portland bureau of transportation maintenance...

Portland Bureau of Transportation Maintenance Operations Cultural Assessment

November 2017

Brenda K Carpenter Carpenter Consulting

Carpenter Consulting 1 | P a g e

Summary The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) is a large, diverse organization with approximately 880 budgeted positions and 6 groups. This assessment was conducted on the Maintenance Operations (MO) group which has 3 divisions and approximately 377 budgeted positions. The Maintenance Program is primarily supported by the Maintenance Operations Group, which is charged with the responsibility of preserving the public investment in transportation facilities and sewer infrastructure by inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, and repairing all transportation and sewer related infrastructure within the City of Portland. The infrastructure consists of paved streets, sewers, sidewalks, bridges, curbs, street corners, retaining walls, guardrails, stairways, traffic signals, traffic control devices, street lights, street signs, and pavement markings. Traffic signals and street lights are maintained by the Engineering Services Group, and parking pay stations and meters are maintained by the Parking and Regulatory Services Group. In addition, the Maintenance Operations Group performs around-the-clock response to emergencies such as storms, floods, and other incidents that inhibit safe transportation. The Maintenance Operations Group is organized into four programs: Street Systems, Maintenance Construction and Operations, Environmental Systems, and Emergency Management.

This assessment was undertaken due to personnel events that occurred in the fall of 2016 that involved inappropriate behavior between employees, bullying, harassment and disrespectful treatment of co-workers. It was important to find out whether this type of behavior is widespread at MO, and to discover the current culture.

Respondents stated that they were not aware of any egregious behavior occurring at MO in other units like what they had either read, or heard about occurring based on what was in the Willamette Week story once the investigation became public.

The assessment was conducted through in-person interviews using a questionnaire with 44 employees of the group, who volunteered to participate. The information gathered, both qualitative and quantitative, is about the operating environment and culture of MO, which is described as a more conservative, construction culture, and generally a good place to work. Topics covered in the assessment include jokes, pranks and horseplay; respect and treatment of co-workers; ability to interrupt prejudicial comments and behavior; safety; accountability and responsibility; and some aspects of supervision and management of employees such as trust and communication, and effective HR problem resolution.

Analysis of the data collected reveals that MO needs to invest more time, attention, training and development in its employees to improve the workplace culture. Improvements to the quality and consistency of supervision need to be made at MO and accountability for behavior and comments needs to increase for all levels of employees to improve the workplace culture to make it a safe, respectful welcoming environment for all employees. Opportunities exist to increase morale, accountability, communication, and HR effectiveness.


Training and development efforts need to be increased as well both on technical skills, and employees should be trained in how to resolve conflict, and interrupt inappropriate behavior and comments. Supervisors and managers need additional training in performance management, and how to increase their effectiveness as a supervisor.

Like all of PBOT, MO strives to meet its mission in a resource constrained operating environment. Budget cuts starting before and continuing with the recession of 2010 have contributed to an operating environment where investment in employees has been reduced due to other priorities. Budget cuts, while necessary, hamper MO’s ability to effectively supervise and manage its workforce and develop employees. MO is slowly adding positions back in a strategic fashion to increase operational effectiveness, and this should aid in implementing recommendations found in this report.

An analogy can be made to preventative maintenance on equipment where it is understood that preventative maintenance needs to occur to keep equipment running smoothly and maximize its usefulness. MO leadership should now make the needed investments in employees to have workplace operations run more smoothly and have employees feel that they have maximized their talents, skills and abilities while meeting the mission of the organization.

Background In the fall of 2016 an investigation was undertaken in Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) Maintenance Operations Group (MO) to determine if bullying, hazing or other types of disrespectful behavior had taken place in the Sewer Liner Crew. The investigation and subsequent employee discipline process was completed in the spring of 2017.

After the investigation was completed, PBOT Director Leah Treat wanted an independent assessment of the workplace culture at MO due to the alarming results of the investigation.

