!:l.U
25.2 21.5 22.4 11.0
.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
l!:l.U
44.2 65.6 88.0 99.1 100.0
Q76 It has been possible to terminate low performers without major procedural delays in my agency - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 :strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree _
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 59 74 68 62 57 11
331 25
356
Percent 16.6 20.8 19.1 17.4 16.0 3.1 93.0 7.0
100.0
Valid Percent
17.6 22.4 20.5 18.7 17.2
3.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 17.8 40.2 60.7 79.5 96.7100.0
Q77 Classified state employees really don't have any more job security in my agency than unclassif"1ed employees - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 :::iLrongiy disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
'U
62 69 56 89 36 339 17 356
Percent /.0
17.4 19.4 15.7 25.0 10.1 95.2 4.8 100.0
Valid Percent
ts.U 18.3 20.4 16.5 26.3 10.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
ts.U
26.3 46.6 63.1 89.4 100.0
Appendix VI
137
Q78 Unclassified state employees tend to work harder than classified employees - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~[ronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 105 123 48 30 24 8 338 18 356
Percent 29.5 34.6 13.5 8.4 6.7 2.2 94.9 5.1
100.0
Valid Percent
31.1
36.4 14.2 8.9 7.1 2.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
jl.l
67.5 81.7 90.5 97.6 100.0
Q79 Because of the civil service reform law (Act 816), I believe that now there is no job security in state employment - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 10 65 45 80 70 64
334 22
356
Percent 2.1::1
18.3 12.6 22.5 19.7 18.0 93.8 6.2 100.0
Valid Percent
3.0 19.5 13.5 24.0 21.0 19.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.0 22.5 35.9 59.9 80.8 100.0
Q80 Leaving a classified position for an unclassified position is a very risky step - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree TotaJ System
Frequency
l::l
51 33 85 85 80 342 14 356
Percent
2.2
14.3 9.3
23.9 23.9 22.5 96.1
3.9 100.0
Valid Percent
2.3
14.9 9.6
24.9 24.9 23.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.3 17.3 26.9 51.8
76.6 100.0-
Q81 The civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees to be more responsive to the goals and priorities of agency administrators - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~uonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
03
98 62 69 46
7 335
21 356
Percent
14.!:I
27.5 17.4 19.4 12.9
2.0 94.1
5.9 100.0
Valid Percent
lo.ts 29.3 18.5 20.6 13.7
2.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.l::l
45.1 63.6 84.2 97.9 100.0
Appendix VI
138
Q82 Supervising workers in unclassified positions is easier than supervising workers in classified positions - Supervisors
Valfd
Missing Total
1 ~trongly dIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 62
148 56 36 22
8 332
24 356
Percent 17.4 41.6 15.7 10.1 6.2 2.2 93.3 6.7
100.0
Valid Percent
HI.!
44.6 16.9 10.8 6.6 2.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
HS.f
63.3 80.1 91.0 97.6 100.0
Appendix VI
139
expected, these figures are significantly different, with 53 percent having a four year college degree or a higher level of education. About one-third of non-supervisors (33.4 percent) fell into this category.
Position-Related Characteristics As detailed in Appendix III, 60.7 percent of the respondents held positions in the classified civil service at the time of the survey. For supervisors, this figure was 68.2 percent, and for non-supervisors it was 59.0 percent. In all response categories, it should be noted that close to 10 percent of the respondents were unsure as to whether their positions were in the classified or unclassified service.
Dncertainty was also a feature of the item asking whether or not the
respondent was at his or her pay grade ceiling. Here, fully 22.7 percent of the respondents were unsure, while 10.8 percent indicated that they were at the top or ceiling of their pay grade. Uncertainty was even a more striking feature of supervisors' responses, with 19.7 percent reporting that they were "not sure." Nine percent of the supervisors said that they were at the top of their pay grade. Of non-supervisory personnel, 23.4 percent were not sure of where they stood with regard to the top or ceiling of their pay grade, and 11.2 percent said that they were at the top.
The reasons for such high levels of uncertainty in this area were not revealed by the survey, but this question should be addressed and, if necessary, follow-up steps taken by agency human resources offices to assure that employees are familiar with their status, both with regard to classified vs. unclassified status and pay grade.
Tenure with the State and in Position As shown in Appendix III, 26.8 percent of the respondents had worked for the state 4 or fewer years. Over 37 percent had 15 years or more service, while a roughly equal percentage (39.1 percent) had between 5 and 14 years of service. Supervisors tended to have worked longer for the state. Nonsupervisors have fewer years with the state. These findings are summarized in Figures 4 - A - 6 and 4 - A - 7.
With regard to tenure in current position, fully 48.1 percent had 4 or
11
Q65 I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
T Yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
~41
1307 1548
44 1592
Percent 10.1 82.1 97.2 2.8
100.0
Valid Percent
15.0
84.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
15.0 100.0
Q66 I was solicited by someone in authority to make a campaign contribution - Nonsupervisors
-VaTiC
Missing Total
1 Yes 2 No Total System
Frequency 60
1507 1567
25 1592
Percent 3.8
94.7 98.4
1.6 100.0
Valid Percent
3.8 96.2
100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.8
100.0
Q67 I was asked to resign a position or transfer to another position on account of my political beliefs or political connections - Nonsupervisors
-Valid
Missing Total
1 Yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
4!4
1542 1566
26 1592
Percent
1.b
96.9 98.4
1.6 100.0
Valid Percent
1.b
98.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.b
100.0
Q68 I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward I was qualified for because of my political beliefs or the political connections of others - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No Total System
Frequency
-
145 1417
1562
30
1592
Percent 9.1
89.0 98.1
1.9 100.0
Valid Percent
9.;:S
90.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.;:S
100.0
Q69 The provisions and purposes of the civil service reform law (Act 816) have been clearly communicated to state employees like me - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency Z99 478 203 206 290 47
1523 69
1592
Percent 18.8 30.0 12.8 12.9 18.2 3.0 95.7 4.3
100.0
Valid Percent
19.6 31.4 13.3 13.5 19.0
3.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 19.6 51.0 64.3 77.9 96.9 100.0
Appendix VI
140
Q70 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made that state workforce more productive and responsive to the public - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~lronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
2!:lo
545 259 217 125
16 1458
134 1592
Percent 18.6 34.2 16.3 13.6 7.9 1.0 91.6 8.4
100.0
Valid Percent
20.3 37.4 17.8 14.9
8.6 1.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 20.3 57.7 75.4 90.3 98.9 100.0
Q71 The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made it easier to fire employees - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
bf
148 126 273 473 388 1475 117 1592
Percent
4.~
9.3 7.9 17.1 29.7 24.4 92.7 7.3 100.0
Valid Percent
4.0 10.0
8.5 18.5 32.1 26.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.0 14.6 23.1 41.6 73.7 100.0
Q72 There has been little if any real change In the human resources practices of my agency since the civil service reform law (Act 816) was enacted - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~uong'Y alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
5 Agree -
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 83
184 196 361 437 172 1433 159 1592
Percent 5.2 11.6
12.3 22.7 27.4 10.8 90.0 10.0 100.0
Valid Percent
5.8 12.8 13.7 25.2 30.5 12.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 5.8 18.6 32.3 57.5 88.0 100.0
Q73 I believe my agency has made good use of the greater discretion It has under the civil service reform law (Act 816) - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
I ,>uonglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 162 322 293 343 229 25
1374 218
1592
Percent
lU.~
20.2 18.4 21.5 14.4
1.6 86.3 13.7 100.0
Valid Percent
ll.ts
23.4 21.3 25.0 16.7
1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent lUS 35.2 56.6 81.5 982 100.0
Appendix VI
141
Q74 Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency can hire highly qualified people in a timely manner - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 228 373 258 287 250 25
1421 171
1592
Percent 14.3 23.4 16.2 18.0 15.7 1.6 89.3 10.7
100.0
Valid Percent
16.U
26.2 18.2 20.2 17.6 1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
16.U
42.3 60.5 80.6 98.2 100.0
Q75 Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program - Nonsupervisors
Valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
HS3
386 309 310 177
17 1382 210 1592
Percent
11.0
24.2 19.4 19.5 11.1
1.1 86.8 13.2 100.0
Valid Percent
132
27.9 22.4 22.4 12.8
1.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
13.2
41.2 63.5 86.0 98.8 100.0
Q76 It has been possible to terminate low perfonners without major procedural delays in my agency - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~LronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Stronglyagree Total System
Frequency
1(4
291 242 276 332 87 1402 190 1592
Percent
1U.~
18.3 15.2 17.3 20.9 5.5 88.1 11.9 100.0
Valid Percent
12.4
20.8 17.3 19.7 23.7
62
100.0
Cumulative Percent
12.4
33.2 50.4 70.1 93.8100.0
Q77 Classified state employees really don't have any more job security in my agency than unclassified employees - Nonsupervisors
valrCl
Missing Total
1 ~trongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 136 266 236 249 350 212
1451 141
1592
Percent '6.7 16.7 14.8 15.6
22.0 13.3 91.1 8.9 100.0
Valid Percent
9.5 18.3 16.3 17.2 24.1 14.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.O
27.8 44.1 61.3 85.4 100.0
Appendix VI
142
Q78 Unclassified state employees tend to work harder than classified employees - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 405 512 201 141 108 76
1443 149
1592
Percent
~o.4
32.2 12.6 8.9 6.8 4.8 90.6 9.4 100.0
Valid Percent
~~.1
35.5 13.9 9.8 7.5 5.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
Lts.l
63.5 77.5 87.2 94.7 100.0
Q79 Because of the civil service reform law (Act 816), I believe that now there is no job security in state employment - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 49 171
209 298 357 365 1449 143 1592
Percent 3.1
10.7 13.1 18.7 22.4 22.9 91.0 9.0 100.0
Valid Percent
3.4 11.8 14.4 20.6 24.6 252 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.4 15.2 29.6 50.2 74.8 100.0
Q80 leaving a classified position for an unclassified position is a very risky step - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 16
140 130 260 414 519 1479 113 1592
Percent 1.0 8.8 8.2
16.3 26.0 32.6 92.9
7.1 100.0
Valid Percent
1.1 9.5 8.8 17.6 28.0 35.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.1 10.5 19.3 36.9 64.9 100.0
Q81 The civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees to be more responsive to the goals and priorities of agency administrators - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~U"ongJY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 179 356 264 341 207 52
1399 193
1592
Percent 11.2 22.4 16.6 21.4 13.0 3.3 87.9 12.1
100.0
Valid Percent
14!.l:S
25.4 18.9 24.4 14.8 3.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 12.8 38.2 57.1 81.5 96.3 100.0
Appendix VI
143
Q82 Supervising workers In unclassified positions Is easier than supervising workers In classified positions - Nonsupervlsors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::>tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 225 526 278 171 144 39
1383 209
1592
Percent 14.1 33.0 17.5 10.7 9.0 2.4 86.9 13.1
100.0
Valid Percent
16.;$
38.0 20.1 12.4 10.4
2.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.;$
54.3 74.4 86.8 97.2 100.0
Appendix VI
144
APPENDIX VII
145
Item
Percent Agreeing
In 1993
I like my job.
94.0%
Because of dissatisfaction with my job or with State government, I am likely to leave State government within the next 12 months for another job.
17.0%
On my job, I know what is expected. of me.
95.0%
Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance.
77.0%
I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance.
73.0%
My job description provides the information needed to establish clear standards and expectations used. to evaluate my performance.
78.0%
Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted. fairly.
64.0%
The State offers me enough training to grow and develop.
60.0%
My work unit has very high performance
expectations for employees.
88.0%
Percent Agreeing In 2000
90.5%
25.5% 86.8%
64.6% 62.6%
62.2% 50.3% 47.0% 77.1%
146
fewer years of service. Those in the 5 to 14 years of service category represented 36.2 percent, while 15.6 percent had 15 or more years in position. These data are broken down for supervisors in Figure 4 - A - 8.
Supervisory Status As shown in Figure 4 - A - 9, 356 or 18.3 percent of the respondents were supervisory employees. The distribution of these respondents across pay grades is shown in Appendix III. In summary, over 90 percent of the supervisors were pay grade 11 or higher with most falling into grades 13 and 14 (31.2 percent). More than 16 percent were in grades 11 and 12.
Agency As shown in Appendix III, the largest percentages of respondents came from the state's largest agencies. Most notably, Corrections (21.9 percent) and Human Resources (27.4 percent). Transportation contributed 6.6 percent, while Community Health added 4.8 percent. The balance of the responses were distributed across other state agencies proportionately with nearly 5 percent falling into the "other" category.
Subsection 4 - B
_ _ _ _ _ _S.ta.t.e.E.m_ployee Job Satisfaction
Previous experience with pay-for-performance systems in the public sector has revealed that employee job satisfaction, confidence and trust in agency management, and feelings with regard to working for the government concerned are important factors in the degree to which these systems are accepted by employees, including the supervisors who must implement them. In this regard, a goal of the GeorgiaGain was to implement a set of human resources management reforms that enhanced state employees' confidence in
12
the fairness and equity of the system across agencies and on all levels of responsibility. Accordingly, the survey probed state employees' satisfaction with their jobs and their views with regard to working for their particular agencies and the state at large.
Levels of Satisfaction are Relatively High Overall
The first 10 items in the survey covered these topics (see Questions 1 - lOin Appendix I). For the most part, responses to these items suggested that state employees did have mostly positive attitudes about their jobs, their agencies, and working for the State of Georgia. For example, 90.5 percent agreed to at least some extent, and 32.3 percent agreed strongly, with the statement "I like my job." Likewise, over 70 percent saw their agencies as good places to work. Job satisfaction has been found to be related to turnover rates in many studies, and about 75 percent of the respondents to this survey indicated that they had no intention of leaving state employment during the coming year, and almost two-thirds responded that they would recommend employment with the state to family members and friends. State employees, in general, were satisfied with their jobs, their agencies, and the state as an employer (see Figure 4 - B-1).
Problem Areas May Exist
There were some areas where the responses suggested potential or emerging problems. Over two-thirds reported that there was "a lot of turnover" in their work groups. Also, state employees were almost evenly split on the issue of whether or not they trusted their agencies to treat them fairly. Figure 4 - B - 2 displays these data.
. Even more problematic is the finding that 65 percent did not agree with the statement that they are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management (see Figure 4 - B-3). Large numbers of the respondents (over 80 percent) indicated that they were unsatisfied with their current pay. Only 30 percent agreed that morale in their work units was high. As the data presented in Appendix IV indicate, there were no meaningful differences
13
found between supervisors and non-supervisors. Two of the items on satisfaction issues in the current survey replicated
questions from the 1993 GaGain Employee Opinion Survey conducted for the State of Georgia Merit System by William M. Mercer, Inc. For both items, there appeared to be a negative trend which merits close attention. In the first instance, in 1993,94 percent agreed with the statement "I like my job," but in the current survey that percentage is down to 90.5 percent. In the second, in 1993, 17 percent indicated their intent to leave state employment within the coming year, but that percentage had risen to 25.5 percent in the present survey.
With one exception, no significant associations were found between demographic and other characteristics of the respondents and the job satisfaction items in this part of the current survey. The exception was a largely predictable relationship found between the age of the respondent and intent to leave or turnover within the coming year. As a rule, previous studies have revealed that older employees in all sectors of the economy are less likely to express an intent leave their jobs (to turnover) than are younger employees, so this finding was neither anomalous nor unexpected.
Regular Surveys of State Employee Job Satisfaction May be Useful
Although these findings do not suggest that there are serious problems with regard to job satisfaction among state employees, the trend suggested by the comparison-with the 1993 data is grounds/or some concern, especially since GeorgiaGain was intended to provide a foundation for enhanced levels of satisfaction. Likewise, the current findings with regard to trust in agency management, appreciation by senior agency management, and work unit morale deserve close attention. One effective way of monitoring job satisfaction and related attitudes is the administration of annual job satisfaction surveys by agency human resources offices or a central DR unit such as the Merit System. The results of these surveys, particularly over a period of several years, often are very useful in identifying emerging problems, their causes, and potentially effective responses by management.
14
Subsection 4 - C
_______P_er.c_eptions of GeorgiaGain
Items covering GeorgiaGain in their entirety run from question 11 to question 64 in the survey (Appendix I). These items cover the several components of GeorgiaGain currently in effect, including the performance evaluation process, pay-for-performance, employee training and development, and the implementation of GeorgiaGain.
Do Employees Trust and Have Confidence in the Fairness of the State's HR System Under GeorgiaGain?
An effective and credible performance evaluation process seen by employees as fair in its administration and equitable in its outcomes was an important objective of GeorgiaGain reforms. It was also intenJed that the new process would improve confidence in supervisors' ability to discriminate among levels of performance and to allocate rewards accordingly. The design of GeorgiaGain system included a new, objectives-driven, performance appraisal process. Emphasis was placed on developing and applying consistent, clearly defined performance standards to all state jobs. The system was also intended to encourage effective communications between supervisors and subordinates about job-related goals and expectations. It was intended that the system support supervisors' efforts to manage performance and, thereby, to raise productivity and responsiveness to citizen-customers throughout the
15
Table of Contents
Preface..
I - II
Section 1: Executive Summary...
1- 3
Section 2: Background and Purposes Of the Survey...............
3-4
Section 3: Survey Method and Procedures.... 5 - 8
Section 4: Survey Findings.............................. 8 - 27
Respondents "()tl SClti!;fClc:ti()I1 GeorgiaGain Act 816
. 9 -12 . 12 -14 . 15 - 23 . 23 -27
Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
. 27 -29
Figures
. 30 - 62
Appendix I The Survey Instrument
.
Appendix II Estimates of Survey Accuracy..
Appendix III Characteristics of the
Respondents
.
Appendix IV Job Satisfaction Responses .
Appendix V Georgia Gain Responses
.
Appendix VI Act 816 Responses
.
Appendix VII Selected Items Comparison
With Responses in 1993 .
63 64 -65
66 -75 76 -85 86 -128 129-144
145-146
state workforce. A related objective was to develop and maintain accurate and up-to-date position descriptions and standards that would support a performance management approach to human resources management.
The Survey Revealed Problems Regarding Trust and Confidence
Survey items 11 through 32 address the above goals and objectives (see Appendix V). The responses reveal substantial grounds for concern and further evaluation. For example, almost 85 percent of the respondents expressed the belief that management had imposed quotas or limits on the number of performance ratings above "met expectations" available to state employees. In fact, a larger percentage ofsupervisors than non-supervisors believed this was the case. Figures 4 - C - 1 and 4 - C - 2 show these findings for supervisors and non-supervisors.
Similarly, reasons for concern were found on other trust-related issues. Over 75 percent of all respondents agreed with the idea that "office politics had more to do with performance ratings than actual performance on the job." Approximately 69 percent of supervisors held this belief, while 76.7 percent of non-supervisory personnel agreed. Over half of those responding expressed the belief that their performances, while rated as "exceeded" or "far exceeded" by their immediate supervisors had been changed to "met expectations" by higher management due to "budgetary constraints." About 50 percent of the respondents saw their most recent performance ratings as accurately reflecting their performances, and a like percentage believed that performance appraisals were conducted fairly in their work units. These findings are shown in Figures 4 - C - 3 and 4 - C - 4.
Over one-third of the respondents disagreed with the proposition that performance appraisal discussions with supervisors were helpful in improving performance, and a similar percentage did to some degree not understand how their supervisors evaluated their performance (see Figures 4 C - 5 and 4 - C - 6). Only slightly more than half of those responding agreed with the statement that their supervisor's evaluation provided feedback that often helped them improve their job performance. It is also noteworthy that two-thirds of the respondents believed there were too many rating levels
16
under GeorgiaGain. Other areas that deserve close attention include findings with regard
to: (1) whether respondents believed that their supervisors had worked with them to set performance goals and targets (approximately 54 percent agreed that they had); (2) whether employees believed their supervisors were able to accurately determine different levels of performance (approximately 56 percent agreed that they could); (3) the degree to which paper work for supervisors in relation to GeorgiaGain had become excessive (70 percent agreed that there was too much paper work, including 80 percent of supervisors); and (4) if employees needed to carefully document their own performances (over 80 percent agreed that there is such a need).
Also meriting further attention are findings to the effect that over onethird of the respondents did not think their job descriptions provided the information needed to set standards for evaluation of their performances, and 46 percent disagreed with the idea that performance management forms (PMFs) are useful in identifying real performance objectives for their jobs.
The only items in this area that received strongly positive responses in terms of the objectives of GeorgiaGain related to the extent to which performance standards actually reflected job content (almost 80 percent said that they did) and the degree to which state employees understood and knew what was expected of them on the job (close to 90 percent responded positively to this item).
A Comparison with the 1993 Mercer Survey Results Shows a Consistently Negative Trend in Trust and Confidence in the System
A comparison was done between the current survey results and those of the 1993 Mercer survey on selected items which appeared on both instruments. On all five items related to performance management, the results of the present survey were less encouraging than those obtained in 1993. See Appendix VII.
With regard to Item 14 stating "On my job I know what is expected of me," 95 percent of the respondents agreed with
17
the statement in 1993, but that percentage had declined to 86.8 percent in 2000.
Between 1993 and 2000, the proportion of state employees agreeing with the statement that "Performance appraisals are conducted fairly" declined from 64 to 50 percent, a fourteen point decline in perceived fairness of the process.
Overall, as the data shown in Appendix VII reveal, on all five of the items, the decline in confidence in the performance evaluation system being used by the state ranged from 9 to 16 percent. In no case was the trend a positive one.
Do State Employees Think Pay for Performance is Working?
A primary objective of GeorgiaGain was to equitably compensate superior performers and thereby to motivate them to continue their superior performance. At the same time, by limiting pay increases for poor performers, it was hoped that the system would also supply a useful mechanism by which to motivate poor performers to improve their performance.
Survey questions 33 through 43 and 51 and 52 (Appendix V) focus on the operation of pay-for-performance under GeorgiaGain.
State Employees Doubt Pay-for-Performance is an Effective Motivator
One of the most striking findings here is that more than 70 percent of the employees surveyed responded that they disagreed to at least some extent that "the pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees." Over a third strongly disagreed. More than 3 out of
18
every 4 of the supervisors responding disagreed with the motivational potential of pay for performance (Figure 4 - C - 7). Supervisors, of course, are in a position to observe employee effort and performance on a daily basis. A large majority ofnon-supervisory employees also disagreed with the idea that pay-for-performance is a good way to motivate state workers (Figure 4 - C - 8).
Similar results were obtained in response to the statement, "My pay is based on how well I do my job." The overall response is shown in Figure 4 C - 9 (more than 78 percent disagree), and virtually no difference between supervisors and non-supervisors existed. A majority of aU respondents agreed that, "There has been too much stress on money as an incentive and not enough on other sources of motivation." A substantial majority (68 percent) of the respondents also agreed with the statement that, "Favoritism is a problem for the pay-for-performance program in my agency." An item similar to this one was asked on Mercer survey in 1993 (Number 82) in anticipation of the implementation of a pay-for-performance system and, at that time, 77 percent of the respondents thought that favoritism would be a problem.
Meaningful Pay Increases Based on Performance are Not Seen to be a Reality Under GeorgiaGain
Responses _to two items addressing pay for performance c!eserve careful attention. Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "State money has not been made available to reward good performers with good pay increases." More than 90 percent agreed. In 1993, when a similar question was asked on the Mercer survey, 87 percent of the respondents indicated that they would not trust that state money would be made available to reward good performers with good pay increases. It appears that most of the respondents to the current survey found this expectation to be confirmed: only 28 percent of the respondents were willing to agree that "Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain." This finding is shown in Figure 4 - C -10. A possibly related finding was that a majority of the respondents (53 percent) expressed the belief that there was a lot of conflict between employees over annual pay
19
raises within their work groups.
There Were Some Encouraging Findings
In some areas, the respondents were more positive. More than 68 percent agreed that under GeorgiaGain high performing employees in their work units consistently were rewarded with pay increases greater than those given to average performers, and under 30 percent agreed with the statement, "Pay raises in my work unit are not really related to performance." Only slightly more than 31 percent agreed that, although they had deserved one, they could not get a pay raise because they had reached the top or ceiling of their pay range.
Have the Training and Development Components of GeorgiaGain Been Successfully Implemented?
An additional goal of GeorgiaGain was to identify training and development needs of employees and to improve individual training and development opportunities and resources.
Several questions on the survey assessed the extent to which training and development needs of employees have been met by GeorgiaGain (see Appendix V).
A Mixed Picture on Performance Appraisals
Responses indicate that employees were about evenly split on the question of
20
whether performance appraisals were very helpful in determining training and development needs, with about 49 percent agreeing that they were. Likewise, there was a similar split on the question of whether training needs were actually identified in performance development plans and were available to employees. Figure 4 - C - 11 shows the responses. A substantial majority (64 percent) agreed with the statement, "It is possible to identify employee weaknesses and related training needs during the performance development process.
Many of the Respondents Believed Training and Development Resources Were Inadequate
F ewer than half of the respondents agreed with the statement, "The state
offers me enough training to grow and develop," although supervisors were somewhat more likely to agree with that statement than were nonsupervisors. Additionally, only about 35 percent agreed that their supervisors provided a lot of effective teaching, training, and coaching, and fewer than 40 percent agreed that adequate resources and opportunities for career development were available to state employees, and supervisors and non-supervisors did not differ significantly in their responses to that item.
Has GeorgiaGain Improved the State's Competitive Position in the Labor Market, Improved Retention and Achieved Pay Comparability with the Private Sector?
GeorgiaGain was intended to be a means by which the state would be better able to attract, hire, and retain highly qualified employees in a competitive labor market. The need to keep state employee pay and benefits competitive with those in the private sector market was also stressed.
State Employees Appear to See Little Improvement in the State's Ability to Compete with Private Sector Employers
21
Despite the implementation of GeorgiaGain, nearly 85 percent of all respondents agreed that it is hard to recruit qualified applicants. When only responses for supervisory personnel are considered, the proportion in agreement with that sentiment climbed to more than 92 percent (see Appendix V). Interpretation of this finding is difficult because it is not known what such responses would have been like in the years prior to the implementation of GeorgiaGain, but it is hard to imagine that in those years recruitment could have been perceived as substantially more difficult than it is now, so it is most likely that GeorgiaGain probably has not made the task of attracting and retaining qualified employees for state agencies significantly easier than it was previously. Also, as noted earlier, a large majority of respondents, approximately 69 percent, indicated that there was a lot of turnover in their work groups.
State Employees Believe that Market Adjustments Have Not Taken Place as Promised
On the question of pay comparability with the private sector, a very large proportion of the respondents agreed with the statement, "The pay I receive is not competitive with what private employers are offering." In addition, few agreed that "Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place" (see Figure 4 - C - 12). More than 57 percent of the respondents also agreed that the benefits available to state employees were not competitive with those offered in the private sector. Supervisors and non-supervisors tended to be in general agreement on each of those issues.