The purpose of this workplace culture assessment was to determine if egregious bullying and hazing were widespread at MO, what it is like to work in MO, what culture exists, do pranks and jokes occur, were jokes and pranks occurring towards employees in protected status groups, and does it feel safe to work at MO. Some dimensions of supervision and leadership were also assessed such as communications, dealing effectively with HR issues, and establishing accountability and responsibility among employees.

Based on the assessment, recommendations have been made in this report to improve the culture and morale of the MO group, and foster a safe, welcoming and respectful work environment.

“The report, based on interviews with nine PBOT maintenance employees, paints a picture of violence, hazing and bigotry inside a shop that prizes loyalty and punishes ‘snitching.’” Willamette Week May 31, 2017


Methodology At a July 26, 2017 bureau-wide meeting, employees were told about the cultural assessment and invited to participate in one-on-one interviews with consultant Brenda Carpenter. PBOT Director Treat talked to the staff and encouraged participation in the assessment to provide a range of viewpoints and experiences that would aid in developing recommendations on how to improve the culture. The consultant spoke briefly at the meeting and provided business cards with contact information to all employees. A memo from Director Treat reinforcing the projects goals and encouraging participation was distributed as well, and a poster of the memo remained in the assembly area throughout the course of the assessment.

Employees called or emailed the consultant to schedule time to meet. A questionnaire was developed to gather information and is Appendix A to this report. Questions were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Interviews were typically completed in one hour to an hour and a half, some taking as long as three hours to complete.

Managers and supervisors either volunteered to schedule an interview or were contacted directly by the consultant to schedule a time to meet.

There is a general awareness that the current culture at MO exerts pressure on individuals to not bring complaints and concerns about inappropriate behavior that occur to management. In anticipation of this problem, employees were told that they could talk to the consultant anonymously, meeting offsite before or after usual work hours. To encourage participation, an hour of overtime was authorized to be given to employees who wanted to meet outside of work hours with the understanding that the consultant would have to provide their name to MO payroll services to authorize the overtime.

To further support a sense of safety and anonymity, the consultant purchased a phone number that allowed employees to call and have their name and telephone number blocked.

To maintain a high level of confidentiality data has not been analyzed and reported in a manner that could potentially identify employees based on demographic information. For example, due to small sample size, women and people of color are combined into a single demographic category to protect confidentiality.

Additional background information was gathered from a variety of people who have frequent interactions with employees at MO such as the HR Business Partner assigned to the bureau and leadership of Laborer’s Local 483 who represent most employees at MO.

Demographics MO is a group of PBOT and has 377 budgeted positions for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. A goal was set to interview a minimum of 10% of the workforce and approximately 12% or 44 employees

17% of respondents opted to remain anonymous and 26% of respondents requested overtime pay for their participation


were interviewed. Participation in the assessment was voluntary which affected the number of employees who came forward to be interviewed. MO has three divisions: Environmental Services, Maintenance Construction & Operations, and Street Systems.

Table 1: The number of employees that participated in the cultural assessment by group, the actual number of employees in each group, and the percent of the group in comparison to all respondents.

Group

Total number of budgeted positions in identified group

Percent of employees from group participating in cultural assessment

Percent of all cultural assessment respondents

Managers and Supervisors 29 48% 32%

Represented Employees 348 9% 68%

Total 377 100%

Environmental Services 140 10% 32%

Maintenance Construction & Operations

108 14% 34%

Street Systems 129 12% 34%

Total 377 100%

Table 1 indicates that the percent of managers and supervisors interviewed was higher than the percent of represented employees. All three division managers were interviewed as well as supervisors from each of the three divisions to get feedback about all the various work units at MO. Supervisors and managers were expected to participate in the assessment due to their position in the organization.

The majority of supervisors at MO are promoted from within the organization. As a result, they are aware of the culture of the crews they manage and the crews they were members of prior to promotion. Although over-represented in the assessment, their perspective and workplace experiences are similar to represented employees. Differences did occur between how employees and supervisors view the organization and are highlighted in the sections below.