Many of the Respondents Were Cynical About the Purposes of GeorgiaGain
Many members of the state's workforce seem to believe that GeorgiaGain was really a way of getting more work out of state employees without having to provide any real extra pay and benefits. Seventy-three percent of the
22
respondents agreed with a statement to that effect (see Figure 4 - C - 13). A closely related finding was that nearly 82 percent believed that the real purpose of GeorgiaGain was to control the state's payroll costs.
Most Respondents Believed that GeorgiaGain Had Not Been Fully Implemented
Large majorities agreed that GeorgiaGain had not been completely implemented (68.2 percent) and that management's commitment to fully implementing GeorgiaGain had declined steadily over the past five years.
Subsection 4 - D
_ _ _P.e.r.c.eptions ofCiviI Service Reform (Act 816)
In addition to GeorgiaGain, the survey was designed to explore the perceptions-and attitudes of state employees concerning the implementation and impact of Act 816. These data are shown in Appendix VI.
Is it easier to Recruit and Hire Qualified People in a Timely Manner? Act 816 was designed to improve the effectiveness of agency recruiting and hiring processes through extensive delegation and decentralization of hiring and other human resources policy and management authority to the agency level.
In regard to the legislation's impact in this area, the survey's findings
23
suggest considerable ambivalence exists among state employees. For example, as shown in Figure 4 - D - 1, almost 62 percent of the respondents disagreed with the idea that the Act had resulted in their agencies being able to hire highly qualified people in a timely manner.
Have Agencies Been Better Able to Establish Effective HR Programs?
A central objective of 816 was to achieve greater agency flexibility and responsiveness by giving agencies extensive control over agency-unique job classes, including establishing associated qualifications and assigning classes to pay ranges.
Here, about 64 percent of the respondents did not believe that Act 816 had resulted in the establishment of "an effective human resources program" in their agencies. Likewise, over 56 percent did not see their agencies as having "made good use" of the discretion over human resources matters given them by Act 816. Also, about 70 percent agreed that there had been "little if any real change" in the human resources practices of their agencies since enactment of Act 816 (See Appendix VI and Figures 4 - D - 2 and 4 - D3).
Has Act 816 Meaningfully Changed the Terms of the Employment Relationship?
Act 816 was intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of agency human resources management by mandating that all new hires be into the unclassified service. In effect, this change was intended to establish an "at-will" employment system for the state. Personnel
24
processes were also streamlined so that expedited adverse actions and appeals and the timely dismissal of poor performers could be accomplished.
In regard to this set of related goals and objectives, about 75 percent of those responding agreed that the Act had made it easier to fire state employees, but they were almost equally divided on the question of whether or not the Act had made it possible to terminate low performers without major procedural delays. The respondents emphatically (78.3 percent) rejected the idea that unclassified state employees "tend to work harder than classified employees." They disagreed with the suggestion that it was easier to supervise workers occupying unclassified positions (75.5 percent). As Figure 4 - D - 4 shows, supervisors' responses were along the same lines.
The pattern of responses to survey items dealing with job security, however, indicated that Act 816 has had an impact on how state employees view this aspect of their employment relationship with the state. About 70 percent agreed that Act 816 had created conditions under which "there is now no job security in state employment, and almost 80 percent expressed the belief that "leaving a classified position for an unclassified position is a very risky step." It is also noteworthy that a majority of the respondents (about 55 percent) agreed with the idea that classified employees in their agencies did not have any more job security than those in the unclassified service. In general terI~.s, supervisors and non-supervisors had similaF views on these issues (see Appendix VI).
Has Responsiveness to Executive Leadership Improved?
Act 816 was intended to enhance bureaucratic responsiveness to executive leadership by empowering Agency heads flexibly to align human resources policies and practices with the policies and program mandates of the state's elected leadership
Responses to survey items dealing with productivity and
25
Preface
GeorgiaGain, a performance based compensation system, was implemented in 1995 and 1996 by former Governor Zell Miller as a way to better attract, motivate, and retain high quality employees with state government. This new approach is predicated on the notion that managers and employees alike are mutually accountable for optimum job performance. Although it began as a project to develop a new performance-based compensation system, GeorgiaGain was later expanded to revitalize and reengineer many of the state's personnel processes.
Convinced of the need to put Georgia's government on a more business-like foundation and thereby help it accomplish the type of efficiencies demanded by the public, in 1996 former Governor Zell Miller initiated legislation, now commonly referred to as Merit System Reform or Act 816, that marked the most significant change in Georgia's personnel administration system in fifty years.
This report sets forth the results of an extensive survey of state employees' views about these reforms, particularly their impacts on the dayto-day practice of human resources management in the agencies of state government. The principal researchers, Drs. Lloyd Nigro and J. Edward Kellough, have examined both initiatives with keen awareness of the need to clearly describe the findings and to present these results in terms that have practical implications for the state's human resources administrators and policy makers.
Dr. Lloyd G. Nigro brings a strong background of applied research to human resources management at all levels of government, including issues and policies related to civil service reform. He is a highly regarded national expert in the field of public personnel management and is currently a Professor of Public Administration and Urban Studies at Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Nigro has written extensively in the area of human resources management and is the author of several widely used texts on the subject.
Dr. J. Edward Kellough has consulted with a number of government jurisdictions and has published widely on a variety of public sector human
1
responsiveness under Act 816 reveal that state employees are at best dubious about the legislation's impacts in these areas. As Figure 4 - D - 5 reveals, over 75 percent disagreed with the idea that Act 816 had resulted in a state workforce that is now more productive and responsive to the public, and only slightly over 42 percent saw any improvement in state employees' responsiveness to goals and priorities of state administrators that was attributable to Act 816 (see Figure 4 - D - 6). Again, differences between supervisors and non-supervisors on these questions were not meaningful.
Are Agencies Protecting Employees' Statutory and Constitutional Rights?
A key component of Act 816 is to change the role of the Georgia State Merit System from that of a central personnel agency and regulator to an organization that provides needed human resources services, expertise, and technical assistance to state agencies In light of the Merit System's changed role, responsibility for assuring the protection of constitutional and legal rights of state employees is the major responsibility of agency management and human resources offices
The responses to survey items dealing with constitutional and statutory protections -afforded state employees by the state and federal governments suggest that to date no major problems have developed on the agency level (see Appendix VI). As a group, state employees did not see themselves as exposed to partisan political coercion on the job or perceive the personnel practices of their agencies to be meaningfully influenced by partisan political motives. These responses are shown in Figures 4 - D - 7 and 4 - D - 8.
Concerns that may deserve attention on the agency level are: (1) the extent to which employees believe that they have experienced some form of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability, since over 15 percent expressed this belief; and (2) the proportion of employees (9.7 percent in this survey) who believe that they did not get a promotion or job reward they were qualified for because of their political
26
beliefs (see Appendix VI for details).
Goals and Purposes of Act 816 Should be More Effectively Communicated
Finally, over 63 percent of the respondents did not believe that the provisions and purposes of Act 816 had been clearly communicated to state employees, with close to 60 percent of supervisors sharing this perception. This finding suggests that an effort to more clearly and effectively communicate with state employees about Act 816 is needed.
Section 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
This survey yielded a number of important findings. With respect to GeorgiaGafn, one of the most significant was that employees (both supervisors and non-supervisors) expressed a substantial lack of confidence in the actual operation of the system. As noted earlier, extremely large proportions of employees believed that the performance appraisal process under GeorgiaGain was flawed. Eighty-five percent believed that management had imposed quotas or limits on the number of performance ratings above "met expectations" and over 75 percent agreed that "office politics" has more to do with ratings than actual performance. Even if these beliefs are factually incorrect or exaggerated, their pervasiveness is problematic, because they suggest that employees do not have a fundamental trust in the system, in those who administer it, or in the fairness of its outcomes for individuals.
Trust and confidence in the state's personnel management system
27
seems to have declined noticeably in a number of respects, as indicated by comparisons to the 1993 Mercer survey's findings. For example, many fewer employees now, compared to employees in 1993, express the belief that they know what is expected of them on their job.
The percentages of state employees agreeing with the statement that "performance appraisals are conducted fairly" has declined visibly over the past seven years, although during that time substantial resources were expended in the development and implementation of a new performance appraisal process as part of GeorgiaGain. Large majorities of employees also now express the belief that the pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is not a good way to motivate employees. These are findings and trends that deserve careful attention by the state's human resources administrators and policy makers.
It is not altogether surprising that state employees view the performance appraisal process with some skepticism. Such processes are by their very nature subjective to a considerable extent. Performance appraisals require the exercise of judgment by supervisors regarding employees' behaviors, and when that judgment becomes the basis for objective results such as changes in pay, resentment can develop when employees do not receive pay increases that they think are fair. This is a problem that has plagued the implementation of pay-for-performance systems throughout the public sector. Given this reality, the state should explore ways to build employee ~onfidence in the appraisal process. Additiona! training for supervisors and employees in the operation of the system, and a demonstrated commitment by management to devote necessary resources, including substantial time specifically set aside for the process may be helpful.
Survey findings with respect to Act 816 also merit close attention. In general, state employees did not believe that the reform legislation has done much to help agencies to hire more qualified workers in a more timely manner. Nor did the respondents to the survey generally pe~ceive that state agencies have used their discretion under the law to develop effective human resources programs. There is also little agreement with the idea that the reform has produced a more productive or responsive state workforce. These, of course, are central objectives of Act 816 and its framers.
On the other hand, increased partisanship in agency personnel
28
practices has not materialized. In addition, agencies seem to have implemented the legislation's mandates with regard to protecting the statutory and constitutional rights of their workers. State workers do, nonetheless, believe that "job security" has been lessened significantly under Act 816 and that the "at will" environment sought by the legislation's authors is a reality for increasing numbers of state employees.
In the final analysis, the findings of this survey suggest strongly that the state should carefully consider ways in which employee support for and confidence in GeorgiaGain may be substantially enhanced. These findings also indicate that it cannot be assumed that Act 816 is achieving many of its purposes, particularly those related to agency performance and responsiveness. State human resources administrators and policy makers may want to implement a systematic evaluation of Act 816 sometime in the near future.
29
Figure 4 - A - 1: Race/Ethnicity of Supervisors
Statistics
I What is your race Valid
348
Missing
8
What is your race
Valid
Missing Total
White African American Multi-racial Native American (American Indian) Total System
Frequency 236 103 6
3
348 8
356
Percent 66.3 28.9 1.7
.8
97.8 2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
67.8 29.6
1.7
.9
100.0
Cumulative Percent
67.8 97.4 99.1
100.0
Missing Native American Mutti-racial African American
What is your race?
White
Page 30
Figure 4 - A -2: Race/Ethnicity Nonsupervisors
Statistics What is your race
Valid Missing
1517 75
What is your race
Valid
Missing Total
White African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Multi-racial Native American (American Indian) Total System
Frequency 932 523 6 15 30
11
1517 75
1592
Percent 58.5 32.9 .4 .9 1.9
.7
95.3 4.7
100.0
Valid Percent
61.4 34.5
.4 1.0 2.0
.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
61.4 95.9 96.3 97.3 99.3
100.0
What is your race?
Missing Native American Multi-racial Hispanic Asian/Pacific Island
African American
White
Page 31
Figure 4 - A - 3: Age Distribution/Nonsupervisors
Statistics What is your age
I Valid
Missing
What is your age
Valid
Missing Total
18-25 26-30 31-45 46-60 61 or older Total System
Frequency 62
157 684 588
54 1545
47 1592
Percent 3.9 9.9
43.0 36.9
3.4 97.0
3.0 100.0
Valid Percent
4.0 10.2 44.3 38.1
3.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
4.0 14.2 58.4 96.5 100.0
Missing 61 or older
4~O
What is your age?
18-25 26-30
31-45
Page 32
Figure 4 - A 4: Age Distribution/Supervisors
Statistics
What is your age
I I N ~~:ng
3~~ I
What is your age
Valid
Missing Total
18-25 26-30 31-45 46-60 61 or older Total System
Frequency 5
13 129 188
11 346
10 356
Percent 1.4 3.7
36.2 52.8
3.1 97.2
2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
1.4 3.8 37.3 54.3 3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.4 5.2 42.5 96.8 100.0
What is your age?
Missing 61 or older
18-25 26-30
31-45
Page 33
Figure 4 - A - 5: Education/All Respondents
Statistics
I What is the highest level of education that you have completed
Valid
1741
Missing
207
What is the highest level of education that you have completed
Valid
Missing Total
Less than high school graduate High School DiplomalGED TechnicalNocational School Diploma 2-Year College Degree 4-Year College Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degree Total System
Frequency 36
520
274
267 462 160
22 1741
207 1948
Percent 1.8
26.7
14.1
13.7 23.7
8.2 1.1 89.4 10.6 100.0
Valid Percent
2.1
29.9
15.7
15.3 26.5
9.2 1.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.1
31.9
47.7
63.0 89.5 98.7 100.0
40..,....-----------------------.
30
20
.c... 10
c~r oL __
Highest Level of Education Completed
Page 34
Figure 4 - A - 6: Tenure with the State: Supervisors
Statistics How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
IN ~~:ng I ~~ I
How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
Valid
Missing Total
Less than 1 yr 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-14 yrs 15-19 yrs 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency 3
24 69 56 49 144 345 11 356
Percent .8
6.7 19.4 15.7 13.8 40.4 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
.9 7.0 20.0 16.2 14.2 41.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
.9 7.8 27.8 44.1 58.3 100.0
50.,-----------------------------,
40
30
20
.c... 10
CD
~
CD Q.
0L-..-. .__
Less than 1 yr
1-4 yrs
5-9 yrs
15-19 yrs
10-14 yrs
20 + yrs
How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
Page 35
resources management issues. He is a highly regarded national expert in the fields of public personnel administration, program evaluation, and public policy analysis. Currently, an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Public Policy at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Dr. Kellough has published numerous articles on issues dealing with public management, civil service reform, and reinventing government. His research has also addressed such issues as employee turnover, alternative pay structures, and equal employment opportunity policy.
We also wish to express appreciation for the valuable input and assistance provided by the Commissioner and her staff in the preparation and execution of this study.
Grady L. Cornish Project Director
11
Figure 4 - A - 7: Tenure with the State/Nonsupervisors
Statistics How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
Valid Missing
How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
Valid
Missing Total
Less than 1 yr 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10-14 yrs 15-19 yrs 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency 60 357
323 289 205 309 1543 49 1592
Percent 3.8
22.4 20.3 18.2 12.9 19.4 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
3.9 23.1 20.9 18.7 13.3 20.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.9 27.0 48.0 66.7 80.0 100.0
30.,.-----------------------,
20
10
...
c:
~
~0
Less than 1 yr 1-4 yrs
5-9 yrs
15-19 yrs
10-14 yrs
20 + yrs
How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
Page 36
Figure 4 . A - 8: Tenure in Current Position/Nonsupervisors
Statistics
How long have you worked in your current position?
I I NValid
.
Missing
I 1433 159.
How long have you worked in your current position?
Valid
Missing Total
Less than 1 yr 1-4 yrs 5-9yrs 10-14 yrs 15-19 yrs 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency 158 545 309 210 112 99
1433 159
1592
Percent 9.9
34.2 19.4 13.2
7.0 6.2 90.0 10.0 100.0
Valid Percent
11.0 38.0 21.6 14.7
7.8 6.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
11.0 49.1 70.6 85.3 93.1 100.0
40.,.--------------------------,
- 10
c
~
~0
Less than 1 yr 1-4 yrs
5-9 yrs
15-19 yrs
10-14 yrs
20 + yrs
How long have you worked in your current position?
Page 37
Figure 4 - A - 9: Respondents/Supervisors - Nonsupervisors
Statistics supvisr
Valid Missing
1948
o
supvisr
Valid
supervisor line employee Total
Frequency 356
1592 1948
Percent 18.3 81.7
100.0
Valid Percent
18.3 81.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
18.3
100.0
Supervisor - Nonsupervisor
supervisor
line employee
Page 38
Figure 4 - B -1 State Employee Job Satisfaction
Statistics I like my job
Valid Missing
1903 45
I like my job
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 39 76 65
222 886 615 1903 45 1948
Percent 2.0 3.9 3.3
11.4 45.5 31.6 97.7
2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.0 4.0 3.4 11.7 46.6 32.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.0 6.0 9.5 21.1 67.7 100.0
Missing Strongly agree
I like my job
Strongly disagree Disagree
Sfightly disagree
Slightly agree
Agree
Page 39
Figure 4 - B-2: Trust in Agency Fairness
Statistics
I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly
I I Valid
Missing
18~~
I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 165 464 258 383 345 282
1897 51
1948
Percent 8.5
23.8 13.2 19.7 17.7 14.5 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
8.7 24.5 13.6 20.2 18.2 14.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
8.7 33.2 46.8 66.9 85.1 100.0
I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly
Missing Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Slightly agree
Slightty disagree
Page 40
Figure 4 - B-3: Perceived Appreciation of State Employees by Senior Management
Statistics State employees are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management
I I I N ~~:ng 18~:
State employees are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 461 440 321 340 261 56
1879 69
1948
Percent 23.7 22.6 16.5 17.5 13.4 2.9 96.5 3.5
100.0
Valid Percent
24.5 23.4 17.1 18.1 13.9
3.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
24.5 48.0 65.0 83.1 97.0 100.0
State Employees are Appreciated
30,---,..----------------------,
20
10
.c.-
~
~0
strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Sightly agee
Strongly agree
Page 41
Figure 4 - C - 1: Has Management Imposed Quotas?
Statistics I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations'
I I N ~~:ng 3~~ I
I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations'
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 12 15 12 37 73
196 345
11 356
Percent 3.4 4.2 3.4
10.4 20.5 55.1 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
3.5 4.3 3.5 10.7 21.2 56.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
3.5 7.8 11.3 22.0 43.2 100.0
Has Management Imposed Quotas? Supervisors
Missing
Strongly disagree Disagree
Slightly disagree
Sfightly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
Page 42
Figure 4 C 2: Has Management Imposed Quotas?
Statistics I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations'
Valid Missing
I believe that management has imposed 'quotas' or limits on the number of performance ratings above 'met expectations'
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
FreQuency 44 106 90
170 316 767 1493
99 1592
Percent 2.8 6.7 5.7
10.7 19.8 48.2 93.8 6.2 100.0
Valid Percent
2.9 7.1 6.0 11.4 21.2 51.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.9 10.0 16.1 27.5 48.6 100.0
Has Management Imposed Quotas? Nonsupervisors
Missing
Strongly disagree Disagree
Slightly disagree
Slightly agree
Strongly agree
Agree
Page 43
Figure 4 - C - 3: Accuracy of Most Recent Performance Rating
Statistics
I I My most recent performance rating accurately reflected my performance
Valid
1873
Missing
75
My most recent performance rating accurately reflected my performance
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 391 324 206 257 541 154
1873 75
1948
Percent 20.1 16.6 10.6 13.2 27.8 7.9 96.1 3.9
100.0
Valid Percent
20.9 17.3 11.0 13.7 28.9
8.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
20.9 38.2 49.2 62.9 91.8 100.0
The Most Recent Rating Was Accurate All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Agree
SlighUy agree
Disagree Slightly disagree
Page 44
Figure 4 - C - 4: Are Performance Appraisals Conducted Fairly?
Statistics
Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly
I Valid
Missing
18~: r
Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 375 305 243 330 515 91
1859 89
1948
Percent 19.3 15.7 12.5 16.9 26.4 4.7 95.4 4.6
100.0
Valid Percent
20.2 16.4 13.1 17.8 27.7
4.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
20.2 36.6 49.7 67.4 95.1 100.0
Appraisals Are Conducted Fairly All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Slightly agree
Sfightly disagree
Page 45
Section 1
Executive Summary
This report details the findings of a survey of state employees' perceptions of two major reforms of the State of Georgia's personnel policies and practices that took place during 1990s: GeorgiaGain and Civil Service Reform (Act 816). Both reforms were designed to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of the state's civil service. In addition to other fundamental changes in the state's human resources management policies and practices, GeorgiaGain installed a variable rate or pay-for-performance system. Act 816 greatly decentralized authority for personnel policies and actions to state agencies and required that all hires made after 1 July 1996 be in the unclassified service. Although it would be inadvisable to base a final evaluation of these reforms solely on the perceptions and beliefs of state workers, their views are important because they may be expected to influence employees' behaviors in general, their willingness to support efforts to implement GeorgiaGain and Act 816 more specifically, and in the final analysis their willingness to provide the foundation of confidence and trust needed for any human resources system to function effectively. Until this survey was-conducted, no systematic effort to evaluate state employees' reactions to either reform had been undertaken.
The survey was authorized and funded by the Commissioner's Office, State of Georgia Merit System. Working with Commissioner Marjorie Young and her staff, Project Director, Dr. Grady Cornish (Carl Vinson Institute, University of Georgia), Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. J. Edward Kellough (Department of Political Science, University ofGeorgia) and Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Lloyd Nigro (Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies, Georgia State University), designed the survey instrument, selected the sample of state employees to receive the questionnaire, and analyzed the information provided by the responses obtained. The survey was executed by Georgia State University's Applied Research Center (Dr.
1
Figure 4 - C - 5: Do Appraisal Discussions Improve Performance?
Statistics Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance
I 18~~
Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 178 318 173 379 666 178
1892 56
1948
Percent 9.1
16.3 8.9
19.5 34.2
9.1 97.1
2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
9.4 16.8
9.1 20.0 35.2
9.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
9.4 26.2 35.4 55.4 90.6 100.0
Discussions Are Helpful
All Respondents
40..,------------..,..-------------,
30
20
... 10
c
CD
~
~0
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Slightly agree
Strongly agree
Page 46
Figure 4 - C - 6: Understanding of How Supervisor Evaluates
statistics
I I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance Valid Missing
I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 232 297 179 330 733 124
1895 53
1948
Percent 11.9 15.2 9.2 16.9 37.6 6.4 97.3 2.7
100.0
Valid Percent
12.2 15.7
9.4 17.4 38.7
6.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
12.2 27.9 37.4 54.8 93.5 100.0
I Understand How Performance is Rated
All Respondents
50.,.--------------------------,
40
30
20
C 10
~ cT. 0
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Slightly agree
Strongly agree
Page 47
Figure 4 - C - 7: Is Pay-Far-Performance A Good Motivator?
Statistics
The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees
I I NValid
,
Missing
I 35 1 5........,
The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 141 97 33 40 29 11 351 5 356
Percent 39.6 27.2 9.3 11.2 8.1 3.1 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
40.2 27.6
9.4 11.4
8.3 3.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
40.2 67.8 77.2 88.6 96.9 100.0
Pay-for-Performance Is A Good Motivator Supervisors
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Slightly agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Page 48
Figure 4 - C - 8: Is Pay-For-Performance A Good Motivator?
Statistics
I I The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees
N Valid
1534
(.
Missing
58 .
The pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is a good way to motivate state employees
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 540 372 138 212 214 58
1534 58
1592
Percent 33.9 23.4 8.7 13.3 13.4 3.6 96.4 3.6
100.0
Valid Percent
35.2 24.3
9.0 13.8 14.0
3.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
35.2 59.5 68.4 82.3 96.2 100.0
Pay-far-Performance Is A Good Motivator Nonsupervisors
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly agree Slightly disagree
Disagree
Page 49
Figure 4 - C - 9: Is Pay Based on Job Performance?
Statistics
I 18~~ I My pay is based on how well I do my job Valid Missing
My pay is based on how weill do my job
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 675 581 225 170 188 51
1890 58
1948
Percent 34.7 29.8 11.6 8.7 9.7 2.6 97.0 3.0
100.0
Valid Percent
35.7 30.7 11.9
9.0 9.9 2.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
35.7 66.5 78.4 87.4 97.3 100.0
My Pay Is Based On How Well I Do My Job All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Slightly agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Page 50
figure 4 - C -10: Was Pay-for-Performance Delivered As Promised?
Statistics
I ~~:ng I I Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain
1839
N
109
Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 622 433 264 249 217 54
1839 109 1948
Percent 31.9 22.2 13.6 12.8 11.1 2.8 94.4 5.6
100.0
Valid Percent
33.8 23.5 14.4 13.5 11.8
2.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
33.8 57.4 71.7 85.3 97.1 100.0
Pay-far-Performance Was Delivered
All Respondents
40,----------------------~
30
20
- 10
c:
~ cr 0
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Sfightly agree
Strongly agree
Page 51
Figure 4 - C - 11: Are Training Needs Identified and Met?
Statistics Training is identified in performance development plans and is available to employees in my agency
I I I N ~~:ng 18~~
Training is identified in performance development plans and is available to employees in my agency
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 296 395 232 367 519 81
1890 58
1948
Percent 15.2 20.3 11.9 18.8 26.6 4.2 97.0 3.0
100.0
Valid Percent
15.7 20.9 12.3 19.4 27.5
4.3 100.0
Cumulative
Percent
15.7 36.6 48.8 68.3 95.7 100.0
Training Needs Are Identified and Met All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Stightly agree
Slightly disagree
Page 52
Figure 4 - C - 12: Have Promised Market Adjustments Taken Place?
Statistics
Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place
I I NValid
.
Missing
I 1742
206 .
Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place
Valid
Missing Total
strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree strongly agree Total System
Frequency 587 521 264 223 123 24
1742 206
1948
Percent 30.1 26.7 13.6 11.4 6.3 1.2 89.4 10.6
100.0
Valid Percent
33.7 29.9 15.2 12.8
7.1 1.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
33.7 63.6 78.8 91.6 98.6 100.0
Promised Adjustments Have Taken Place
All Respondents
40.,.....-------------------------,
30
20
- 10
c
~
~0
Strongly disagree
Sightly disagree
Agree
Disagree
Slightly agree
Strongly agree
Page 53
Figure 4 - C - 13: GeorgiaGain A Way to Get More Work?
Statistics
I I I GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state employees without having to provide any real extra benefits
NValid
.
Missing
1857 91.........
GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state employees
without having to provide any real extra benefits
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 78
205 216 336 443 579 1857
91 1948
Percent 4.0
10.5 11.1 17.2 22.7 29.7 95.3
4.7 100.0
Valid Percent
4.2 11.0 11.6 18.1 23.9 31.2 100.0
Cumulative
Pen:ent 4.2
15.2 26.9 45.0 68.8 100.0
GeorgiaGain Was A Way of Getting More Work All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree
Strongly disagree Disagree
Slightly disagree
Agree
Sfightly agree
Page 54
Figure 4 - 0 - 1: Hiring Qualified People in a Timely Mannerl Act 816
Statistics
Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816),
I I I my agency can hire highly qualified people in a timely manner
Nvalid
.