Efforts were made to encourage employees in each of the three divisions to meet the sampling goal to interview a minimum of 10% of the workforce. This goal was achieved. Analysis based on work division did not yield differences in responses, with one exception: pranks, jokes and horseplay directed towards women and people of color. That difference is discussed below under the section Pranks and Jokes.


Table 2: Male, Female and Racial Makeup of PBOT and Study Participants

Group % of Respondents (Total Respondents = 44)

% of Filled MO Positions* (Total Filled Positions as of 10/25/17 = 326)

Women and People of Color 41% 29%

White Males 59% 71%

* City of Portland SAP database

Table 2 shows that 41% of the study respondents were women and people of color which is higher than the percentage in the bureau. Women and people of color volunteered to speak with me at a higher rate possibly due to the nature of the assessment and their own experiences within the MO culture. White males who participated in the study (59%) were underrepresented compared to a total percentage of 71% within MO.

Table 3: Respondent Years of Employment

Years of Service Percent of Respondents

0-2 16% 3-10 27 % 11 + 57%

Longevity data are not available for all MO employees to assess representation across the bureau. Data on longevity is only collected on the entire PBOT bureau and not by division. This information was collected during the assessment to see if length of service was a variable in how employees perceived working at MO. Differences did occur on questions and is explained further in the report.

Analysis What is It like to Work at Maintenance Operations?

When employees were asked what it is like to work at MO, 63% said that it was a great place to work Employees appreciated that unlike many jobs in construction in the private sector, work at MO was available year-round and the City provided excellent benefits and job security. Employees like the variety of work, the ability to bid to different units, and the satisfaction of solving problems and taking pride in their work. Employees stated that you need to work hard to fit in and prove yourself, and there is opportunity if you create it.


In contrast employees felt that morale had changed for the worse over the last 7-10 years primarily due to budget cuts at MO and 52% of respondents stated they want to see it improve. Typically, employee morale is defined as the job satisfaction, outlook, and feelings of well-being an employee has within a workplace. For this assessment, it was difficult to determine what specifically respondents meant when indicating morale had declined.

It can be a catch-all phrase to describe dissatisfaction with some aspect of work or work conditions. A person may have experienced an overall decline in how the organization feels to work in. These factors could contribute to why a duality of thought could exist since 63% said it was a great place to work and commented that morale was low and needed to be improved. Many respondents focused on activities that use to occur at MO that don’t any longer to describe what they meant by lower morale. This is covered in more detail under the section Suggestions to Improve the Culture.

“Thick skin” is needed to work at MO and was mentioned by 18% of the respondents. Employees shared that it is best to not be easily offended or overly sensitive to get along with others at work. Many employees shared that having thick skin is normal at MO and something they have become accustomed to cope with working there.

Employees, including supervisors, were eager to share their perspectives about supervision at MO. Over half of respondents (56%) felt that supervision was uneven and not of similar quality throughout the organization. Respondents felt that the quality of supervision varied, often dramatically, from one supervisor to another. Comments were made about supervisors showing favoritism, not being consistent with setting expectations for work productivity and behavior, not consistently enforcing rules and procedures, and lack of consistent collaboration throughout the division.

Employees also talked about work being better for them once they bid into a unit that had work activities that better matched what they were looking for and with a supervisor they could work more effectively with.

Closely aligned with comments about the quality of supervision, were observations made by respondents about productivity. Interestingly, 54% of respondents made comments about employees wasting time or inefficient use of time during the day. These comments covered everything from lack of efficiencies with getting work crews going in the morning; lack of collaboration and communication between and within units which hampered work getting done; lack of supervisors consistently monitoring work productivity in the field; and employees also saw that the use of cell phones and iPads in the field distracts workers and can slow the pace of work.

Both employees and supervisors felt that data collected or that is readily available should be used more frequently through the chain of command to set work standards, monitor work production, and to aid in priority setting and budgeting.


Also connected with productivity issues described by respondents, are silos of work that exist at MO. Twenty percent of respondents stated that a silo mentality exists with some employees and supervisors where there is resistance to sharing information and resources with other people or units within the organization. Silos also make it difficult for communication and collaboration to occur across units. This lack of intra- and inter- unit cooperation by some negatively impacts efficiency and effectiveness of work at MO.

How would you describe the Culture?

Work Environment

A theme that emerged was employees describing the culture as hard working (34%) and a more conservative, male dominated construction culture (41%). To fit in and be accepted you must prove yourself and demonstrate that you are a hard worker which is highly valued. Establishing yourself as a hard worker is particularly important when you first start work at MO as this appears to set the tone for how you are treated by more tenured employees initially, and throughout your career. Thirty-six percent of respondents stated that new employees and employees on probation have it the “hardest” at work. Examples of this include giving new employees the less desirable job tasks, testing them to see what they know, not sharing job knowledge, and playing more jokes and pranks on them.

Age was identified as an issue by 18% of respondents. Respondents with more tenure felt that younger workers were ill prepared to do the demanding work that is required of employees at MO and complained about younger workers attachment to their iPhone, and lack of preparation for the job. Younger respondents felt that older workers were more rigid in their approach to work and lacked the flexibility needed to work with employees from a variety of ages and backgrounds.

Unprofessional Behavior

Lack of professional behavior was identified as a major theme and problem at MO. Fifty percent of respondents said that disrespectful and rude behavior could occur at work without consistent consequences. It is perceived that employees can say whatever they want and often don’t filter comments even though they are at work.

“Bullying” behavior was also described synonymously with lack of professional behavior: coarse and foul language being allowed; employees and supervisors losing control of their emotions; yelling or talking angrily, whether it is at another employee or because of other circumstances; shunning to isolate, punish and control other employees; and mean-spirited comments or jokes being played.

Employees appear to talk too much about politics and religion, and make comments about local and national political events that are offensive to others. Many political comments are perceived to be said to signal to other workers subtle and not so subtle racial bias. For example, supporting political policies detrimental to immigrants or other minority populations.


Respondents shared that they hear inappropriate or negative comments on the work radios about employees or citizens. Approximately half of respondents felt that the bureau was remiss in addressing behaviors identified as unprofessional, including sexist attitudes expressed as comments and remarks.

The types of behavior described above create an environment where 66% of respondents said that the best way to cope was to avoid problems and not get involved when they see problems occurring with others. It was perceived that not saying something was better than speaking up and this condition helps create a “don’t snitch” culture at MO. If you intervene or say something respondents felt that they may be shunned, given less desirable work assignments, or be retaliated against.

Cliques

Another theme that emerged was the existence of cliques at work and 59% of respondents said that cliques exist at MO when describing the culture. Cliques form in the workplace based on a variety of factors from shared workspaces, assignments, interests, demographics, and personalities. Employees used the term clique to describe both positive and negative aspects of them. For instance, a group forms an interpersonal dynamic and pulls together in a tight knit group, developing a bond. Because of that bond, respondents shared that some good things can happen as well as bad. For instance, a group develops a camaraderie which can make being at work more fun, productivity increase, and healthy competition occurs.

Less positive aspects are that cliques are exclusive; leaving others on the outside where they may feel alienated, treated differently, or at worse, bullied. A clique environment creates pressure on employees “to fit in” even if they don’t want to, and this is especially true if they perceive that the leader (formal or informal) is part of the clique. Unhealthy aspects of cliques can also contribute to the “don’t snitch” culture at MO where the credo becomes “what happens here stays here” due to the pressure to conform to group norms.

Pranks and Jokes

Virtually every work environment has employees that participate in jokes, pranks or horseplay to varying degrees. Playing jokes and having fun with coworkers breaks up the day, relieves boredom, alleviates work stress, and may make work more interesting. The challenge is that humor is subjective and what one worker finds funny, another does not and may be seen as unprofessional behavior. When taken to the extremes jokes, pranks and horseplay can lead to serious injuries, and be illegal forms of harassment.