Missing
1756 192.
Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency can hire highly qualified people in a timely manner
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 315 459 308 345 300 29
1756 192 1948
Percent 16.2 23.6 15.8 17.7 15.4 1.5 90.1 9.9
100.0
Valid Percent
17.9 26.1 17.5 19.6 17.1
1.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
17.9 44.1 61.6 81.3 98.3 100.0
Timely Hiring of Qualified People Act 816
Missing Strongly agree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly agree
Disagree Slightly disagree
Page 55
Charlotte Steeb, Project Administrator) under a contract with the State Merit System.
The survey was mailed to 5 percent random samples of supervisors (452) and line employees (2,542). An excellent rate of return was obtained for both groups and, therefore, a very high level of confidence that these findings provide an accurate picture of all state employees' perceptions is justified. Details on the goals and objectives of GeorgiaGain and Act 816 are provided in Section 2 of the Report. Sections 3 offers a detailed description of the instrument design and survey procedures. Section 4 is composed of subsections detailing the findings in each of the major parts of the survey.
In general, the central finding of the study is that state employees, supervisors and non-supervisors alike, have serious reservations about the extent to which GeorgiaGain and Act 816 are achieving their purposes. While there were some bright spots, reasons for concern and further inquiry were found in regard to key areas of GeorgiaGain, most notably the operation of the performance appraisal and pay-for-performance systems, training and development, pay and competitiveness with the private sector, and overall trust and confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of human resources management. These findings certainly justify further investigation and, perhaps, policy interventions and changes.designed to improve state employees' confidence, trust, and willingness to actively support the aims of GeorgiaGain.
With regard to Act 816, an encouraging finding was that large majorities of the respondents did not see any major partisan manipulation of state agency human resources hiring and other practices under the decentralized - deregulated model established by the legislation. Likewise, it appeared that state agencies were in large measure effectively carrying out their responsibility to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of state employees. State employees also indicated that they believed that the "at will" feature of Act 816 was working, at least to the extent that job security for state employees has been reduced.
In other areas of state agencies' human resources management, however, respondents to the survey expressed at best considerable skepticism about central objectives of Act 816 such as the establishment of more effective human resources programs on the agency level, enhanced responsiveness to executive leadership, and improved agency capacity to hire qualified job
2
Figure 4 - D - 2: Effective HR Programl Act 816 - Supervisors
Statistics Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program
I I N ~~:ng 3~~ I
Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 62 82 70 73 36 3
326 30
356
Percent 17.4 23.0 19.7 20.5 10.1 .8 91.6 8.4
100.0
Valid Percent
19.0 25.2 21.5 22.4 11.0
.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
19.0 44.2 65.6 88.0 99.1 100.0
Effective HR ProgramlAct 816 Supervisors
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly agree Slightly disagree
Disagree
Page 56
Figure 4 D - 3: Effective HR Programl Act 816 - Nonsupervisors
Statistics
I I I Under the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has established an effective human resources program
NValid
.
Missing
1382 210.
Under the civil service reform law (Act 816). my agency has established an effective human resources program
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 183 386 309 310
1n
17 1382 210 1592
Percent 11.5 24.2 19.4 19.5 11.1 1.1 86.8 13.2
100.0
Valid Percent
13.2 27.9 22.4 22.4 12.8
1.2 100.0
Cumulatiw Percent
13.2 41.2 63.5 86.0 98.8 100.0
Effective HR Program/Act 816 Nonsupervisors
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Strongly disagree Disagree
Sfightty agree
Slightly disagree
Page 57
Figure 4 0 4: Supervising Unclassified Employees! Act 816
Statistics Supervising workers in unclassified positions is easier than supervising workers in classified positions
Supervising workers in unclassified positions is easier than supervising workers in classified positions
Valid
Missing Total
strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
FreQuency 62
148 56 36 22
8 332
24 356
Percent 17.4 41.6 15.7 10.1 6.2 2.2 93.3 6.7
100.0
Valid Percent
18.7 44.6 16.9 10.8
6.6 2.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
18.7 63.3 80.1 91.0 97.6 100.0
Supervising Unclassified Employees Easier?
Responses of Supervisors
50..--------------------------..,
40
30
20
C 10
~
~0
strongly cisagree
Sightly disagree
Allee
Disagree
Sightly agree
Strongly agree
Page 58
Figure 4 - 0 - 5: Productivity and Responsivenessl Act 816
Statistics
I I I The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made that state workforce more productive and responsive to the public
NValid
.
Missing
1798 150.
The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made that state workforce more productive and responsive to the public
Valid
Missing Total
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 374 668 312 267 155 22
1798 150
1948
Percent 19.2 34.3 16.0 13.7 8.0 1.1 92.3 7.7
100.0
Valid Percent
20.8 37.2 17.4 14.8
8.6 1.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
20.8 58.0 75.3 90.2 98.8 100.0
More Productive and Responsive? All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree Agree
Strongly disagree
Slightly agree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Page 59
Figure 4 - 0 - 6: Responsiveness to Agency Administratorsl Act 816
Statistics
The civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees to be
I I I more responsive to the goals and priorities of agency administrators
NValid
.
Missing
1734 214.
The civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees to be more responsive to the goals and priorities of agency administrators
Valid
, Missing Total
strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree strongly agree Total System
FreQuency 232 454 326 410 253 59
1734 214 1948
Percent 11.9 23.3 16.7 21.0 13.0 3.0 89.0 11.0
100.0
Valid Percent
13.4 26.2 18.8 23.6 14.6
3.4 100.0
CumulalMl Percent
13.4 39.6 58.4 82.0 96.6 100.0
More Responsive to Agency Administrators? All Respondents
Missing Strongly agree
Agree
strongly disagree Disagree
Slightly agree
Slightly disagree
Page 60
Figure 4 - D - 7: Discriminated Against During Past Year?
Statistics I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability
I I I N ~~:ng 18:~
I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability
Valid
Missing Total
Yes No Total System
Frequency 289
1608 1897
51 1948
Percent 14.8 82.5 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
15.2
84.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent
15.2
100.0
Discriminated Against During Past Year?
All Respondents
100....----------------------.
80
60
40
- 20
c:
~
G)
(L
0
Yes
No
Page 61
Figure 4 D - 8: Partisan Bias in Personnel Actions?
Statistics
I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward f was qualified for because of my political beliefs or the political connections of others
I I I N ~~:ng 19~
I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward I was qualiFied for because of my political beliefs or the political connections of others
Valid
Missing Total
Yes No Total System
Frequency 185
1729 1914
34 1948
Percent 9.5
88.8 98.3
1.7 100.0
Valid Percent
9.7 90.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
9.7
100.0
Partisan Bias in Personnel Actions? All Respondents
Missing
Yes
No
Page 62
APPENDIX I
63
II~ 44440
State of Georgia Merit System Survey on GeorgiaGain and Act 816
Please use a PEN to fill out this survey. DO NOT use a pencil. Try to fill in the Like this
bubble completely for each answer. If you make a mistake, draw an X through ABC D
the incorrect response and fill in the correct bubble
,~, ,~ ,r--,.
'''--./' \~, U
Not like this
~~
This survey is completely voluntary and your responses will be totally anonymous. No one will be able to connect you to your returned questionnaire. If you come to any question you do not want to answer, just go on to the next question.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your job and about working
-for the State of Georgia?
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
Disagree Agree Agree Agree
I like my job
o
o
o
ooo
There is a lot of turnover (retirements, resignations, terminations, etc.) in my work group.
o
o
o
ooo
Becausec,Qfpissatisfaction with my job or with State
,gpyern' 'l~ J amlik~I~(tbleave GeorgiaSta{" ,
\'~,:',;c; ~","~""_~~~tGlake;~~.,
~~;c~~d~~r~!D! thE~'~,~~~~1:e:t~IS?~~,.,.,.,
My agency is a good place to work.
I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly.
Stiiteemployees are appreciated as valuable assets by
'sen~rt;lgEmpfmanagement
i:~(d61~iIi.Ork:that'is-\Vorthwhile.
".--.~-''';:.''~ :.' ~:'7. _.... -.C::'.
-'.., '-',' :,;"
lamnot sa:tisfied with my pay.
MOfalei~~i~hin my. work unit
o
o
o
ooo
o
o
o
ooo
~Q
:"0',
,0
o
Here are some statements about GeorgiaGain. As you will remember, GeorgiaGain created a pay-for-performance ::process that included a new employee performance evaluation process, a new pay structure, new job descriptions, .and performance standards linked to job responsibilities.
fhe first set of statements concerns the employee performance evaluation process under GeorgiaGain. To what
~xtent do you agree or disagree with each one?
Strongly
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
I don't want to do things that are not specifically included in my performance plan .
Disagree
o
Disagree
o
Disagree
o
Agree
o
Agree
o
Agree
o
\1y immediate supervisor works with me to set performance :;loals and targets.
o
o
o
ooo
o The performance standards for my job are related to what I do~
o
o
)n my job I know what is expected of me.
o
o
o
.\1y sUPeP?iscir;i~.at>le .toaccurately,determinediffer~nf1~vels ,of
~mpJoy~perlormance. . '
".
o
There is too much paperwork for supervisors in relation to
oerformance manaaement forms.
0
o
o
ooo
It is very important that I carefully document my own performance. 0
o
o ooo
II
II
II~ 44440
Strongly Disagree
drformance appraisal discussions are useful in helping
~ improve my performance.
0
~nderstand how my supervisor evaluates my performance.
0
- Jere are too many performance rating categories under
~eorgiaGain.
0
~"V~~lJpervisQn~evaluationprovides feedback that often
helps'm~ fmprpve;my job performance_: ,'~' .
a
My job" des~iip~~m provides the informatioAJ'leected to establish
l..~ar standards and expectations used to e"aluate my
~~~
0
Jrforman~~MahagementFortnsPMFs};areuseful because
t .... ~y~can be, used to identify real performance'objectives for
my-j9ij;:'
'"0:'
Disagree
0 0 0 0
o
o
It takes a lot of effort to get a "met expectations" rating L.dse days.
0
o
I oelieve my supervisor rated my performance as "exceeded"
L "far exceeded" expectations, but that rating was changed
t "met expectations" by higher management due to
budgetary constraints.
0
0
It is easier to get a performance rating of "exceeded" or "far
eAceeded" if you work in the Atlanta area.
0
0
l, I rn;~ Pbliti~'h~s more to.ddvvith performance, ratings than
i. ~uaiperformanceon thej()b.
0
0
f_[fo~ni@~;jatiugsof~tterthan'''metexpectationsaDte':'.' .,'
". ~ted~~amOfJg~mPIOyees\Yho.deserve meaningful 'pay rais~s. O
0
I \li~ve;~th~t.~anagementfi~simposedQ~Uotas or limits on the
met AI Imber of' performance ratings above 1I eXpectations."-. . 0
0
rv'" most recent performance rating accurately reflected my
pt::rformance.
0
0
Performance appraisals in my work unit are conducted fairly.
0
0
rv'" supervisor really doesn't know enough about what I am
dumg to evaluate my performance accurately.
0
0
Slightly Slightly Disagree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
oo oo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
Strongly Agree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0"
oo
o oo
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
1 . ~ next set of statements concerns pay-for-performance as used in GeorgiaGain. To what extent do you agree or
d 3gree with each one?
Strongly
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
1 ..d pay-for-performance system set up by GeorgiaGain is 2 Qod way to motivate state employees.
r ,re has been too much stress on money as an incentive
and not enough on other sources of motivation.
Mv pay is based on how well I do my job.
Disagree
o
Disagree
o
Disagree
o
Agree
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
Agree
o
Agree
o
oo oo
Pay raises in my work unit often are not really related to p formance.
o
o
o
o oo
candidates in a timely manner. These data may suggest a need to establish a long-term capacity to monitor and evaluate Act 816's impact on the performance of the state's administrative agencies.
Section 2
Background and Purposes of the Survey
In the mid-1990s, the state of Georgia significantly reformed its civil service law and human resources management system. The first change occurred with the development and implementation of a new performance management system for state employees called GeorgiaGain. Placed into operation in 1995 and 1996, this system represented the culmination of approximately three years of study by a state task force consisting of agency heads and managers who worked with assistance from the William M. Mercer consulting firm. In general, the new system was designed to raise levels of productivity, performance, and responsiveness throughout the state's workforce.
GeorgiaGain was intended to be a comprehensive reform. A key component was a pay-for-performance system intended to enhance supervisors' capacity to manage performance and to use variable pay increases to differentially reward levels of performance. -It also implemented a new employee performance appraisal process geared to job-related performance standards included in updated position descriptions. Written performance goals, expectations, and plans developed with supervisors were required. In support of the new approach, a substantial reduction in the number of pay grades was achieved and for each, competitive mid-points and entry-level salaries were established in order to place the state in a position to compete effectively in the labor market. New, accurate job descriptions were developed and information systems to support constant updating and change installed. As the implementation of GeorgiaGain progressed, substantial efforts were made to offer appropriate training to supervisors and employees in the operation of the new system.
3
II ~
II
44440
Strongly Disagree Disagree
High-performing employees in my work unit consistently are
rewarded with pay increases greater than those awarded to
average performing employees.
0
0
Getting a "met" rating only means you are going to get the
equivalent of a "cost of liVing" raise.
0
0
Pay is the most important part of the GeorgiaGain process.