Horseplay can be activities such as joking that includes physical contact, playing around, racing, grabbing, foolish vehicle operation, social pressure to participate in unsafe acts, harassment, and unauthorized contests


Sub-cultures exist at MO as well when it comes to jokes, pranks and horseplay. Some work units are more inclined to use verbal humor, sarcasm or verbal jabs. Other groups use more physical humor such as moving or hiding objects, greasing handles of trucks, or spraying water on each other. Some work groups might use a combination of these techniques and other groups might have very little participation by co-workers in behavior like this.

Central to this assessment was the question of whether horseplay, jokes or pranks occur at MO. If they do occur, are they as extreme and inappropriate as the ones that were in investigated in the sewer liner crew, and are employees in protected classes subjected to inappropriate jokes, pranks or horseplay by co-workers.

Ninety-three percent of respondents said that employees at MO participate in horseplay, jokes and pranks and all employees agreed that the behavior that was investigated was not emblematic of the usual horseplay, jokes and pranks that occur at MO.

While respondents were quick to acknowledge that jokes, pranks and horseplay occur, they were very circumspect

about giving examples. While there was a general hesitation by respondents to provide specific examples, they stated that typical behavior included kidding around, teasing each other, making jokes, moving items that belong to another employee, etc. Respondents gave examples of more risky jokes such as placing grease on the handles of doors or windshield wipers, squirting water on each other, throwing pebbles, and messing with side mirrors.

When asked do you ever feel that employees at MO participate in horseplay, jokes or pranks that are derogatory to any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation, 66% said no and 34% said yes. Women and people of color were split in their response to this question with 50% saying no and 50% saying yes.

When asked for examples of this behavior, most respondents were hesitant to give exact examples. They talked more about comments being made as opposed to pranks or horseplay occurring. Most gave examples such as inappropriate verbal comments or verbal jabs being made such as sexist or demeaning comments about women. They were quick to point out that racial pejoratives are not used at work. Many employees shared that the use of the term “gay” or “fag” was used frequently by men to insult the other men and indicate that something was “lame or weak”.

Eighty percent of respondents said that they do not feel pressure to participate with inappropriate jokes, pranks or horseplay. The 20% that feel pressure to participate may have linked this question to participation with pranks and jokes in general and not those directed are other groups due to how the question was phrased.

A practical joke, or prank, is a mischievous trick played on someone, generally causing the victim to experience embarrassment, perplexity, confusion, or discomfort


Seventy-five percent said that if jokes, pranks or comments of a derogatory nature toward any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation occurred in their presence, they would refuse to participate. Every supervisor in the assessment indicated they would refuse to participate in this type of behavior. However, this is expected due to the extensive training and obligations that are placed upon supervisors to have a discrimination free workplace under city work rules.

Twenty-five percent of the respondents answered no to this assessment question, meaning they would participate in this type of negative behavior. Some employees volunteered that there is such pressure to fit in and be accepted that it is better to not say something, or laugh at others expense to be accepted in the group.

As indicated above in the Demographics section, analysis of the data collected does not show great differences in responses to the survey questions based on which of the three divisions an employee works in. However, on this question a significant difference did occur.

x Respondents who work in MCOD reported only 6% agreement with the question (agreeing to not participate in jokes, pranks or comments of a derogatory nature toward any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation)

x Environmental Services respondents reported agreement 42% x Street Systems respondents reported 53% agreement

It is hard to draw a conclusion about what this means, but it could have something to do with the composition and workplace culture of the various divisions. The culture of Environmental Services and Street Systems may be more alike than MCOD, where there are not as many field crews.

When asked would you, or have you, interrupted prejudicial comment or behavior at work, 82% said yes and 18% said no. Respondents that said no indicated that it would depend on the circumstance, the individual or individuals who were making the comments or doing the behavior, and how well they knew the people involved. Many expressed that it felt risky to interrupt behavior like this for fear they would be targeted themselves, and that the risks outweighed the need for intervention. This fits the theme outlined above where employees said it was best to keep their heads low and not draw negative attention to themselves and this is extended to defending others on occasion.