0
0
Although I deserved one, I could not get a pay raise because
I had reached the top or ceiling of my pay range.
0
0
Making bonuses available to high performers who are at the
top of their pay grade would do a great deal to improve fairness and equity in the system.
0
0
There is a lot of conflict between employees over annual pay
raises in my work group.
0
0
Favoritism is a problem for the pay for performance program in my agency.
0
0
Slightly Slightly Disagree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Strongly Agree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The next set of statements concerns training and development plans under GeorgiaGain. To what extent do you
agree or disagree with each one?
Strongly
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
Performance appraisals are very helpful in determining my
training and development needs.
0
0
0
0
0
0
It is possible to identify employee weaknesses and related
training needs during the performance development process. 0
0
0
0
0
0
There is a lot of effective teaching, training, and coaching
of subordinates by my supervisor.
0
Training is identified in performance development plans and is . available to employees in myagency,
,'0'
The State offers me enough training to grow and develop.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adequate resources and opportunities for career development
are available to state employees.
0
0
0
0
0
0
The final set of statements concerns the implementation of GeorgiaGain. To what extent do you agree or disagree
with each one?
Strongly
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
My work unit has very high performance expectations for employees.
Disagree Disagree
o
o
Disagree
o
Agree
o
Agree Agree
oo
State money has not been made available to reward good performers with good pay increases.
o
o
o
ooo
Pay for performance was promised and delivered under GeorgiaGain.
GeorgiaGain has not been completely implemented.
o
o
o
ooo
o
o
o ooo
o It is possible to administer discipline effectively when needed.
o
o
ooo
II
II
II ~ 44440
, believe my agency has made good use of the greater discretion it has under the civil service reform law (Act 816). Under authority provided by the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency can hire highly qualified people in a timely nanner.
Strongly Disagree
0
0
Disagree
0
0
Jnder the civil service reform law (Act 816), my agency has
:stablished an effective human resources program.
0
0
l has been possible to terminate low performers without major
rrocedural delays in my agency.
0
0
~Iassified state employees really don't have any more job
<;ecurity in my agency than unclassified employees"
0
0
. Inclassified state employees tend to work harder than classified employees.
0
0
qecause of the civil service reform law (Act 816), I believe that
now there is no job security in state employment.
0
0
'_eaving a classified position for an unclassified position ,.:i a very risky step.
0
0
,he civil service reform law (Act 816) causes state employees
) be more responsive to the goals and priorities of agency
~dministrators .
0
0
'"'upervising workers in unclassified positions is easier than
supervising workers in classified positions.
0
0
Slightly Slightly Disagree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
Strongly Agree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.-mally, a few questions that will give us an idea of the types of people we are reaching. Remember, all of the formation you provide w~II be anonymous. None of this information will be Iinkecl directly to you.
vVhat is your gender?
o Male 0 Female
.v'hat is your age?
o 18-25 026-30 031-45 046-60 061 or older
.Jhat is your race?
::J White
'J African American
o Hispanic
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o Multi-racial
o Native American (American Indian)
What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
o Less than high school graduate o High School DiplomaiGED o TechnicalNocational School Diploma o 2-Year College Degree o 4-Year College Degree
o Master's Degree
o Doctoral Degree
. ,ow long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
o Less than 1 yr
0 10-14 yrs
o 1-4 yrs
0 15-1 9 yrs
o 5-9 yrs
0 20 + yrs
How long have you worked in your current position?
o Less than 1 yr
010-14 yrs
o 1-4 yrs
0 15-19 yrs
o 5-9 yrs
0 20 + yrs
Your current position is:
o Classified 0 Unclassified 0 Not Sure
II ~ 44440
Training on how to carry out provisions of GeorgiaGain is adequate. Management's commitment to fully implementing GeorgiaGain has declined steadily over the past five years. Promised market adjustments to pay have taken place.
The pay I receive is not competitive with what private employers are offering.
Strongly Disagree Disagree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
It is hard to recruit qualified job applicants.
0
0
The benefits available to state employees are competitive
with those offered in the private sector.
0
0
( am motivated to be responsive to my customers and clients. 0
0
My work group is highly committed to public service.
0
0
GeorgiaGain is really a way of getting more work out of state
employees without having to provide any real extra benefits.
0
0
The real purpose of GeorgiaGain is to control the state's payroll costs.
0
0
Slightly Slightly Disagree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
Strongly Agree Agree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In the past three years (1997, 1998, and 1999), do you believe any of the following events happened to you personally?
I was denied a job, a promotion, or a job reward because of my race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or disability. 0 Yes 0 No
I was solicited by someone in authority to make a campaign contribution. 0 Yes 0 No
I was asked to resign a position or transfer to another position on account of my political beliefs or political connections. 0 Yes 0 No
I did not get a job, promotion, or job reward I was qualified for because of my political beliefs or the political connections of others. 0 Yes 0 No
To what extent do you agree or disagree with of the following statements about the 1996 state civil service reform
law or Act 816? The Act gave state agencies increased control over their HR programs and made all hires after
July 1, 1996 unclassified or "at wilL"
Strongly
Slightly Slightly
Strongly
The provisions and purposes of the civil service reform law
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree
Agree Agree
(Act 816) have been clearly communicated to state employees like me.
o
o
o
o oo
The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made the state
workforce more productive and responsive to the public.
o
o
o
o oo
The civil service reform law (Act 816) has made it easier to
fire employees.
o
o
o ooo
There has been little if any real change in the human resources practices of my agency since the civil service reform law (Act 816) was enacted.
II
o
o
o
o oo
II
44440
What is the current pay geade ot youe position?
m
Are you now at the top or ceiling of your pay grade?
o Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure
Do you supervise other state employees?
o Yes 0 No
Please indicate which state agency you currently work for (check only one):
o o Administrative Services
Labor
o Veterans Services
o Agriculture
OWCC
o Human Resources
o Banking and Finance
o Merit System
o Community Health
o Corrections
o Natural Resources
o Juvenile Justice
o Defense
o Pardons and Paroles OCSB
o Education
o Public Safety
o DTAE (Tech. Schools)
o Forestry
o Public Service Comm OGBA
OGBI
o Revenue
o Legislative Agency
o Industry and Trade
o Secretary of State
o Judicial Agency
o o Insurance Commission
Transportation
o Other Agency (specify)
II
-
We greatly appreciate your taking the time needed to respond. Please put the completed questionnaire in the self-addressed envelope provided and drop it in the mail. Please also remember
to return the postcard separately, not with the questionnaire.
If you misplaced the self-addressed envelope or if your survey did not come with one, please use your own envelope and mail the completed survey to:
Applied Research Center P.O. Box 4039 Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4039
Thank you.
o
II
APPENDIX II
64
Estimates of Survey Accuracy at a 950/0 Confidence Level
The total sample size of 2,994 would produce estimates of population parameters that are
accurate within 0.90 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level assuming maximum
population variability. That is, if we had a 100% response rate, our margin of error would be less
than plus or minus one percentage point.
The accuracy for selected lower response rates assuming that respondents are not significantly different from non-respondents is given below. The representativeness of the respondents was assessed by comparing their characteristics to those of the random sample, and no substantial differences were found.
Response Rate 70 percent 65 percent 60 percent 55 percent 50 percent 45 percent 40 percent
Accuracy
1.05 percentage points 1.10 percentage points 1.15 percentage points 1.20 percentage points 1.25 percentage points
1.30 percentage points
1.40 percentage points
65
APPENDIX III
66
SEX What is your gender
vallo
Missing Total
1 Male 2 Female Total System
Frequency 739
1142 1881
67 1948
Percent 3/.9 58.6 96.6 3.4
100.0
Valid Percent
39.3 60.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
39.3
100.0
RACE What is your race
vano
Missing Total
1 wnlle 2 African American 3 AsianlPacific Islander 4 Hispanic 5 Multi-racial 6 Native American (American Indian) Total System
Frequency
lltil:S
626 6 15
36
14
1865 83
1948
Percent
OU.U
32.1 .3 .8
1.8
.7
95.7 4.3
100.0
Valid Percent
o~.o
33.6 .3 .8
1.9
.8
100.0
Cumulative Percent
oLo
96.2 96.5 97.3 99.2
100.0
AGE What is your age
vano
Missing Total
1 HS-~:>
2 26-30 3 31-45 4 46-60 5 61 or older Total System
Frequency 67
170 813 776
65 1891
57 1948
Percent
3.4
8.7 41.7 39.8
3.3 97.1
2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
3.5 9.0 43.0 41.0 3.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.b 12.5 55.5 96.6 100.0
EOUC What is the highest level of education that you have completed
valla
Missing Total
"!g" 1 Less man
scnOOI
graduate
2 High SChool DipiomalGED
3 TechnicalNocational School Diploma
4 2-Year College Degree
54-Year College Degree
6 Master's Degree
7 Doctoral Degree
Total
System
Frequency 36
520
274
267 462 160
22 1741
207 1948
Percent 1.8
26.7
14.1
13.7 23.7
8.2 1.1 89.4 10.6 100.0
Valid Percent
2.1
Cumulative Percent
2.1
29.9
31.9
15.7
15.3 26.5
9.2 1.3 100.0
47.7
63.0 89.5 98.7 100.0
Appendix III
67
POSITION position
valla
Missing Total
1 1IiaSSmeo 2 Unclassified 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency 1U;j5 513 158 1706 242 1948
Percent
b;j.1
26.3 8.1
87.6 12.4 100.0
Valid Percent
oUJ 30.1
9.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent oU.t
90.7
100.0
PAYTOP Are you now at the top or ceiling of your paygrade
Yalld
Missing Total
1 Yes 2 No 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency 201
1244 424
1869 79
1948
Percent 10.3 63.9 21.8 95.9 4.1
100.0
Valid Percent
10.8
66.6 22.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.8
77.3
100.0
EM_STATE How long have you worked for the State of Georgia?
valla
Missing Total
1 Less than 1 yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 620+yrs Total System
Frequency o;j
381 392 345 254 453 1888
60 1948
Percent
;j.~
19.6 20.1 17.7 13.0 23.3 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
;:S.;:S
202 20.8 18.3 13.5 24.0 100.0
CUmulative Percent
;:S.;:S
23.5 44.3 62.6 76.0 100.0
EM_STA_2 ~ow long have you worked in your current position?
vana
Missing Total
1 Less than 1 yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 6 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency 188 658 382 255 145 130
1758 190
1948
Percent 9.7
33.8 19.6 13.1 7.4 6.7 90.2 9.8 100.0
Valid Percent
10.7 37.4 21.7 14.5
82 7.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.7 48.1 69.9 84.4 92.6 100.0
SUPVISR supvisr
supervisor 2 line employee Total
1592 1948
81.7 100.0
81.7 100.0
100.0
Appendix III
68
AGENCY Please indicate which agency you currently work for
valla
Missing Total
I I-\OmlnJstratlve ::services 2 Agriculture 3 Banking and Finance 4 Corrections 5 Defense 6 Education 7 Forestry 8 GBI 9 Industry and Trade 10 Insurance Commission 11 labor 12 WCC 13 Merit System 14 Natural Resources 15 Pardons and Paroles 16 Public Safety 17 Public Service Comm 18 Revenue 19 Secretary of State 20 Transportation 21 Veterans Services 22 Human Resources 23 Community Health 24 Juvenile Justice 25 CSB 26 DTAE (Tech. Schools) 29 Judicial Agency 30 Other Agency (specify) Total System
Frequency
34
27
6
403
9
14
23
32
1
6
57
1
71
69
26
58
6
35
12
121
5
503
89
74
63
-
2
2
89
1838
110
1948
Percent 1.1 1.4 .3
20.7 .5 .7
1.2 1.6 .1
.3 2.9
.1 3.6 3.5 1.3 3.0
.3 1.8
.6 62
.3 25.8
4.6 3.8 3.2
.1 .1 4.6 94.4 5.6 100.0
Valid Percent
'1.8 1.5
.3 21.9
.5 .8 1.3 1.7 .1 .3 3.1 .1 3.9 3.8 1.4 3.2 .3 1.9 .7 6.6 .3 27.4 4.8 4.0 3.4 .1 .1 4.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.8 3.3 3.6 25.6 26.1 26.8 28.1 29.8 29.9 30.2 33.3 33.4 37.2 41.0 42.4 45.5 45.9 47.8 48.4 55.0 55.3 82.6 87.5 91.5 94.9 95.0 95.2 100.0
Appendix III
69
A second major reform in the state's civil service law and personnel
management system occurred in early 1996 with passage of civil service reform legislation (Act 816) that was designed to achieve higher levels of responsiveness and productivity by removing cumbersome classified merit system procedures and creating an "at will" employment relationship between the state and all employees hired after July 1, 1996. The reform emphasized decentralization and deregulation of the personnel process and gave state departments and agencies wide discretion and flexibility in managing their personnel systems. Among other things, it was hoped that this reform would encourage agencies to implement streamlined recruiting and hiring processes tailored to their specific needs and circumstances, allow agencies to expedite previously cumbersome adverse actions and appeals procedures, and permit agencies to use personnel processes that supported timely and effective responses to executive leadership and policy priorities.
The purpose of this survey of state employees, conducted in the second and third quarters of 2000, was to contribute to a broader evaluation of GeorgiaGain and Act 816 by providing an accurate picture of the attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of state employees across all levels, agencies, and regions. The survey solicited the perceptions of state employees (both supervisors and non-supervisors) regarding several dimensions of GeorgiaGain and Act 816. The perceptions or viewpoints 'Of state employees, of course, should not be expected to provide all of the information necessary for a complete evaluation of the reforms. Quantitative, so-called "hard measures" of performance, productivity, and other goals and objectives are required as well.
However, like all people, state employees form beliefs and may take action based on how they see their circumstances and working environment. Employees who feel that performance appraisal systems are not operating fairly, for example, are not likely to be motivated by pay-for-performance mechanisms that link individual pay to measures of individual performance. Indeed, such perceptions could lead to the development of a lack of trust in management by employees and growing employee cynicism. Under such circumstances, it may be difficult to achieve optimum levels of organizational performance. It was important, therefore, to determine how state employees and their supervisors saw various aspects of these reforms and how satisfied they were with the results of GeorgiaGain and Act 816 on the operating levels of state agencies.
4
SEX What is your gender - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 Male 2 Female Total System
Frequency
lf1
173 344
12 356
Percent
4l:S.U
48.6 96.6
3.4 100.0
Valid Percent
4~.r
50.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
4~.(
100.0
RACE What is your race - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 wnlte 2 African American 5 Multi-racial 6 Native American (American Indian) Total System
Frequency 230 103 6
3
348 8
356
Percent 00.3 28.9 1.7
.8
97.8 2.2 100.0
Valid Percent
07.6 29.6
1.7
.9
100.0
Cumulative Percent 07.1:1 97.4 99.1
100.0
AGE What is your age - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 1~~O
2 26-30 3 31-45 4 46-60 5 61 or older Total System
Frequency
b
13 129 188
11 346
10 356
Percent
1.4
3.7 362 52.8 3.1 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
1.4
3.8 37.3 54.3
3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.4
52 42.5 96.8 100.0
EDUC What is the highest level of education that you have completed - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Less man n1gn SCf1001 graduate 2 High School DiplomaiGED
3 TechnicalNocational School Diploma 4 2-Year College Degree 5 4-Year College Degree 6 Master's Degree 7 Doctoral Degree
Total
System
Frequency 5
76
31
38 120 43
6 319
37 356
Percent 1.4
21.3
8.7
10.7 33.7 12.1
1.7 89.6 10.4 100.0
Valid Percent
1.6
Cumulative Percent
1.6
23.8
25.4
9.7
11.9 37.6 13.5
1.9 100.0
35.1
47.0 84.6 98.1 100.0
Appendix III
70
POSITION position - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 I.,;lassmeo 2 Unclassified 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency
~uo
84 12 302 54 356
Percent
~7.~
23.6 3.4
84.8 15.2 100.0
Valid Percent
tRS.~
27.8 4.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
o~.,
96.0 100.0
PAYTOP Are you now at the top or ceiling of your paygrade - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 yes 2 No 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency
;;S1
246 68
345 11
356
Percent
~.7
69.1 19.1 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
~.U
71.3 19.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.U
80.3 100.0
EM_STATE How long have you worked for the State of Georgia? - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Less man I yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 6 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency
~
24 69 56 49 144 345 11 356
Percent
.~
6.7 19.4 15.7 13.8 40.4 96.9 3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
.~
7.0 20.0 16.2 14.2 41.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
.~
7.8 27.8 44.1 58.3 100.0
EM_STA_2 How long have you worked in your current posltion?-5upervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Less man 1 yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 6 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency
;;SO
113 73 45 33 31 325 31 356
Percent
~.4
31.7 20.5 12.6
9.3 8.7 91.3 8.7 100.0
Valid Percent
92 34.8 22.5 13.8 10.2
9.5 100.0
cumulative Percent 92 44.0 66.5 80.3 90.5 100.0
Appendix III
71
AGENCY Please indicate which agency you currently work for - Supervisors
varro
Missing Total
1 Administrative ~ervlces 2 Agriculture 3 Banking and Finance 4 Corrections 5 Defense 6 Education 7 Forestry 8 GBI 9 Industry and Trade 10 Insurance Commission 11 Labor 13 Merit System 14 Natural Resources 15 Pardons and Paroles 16 Public Safety 18 Revenue 19 secretary of State 20 Transportation 21 Veterans Services 22 Human Resources 23 Community Health 24 Juvenile Justice 25 GSa 30 ~erAgency(specffy} Total System
Frequency 11 4 1 64 1 2 5 5 1 4 6 9 26 10 5 13 2 37 2 91 7 9 13 12
340 16
356
Percent 3.1 1.1 .3
18.0 .3 .6
1.4 1.4
.3 1.1 1.7 2.5 7.3 2.8 1.4 3.7 .6 10.4 .6 25.6 2.0 2.5 3.7 3.4 95.5 4.5 100.0
Valid Percent
;j.L
1.2 .3
18.8 .3 .6
1.5 1.5
.3 1.2 1.8 2.6 7.6 2.9 1.5 3.8 .6 10.9 .6 26.8 2.1 2.6 3.8 3.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
;j.L
4.4 4.7 23.5 23.8 24.4 25.9 27.4 27.6 28.8 30.6 33.2 40.9 43.8 45.3 49.1 49.7 60.6 61.2 87.9 90.0 92.6 96.5 100.0
Appendix III
72
SEX What is your gender - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 Male 2 Female Total System
Frequency 568 969
1537 55
1592
Percent 35.7 60.9 96.5 3.5
100.0
Valid Percent
37.0 63.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
37.0
100.0
RACE What is your race - Nonsupervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 wnlte 2 African American 3 AsianlPacific Islander 4 Hispanic 5 Multi-racial 6 Native American (American Indian) Total System
Frequency 932 523 6 15 30
11
1517 75
1592
Percent 58.5 32.9 .4 .9 1.9
.7
95.3 4.7
100.0
Valid Percent
61.4
34.5 .4
1.0 2.0
.7
100.0
Gumulative Percent
01.4
95.9 96.3 97.3 99.3
100.0
AGE What is your age - Nonsupervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 Hh~o
2 26-30 3 31-45 4 46-60 5 61 or older Total System
Frequency 62 157
684 588
54 1545
47 1592
Percent 3.9 9.9
43.0 36.9
3.4 97.0
3.0 100.0
Valid Percent
4.0 10.2 44.3 38.1
3.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.0 14.2 58.4 96.5 100.0
EOUC What is the highest level of education that you have completed - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 Less man mgn ScnOOI graduate
2 High School DiplomaiGED
3 TechnicalNocational School Diploma
4 2-Year College Degree 5 4-Year College Degree 6 Master's Degree
7 Doctoral Degree
Total
System
Frequency 31
444
243
229 342 117
16 1422
170 1592
Percent 1.9
27.9
15.3
14.4 21.5
7.3 1.0 89.3 10.7 100.0
Valid Percent
2.2
cumulative Percent
2.2
31.2
33.4
17.1
16.1 24.1
8.2 1.1 100.0
50.5
66.6 90.6 98.9 100.0
Appendix III
73
POSITION position - Nonsupervlsors
vallo
Missing Total
1 \,jlassmeo 2 Unclassified 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency
629
429 146 1404 188 1592
Percent
52.1
26.9 9.2
88.2 11.8 100.0
Valid Percent
59.U
30.6 10.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
59.U
89.6 100.0
PAYTOP Are you now at the top or ceiling of your paygrade - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
-I res 2 No 3 Not Sure Total System
Frequency 1(U 998 356
1524 68
1592
Percent
1U.f
62.7 22.4 95.7
4.3 100.0
Valid Percent
11.2 65.5 23.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent
11.2 76.6 100.0
EM_STATE How long have you worked for the State of Georgia? - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
I Less man 1 yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 620+yrs Total System
Frequency bU
357 323 289 205 309 1543
49 1592
Percent 3.8
22.4 20.3 18.2 12.9 19.4 96.9
3.1 100.0
Valid Percent
3.9 23.1 20.9 18.7 13.3 20.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.9 27.0 48.0 66.7 80.0 100.0
EM_STA_2 How long have you worked in your current position? - Nonsupervisors
vabO
Missing Total
1 Less Ulan 1 yr 2 1-4 yrs 3 5-9 yrs 4 10-14 yrs 5 15-19 yrs 6 20 + yrs Total System
Frequency
l~
545 309 210 112
99 1433
159 1592
Percent 9.9
342 19.4 13.2 7.0 6.2 90.0 10.0 100.0
Valid Percent
11.0 38.0 21.6 14.7
7.8 6.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 11.0 49.1 70.6 85.3 93.1 100.0
Appendix /II
74
AGENCY Please indicate which agency you currently work for - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
IF.dmlnlstratlVe ::services 2 Agriculture 3 Banking and Finance 4 Corrections 5 Defense 6 Education 7 Forestry 8 GBI 10 Insurance Commission 11 Labor
12 wee
13 Merit System 14 Natural Resources 15 Pardons and Paroles 16 Public Safety 17 Public Service Comm 18 Revenue 19 secretary of State 20 Transportation 21 Veterans Services 22 Human Resources 23 Community Health 24 Juvenile Justice 25 GSB 26 DTAE (Tech. Schools) 29 Judicial Agency 30 cnherAgency(specny) Total System
Frequency 23 23 5
339 8 12 18
27 2
51 1
62 43 16 53
6 22 10 84
3 412
82 65 50
2 2
n
1498 94
1592
Percent 1.4 1.4 .3
21.3 .5 .8 1.1 1.7 .1
3.2 .1
3.9 2.7 1.0 3.3
.4 1.4
.6 5.3
.2 25.9
5.2 4.1 3.1
.1 .1 4.8 94.1 5.9 100.0
Valid Percent
1.5 1.5 .3 22.6
.5 .8 1.2 1.8 .1 3.4 .1 4.1 2.9 1.1 3.5 .4 1.5 .7 5.6 .2 27.5 5.5 4.3 3.3 .1 .1 5.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.5 3.1 3.4 26.0 26.6 27.4 28.6 30.4 30.5 33.9 34.0 38.1 41.0 42.1 45.6 46.0 47.5 48.1 53.7 53.9 81.4 86.9 91.3 94.6 94.7 94.9 100.0
Appendix III
75
APPENDIX IV
76
Q1 I like my job
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:luongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
3~
76 65 222 886 615 1903 45 1948
Percent 2.0 3.9 3.3
11.4 45.5 31.6 97.7
2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.0 4.0 3.4 11.7 46.6 32.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.0 6.0 9.5 21.1 67.7 100.0
Q2 There is a lot of turnover in my work group
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:luoogly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 150 306 135 299 429 578
1897 51
1948
Percent 7.7
15.7 6.9
15.3 22.0 29.7 97.4
2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
7.9 16.1
7.1 15.8 22.6 30.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 7.9 24.0 31.2 46.9 69.5 100.0
Q3 Because of dissatisfaction with my job or with State government, I am likely to leave State government within the next 12 months for another job
vallo
Missing Total
1 ;:luoogly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree
- 5 Agree
6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 593 653 164 212 122 148
1892 56
1948
Percent 30.4 33.5 8.4 10.9 6.3 7.6 97.1 2.9
100.0
Valid Percent
31.3 34.5
8.7 11.2 6.4 7.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 31.3 65.9 74.5 85.7 92.2 100.0
Q4 I would recommend employment with the State of Georgia to family members and friends
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:ltrongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
"Loot
262 200 427 544 207 1897
51 1948
Percent 13.2 13.4 10.3 21.9 27.9 10.6 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
l~.O
13.8 10.5 22.5 28.7 10.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
l~.o
27.4 37.9 60.4 89.1 100.0
Appendix IV
77
Q5 My agency Is a good place to work
Valid
Missing Total
1 Sftongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 100 209 174 458 654 238
1899 49
1948
Percent
l:S.0
10.7 8.9 23.5 33.6 12.2 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
l:S.I
11.0 9.2 24.1 34.4 12.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
l:S.I
19.7 28.9 53.0 87.5 100.0
Q6 I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 100 464 258 383 345 282
1897 51
1948
Percent !:S.O
23.8 13.2 19.7 17.7 14.5 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
!:S.I
24.5 13.6 20.2 18.2 14.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
!:S.t
33.2 46.8 66.9 85.1 100.0
Q7 State employees are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management
\laTid
Missing Total
1 ;:stronglY C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
401
440 321 340 261
56 1879
69 1948
Percent
"L~.t
22.6 16.5 17.5 13.4 2.9 96.5 3.5 100.0
Valid Percent
"L4.0
23.4 17.1 18.1 13.9 3.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent
"L4.0
48.0 65.0 83.1 97.0
100.0-
Q8 I am doing work that Is worthwhile
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:strongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~
52 48 196 812 764 1905 43 1948
Percent 1.1 2.7 2.5
10.1 41.7 39.2 97.8
22 100.0
Valid Percent
1.1
2.7 2.5 10.3 42.6 40.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1.1
4.5 7.0 17.3 59.9 100.0
Appendix IV
78
Q9 I am not satisfied with my pay
valla
Missing Total
I ;:)Irongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
fU
146 117 245 416 907 1901 47 1948
Percent
;j.O
7.5 6.0 12.6 21.4 46.6 97.6 2.4 100.0
Valid Percent
3.7 7.7 6.2 12.9 21.9 47.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
;j.l
11.4 17.5 30.4 52.3 100.0
Q10 Morale is high in my work unit
valla
Missing Total
1 ~IronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
OUU
457 267 278 226
69 1897
51 1948
Percent
;jU.ts
23.5 13.7 14.3 11.6 3.5 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
;;Sl.b
24.1 14.1 14.7 11.9 3.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
;;Sl.O
55.7 69.8 84.4 96.4 100.0
Appendix IV
79
Section 3
Survey Method and Procedures
Section 3 reviews the methods and procedures used to construct the survey instrument designed to assess employee perceptions of GeorgiaGain and Act 816. Appendix I is the survey instrument. Provisions were made for input from employees and the professional staff at the Georgia State Merit System. This section also discusses the sampling framework, procedures for distribution of the survey, and return rates and representativeness of survey respondents.
Instrument Design and Content
The survey instrument was designed to solicit employee perceptions of various aspects of the operation and implementation of GeorgiaGain and Act 816. In order to formulate questions for the survey, the principal researchers consulted with State Merit System staff, reviewed available background material on ~he reforms under analysis, and drew upon a I?road understanding of the professional and academic research on civil service reform.
An important step in the effort to understand state employees' perceptions and concerns related to GeorgiaGain and Act 816 involved focusgroup discussions held with non-supervisors and supervisors. Two of these focus groups took place in Decatur on February 7,2000, with supervisors meeting in the morning and non-supervisors meeting in the afternoon. Similar sessions were held on February 9, 2000 in Macon, so that a total of four focus groups were conducted. Seven to eight state employees attended each session. Participants in these focus groups were selected to attend by their agencies and the resulting groups, in terms of characteristics such as race, gender, age, employing agency, pay grade level in organization, and
5
Q1 I like my job - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 4 5
19 36 161 122 347
9 356
Percent 1.1 1.4 5.3
10.1 45.2 34.3 97.5
2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
1.2
1.4 5.5 10.4 46.4 35.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1.2 2.6 8.1 18.4 64.8 100.0
Q2 There is a lot of turnover in my work group - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 25 50 29 55 74
114 347
9 356
Percent r.o
14.0 8.1 15.4 20.8 32.0 97.5 2.5 100.0
Valid Percent
7.2
14.4 8.4 15.9 21.3 32.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1."L
21.6 30.0 45.8 67.1 100.0
Q3 Because of dissatisfaction with my job.or with State government, I am likely to leave State government within the next 12 months for another job - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~trongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree _ 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 131 111 21 43 22 20 348 8 356
Percent 36.8 31.2 5.9 12.1 6.2 5.6 97.8 2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
37.6
31.9 6.0
12.4 6.3 5.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 37.6 69.5 75.6 87.9 94.3_ 100.0
Q4 I would recommend employment with the State of Georgia to family members and friends - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 45 61 43 80 84 36
349 7
356
Percent
1"L.o
17.1 12.1 22.5 23.6 10.1 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
1"L.9
17.5 12.3 22.9 24.1 10.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent 12.9 30.4 42.7 65.6 89.7 100.0
Appendix IV
80
QS My agency is a good place to work - Supervisors
valid
Missing Total
1 ~trongly C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 23 43 34 88
117 41 346 10 356
Percent 6.5 12.1 9.6
24.7 32.9 11.5 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
6.6 12.4 9.8 25.4 33.8 11.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 6.6 19.1 28.9 54.3 88.2 100.0
Q6 I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency LL 93 41 78 57 55
346 10
356
Percent
6.~
26.1 11.5 21.9 16.0 15.4 97.2 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
6.4 26.9 11.8 22.5 16.5 15.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
0.4
33.2 45.1 67.6 84.1 100.0
Q7 State employees are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly. agree Total System
Frequency
I::l~
78 54 73 54
7 348
8 356
Percent 23.U 21.9 15.2 20.5 15.2 2.0 97.8
2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
23.6 22.4 15.5 21.0 15.5
2.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 23.6 46.0 61.5 82.5 98.0 100.0-
Q8 I am doing work that is worthwhile - Supervisors
vallO
Missing Total
1 ~trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
1
5 8 23 154 158 349 7 356
Percent
.3
1.4 2.2 6.5 43.3 44.4 98.0 2.0 100.0
Valid Percent
.3 1.4 2.3 6.6 44.1 45.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent .3 1.7 4.0 10.6 54.7 100.0
Appendix IV
81
Q9 I am not satisfied with my pay - Supervisors
valla
Missing Total
I :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency lIS 35 18 49 74
157 351
5 356
Percent
~.1
9.8 5.1 13.8 20.8 44.1 98.6 1.4 100.0
Valid Percent
::>.1 10.0 5.1 14.0 21.1 44.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent ::>. ,
15.1 20.2 34.2 55.3 100.0
Q10 Morale is high in my work unit - Supervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 :stronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 97 96 54 53 45 6
351 5
356
Percent 27.2 27.0 15.2 14.9 12.6 1.7 98.6 1.4
100.0
Valid Percent
27.6 27.4 15.4 15.1 12.8
1.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 27.6 55.0 70.4 85.5 98.3 100.0
Appendix IV
82
Q1 I like my job - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~::>
71 46 186 725 493 1556 36 1592
Percent
~.~
4.5 2.9 11.7 45.5 31.0 97.7 2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.~
4.6 3.0 12.0 46.6 31.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.2 6.8 9.8 21.7 68.3 100.0
Q2 There is a lot of turnover in my work group - Nonsupervisors
Vallo
Missing Total
1 ~trongly clJsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 125 256 106 244 355 464
1550 42
1592
Percent 7.9
16.1 6.7 15.3 22.3 29.1 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
8.1
16.5 6.8 15.7 22.9 29.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 8.1 24.6 31.4 47.2 70.1 100.0
Q3 Because of dissatisfaction with my job or with State government, I am likely to leave State government within the next 12 months for another job - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~uonglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongl{agree Total System
Frequency
4b~
542 143 169 100 128 1544 48 1592
Percent
2\:1.U
34.0 9.0 10.6 6.3 8.0 97.0 3.0 100.0
Valid Percent
2l:I.\:I
35.1 9.3 10.9 6.5 8.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent
2\:1.\:1
65.0 74.3 85.2
91.7 -
100.0
Q4 I would recommend employment with the State of Georgia to family members and friends - Nonsupervisors
VallO
Missing Total
1 ~trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 212 201 157 347 460 171
1548 44
1592
Percent
1~.~
12.6 9.9 21.8 28.9 10.7 972 2.8 100.0
Valid Percent
13.7
13.0 10.1 22.4 29.7 11.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 13.7 26.7 36.8 59.2 89.0 100.0
Appendix IV
83
Q5 My agency is a good place to work - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 143 166 140 370 537 197
1553 39
1592
Percent 9.0 10.4 8.8
23.2 33.7 12.4 97.6 2.4 100.0
Valid Percent
9.2 10.7
9.0 23.8 34.6 12.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.2 19.9 28.9 52.7 87.3 100.0
Q6 I do not trust my agency to treat me fairly - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY o.sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 143 371 217 305 288 227
1551 41
1592
Percent
~.U
23.3 13.6 19.2 18.1 14.3 97.4 2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
~.2
23.9 14.0 19.7 18.6 14.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent
9.2
33.1 47.1 66.8 85.4 100.0
Q7 State employees are appreciated as valuable assets by senior agency management - Nonsupervisors
vallo
Missing Total
1 ~trongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 379 362 267 267 207 49
1531 61
1592
Percent 23.8 22.7 16.8 16.8 13.0 3.1 96.2 3.8
100.0
Valid Percent
24.8 23.6 17.4 17.4 13.5
3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 24.8 48.4 65.8 83.3 96.8 100.0
Q8 I am doing work that is worthwhile - Nonsupervlsors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 32 47 40
173 658 606 1556
36 1592
Percent 2.U 3.0 2.5
10.9 41.3 38.1 97.7
2.3 100.0
Valid Percent
2.1
3.0 2.6 11.1 42.3 38.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.1 5.1 7.6 18.8 61.1 100.0
Appendix IV
84
Q9 I am not satisfied with my pay - Nonsupervisors
Valid
Missing Total
1 ::itrongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 52
111 99 196
342 750 1550
42 1592
Percent 3.3 7.0 6.2 12.3
21.5 47.1 97.4
2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
3.4 7.2 6.4 12.6 22.1 48.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 3.4 10.5 16.9 29.5 51.6 100.0
Q10 Morale is high in my work unit - Nonsupervisors
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
003
361 213 225 181
63 1546
46 1592
Percent
3l.b
22.7 13.4 14.1 11.4 4.0 97.1 2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
32.::>
23.4 13.8 14.6 11.7 4.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
32.::>
55.9 69.7 84.2 95.9 100.0
Append~IV
85
APPENDIX V
86
Q11 I don't want to do things that are not specifically included in my performance plan
valid
Missing Total
1 ::>trongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency jjj
794 307 233 174
61 1902
46 1948
Percent 1f.1 40.8 15.8 12.0 8.9 3.1 97.6 2.4
100.0
Valid Percent
If.tI
41.7 16.1 12.3 9.1 3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 1f.b
59.3 75.4 87.6 96.8 100.0
Q12 My immediate supervisor works with me to set performance goals and targets
valla
Missing Total
1 ::>tronglY olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency j1U
374 189 325 538 169 1905 43 1948
Percent 15.!:* 19.2 9.7 16.7 27.6 8.7 97.8 2.2
100.0
Valid Percent
10.3 19.6 9.9 17.1 28.2 8.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent 10.3 35.9 45.8 62.9 91.1 100.0
Q13 The performance standards for my job are related to what I do
valla
Missing Total
1 ~tronglY dIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly-agree Total System
Frequency 114 165 145 361 927 179
1891 57
1948
Percent
tI.!:*
8.5 7.4 18.5 47.6 9.2 97.1 2.9 100.0
Valid Percent
0.0 8.7 7.7 19.1 49.0 9.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent 0.0 14.8 22.4 41.5 90.5 100.0
Q14 On my job I know what is expected of me
valid
Missing Total
1 ::>tronglY disagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 57 90
104 219 969 459 1898
50 1948
Percent 2.9 4.6 5.3
11.2 49.7 23.6 97.4
2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
j.U
4.7 5.5 11.5 51.1 24.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent ;j.U
7.7 13.2 24.8 75.8 100.0
Appendix V
87
Q15 My supervisor is able to accurately determine different levels of employee performance
valla
Missing Total
1 t;trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 285 307 238 325 596 146
1897 51
1948
Percent 14.6 15.8 12.2 16.7 30.6 7.5 97.4 2.6
100.0
Valid Percent
15.0 16.2 12.5 17.1 31.4
7.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 15.0
31.2 43.8 60.9 92.3 100.0
Q16 There is too much paperwork for supervisors in relation to performance management forms
valla
Missing Total
1 ~U"ongIY OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
~U
251 230 384 486 426 1857
91 1948
Percent
4.1
12.9 11.8 19.7 24.9 21.9 95.3 4.7 100.0
Valid Percent
4.;j
13.5 12.4 20.7 26.2 22.9 100.0
Cumulative Percent
4.;J
17.8 30.2 50.9 77.1 100.0
Q17 It is very important that I carefully document my own performance
valla
Missing Total
1 tlU"ongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
4b
175 120 260 705 595 1900 48 1948
Percent <:::.;J 9.0 6.2
13.3 36.2 30.5 97.5
2.5
100.0
Valid Percent
<:::.4 9.2 6.3 13.7 37.1 31.3 100.0
Cumulative Percent
2.4
11.6 17.9 31.6 68.7 100.0-
Q18 Performance appraisal discussions are useful in helping me improve my performance
valla
Missing Total
1 t;trongly olsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
178
318 173 379 666 178 1892 56 1948
Percent 9.1 16.3 8.9 19.5
34.2 9.1
97.1 2.9
100.0
Valid Percent
9.4
16.8 9.1 20.0 35.2 9.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 9.4 26.2 35.4 55.4 90.6 100.0
Appendix V
88
Q19 I understand how my supervisor evaluates my performance
valla
Missing Total
1 :::strongly alsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency 232 297 179 330 733 124
1895 53
1948
Percent
11.~
15.2 9.2 16.9 37.6 6.4 97.3 2.7 100.0
Valid Percent
1~.~
15.7 9.4 17.4 38.7 6.5 100.0
Cumulative Percent
1~.~
27.9 37.4 54.8 93.5 100.0
Q20 There are too many performance rating categories under GeorgiaGain
valla
Missing Total
I ;:luongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
:>~
281 291 388 481 346 1846 102 1948
Percent 3.0
14.4 14.9 19.9 24.7 17.8 94.8 5.2 100.0
Valid Percent
~.~
15.2 15.8 21.0 26.1 18.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
~.~
18.4 34.2 55.2 81.3 100.0
Q21 My supervisor's evaluation provides feedback that often helps me improve my job performance
valla
Missing Total
1 :::suongly OIsagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
27U
368 249 379 522 108 1896
52 1948
Percent
13.9
18.9 12.8 19.5 26.8 5.5 97.3 2.7 100.0
Valid Percent
14.2
19.4 13.1 20.0 27.5 5.7 100.0
Cumulative Percent
14.2
33.6 46.8 66.8 94.3 100.0
Q22 My job description provides the information needed to establish clear standards and expectations used to evaluate my performance
valla
Missing Total
1 ;:luongly C1sagree 2 Disagree 3 Slightly disagree 4 Slightly agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree Total System
Frequency
l~o
293 229 407 657 116 1898
50 1948
Percent
1U.1
15.0 11.8 20.9 33.7
6.0 97.4
2.6 100.0
Valid Percent
1U.3
15.4 12.1 21.4 34.6 6.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent
10.3
25.8 37.8 59.3 93.9 100.0
Appendix V
89