When asked if you have heard of or seen managers or supervisors participate in jokes or pranks, 73% said no. The 27% who said yes provided few examples of what type of behavior they were referencing. When pressed for examples, teasing, joking around, changing a screen saver or some other visual joke or prank that could be played on a person working in a cubicle or office were provided.

Eighty nine percent of respondents stated that managers or supervisors do not participate in jokes or pranks that are derogatory to any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation. The 11% who said yes included both supervisors and employees. While they were very hesitant to


provide examples, several said they had heard negative comments made about women and LGBTQ people made by supervisors.

When respondents were asked if there was anything MO could do to help you feel more comfortable with interrupting horseplay, jokes, pranks or unsafe behavior there were a variety of suggestions and themes that emerged. Key themes are explained below, and other suggestions are incorporated in to the recommendations section of this report.

Forty-five percent of respondents stated that employees need to say something and express their displeasure when they see inappropriate behavior or hear comments at work, regardless of whether it is directed at them or a co-worker. Respondents saw this as one of the best ways to change the culture at MO. Employees had strong feelings about this and felt that employees needed to be direct with each other and establish immediate boundaries about what behavior was acceptable and unacceptable, especially when they were the target of the joke or prank they are uncomfortable with. Respondents shared that they perceived that handling issues at the lowest possible level with the organization was most effective, employees should not be so worried about fitting in, and to not accept being a victim of inappropriate behavior.

In fact, HRAR 2.02 anti-discrimination and harassment training provided at the City of Portland for employees teaches these concepts as a first approach to stopping unwanted behavior or comments, and encourages reporting the problem to supervisors, or other managers if the employee prefers to do so rather than say something directly to the offending party. However, in a “don’t snitch” culture, the option of taking the issue to a supervisor or HR for resolution is perceived as a very difficult thing to do.

Although this is an excellent approach to take to changing behavior, often, even under the best of circumstances, being able to stand up for yourself or someone else may be difficult, especially while on probation and new to the organization.

Increasing accountability of supervisors and managers and developing greater consistency among them was mentioned by 80% as a strategy for making it more comfortable to interrupt negative behavior and comments. Employees want supervisors and managers to both model professional behavior and deal with unprofessional behavior from the staff as soon as possible. Respondents saw this as a critical component of making it feel more comfortable for employees to interrupt negative behavior. Managers and supervisor need to establish that they don’t support unprofessional behavior. Accountability and consistency starts at the top of the organization and permeates down. Observing supervisors and managers holding themselves and employees more accountable allows employees to deal with issues more directly as well.

Respondents felt that since crew leads are not supervisors, and some are perceived to allow negative behavior on job sites, supervisors should be in the field more often monitoring the job sites and behavior of employees, including monitoring the radio communications of employees. Respondents also felt that managers and supervisors should check in more with employees to see how work is going especially during the probationary period.


Sixty one percent of respondents mentioned wanting a more effective partnership with the HR Business Partner assigned to MO, and to HR systems that are in place in the City of Portland. By effective they mean that they want a partnership with HR that allows them to bring forth a problem that gets resolved quickly without having to be involved in a drawn out, more public investigative process where employees are investigated and disciplined. Employees expressed the desire to have problem resolution and not a comprehensive investigation occur when they have a problem. They would also like to see HR become more proactive rather than reactive to problems that are identified in MO such as providing training to employees.

Respondents expressed the desire to have more tools and resources for stopping the conflict or negative behavior they may be experiencing by using techniques like mediation or conflict resolution processes; bringing an issue forward to HR was perceived as escalating the problem rapidly that had more risk than reward attached to it.

From a practical and legal standpoint this may not always be possible due to antidiscrimination laws and responsibilities the City of Portland have to ensure a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. While an employee may desire a problem to be handled simply and quickly with no investigation, this might not always be feasible given the risks to the City of not handling the problem appropriately. Supervisors and managers are duty bound to investigate and deal with problems that fall under the HRAR 2.02 Prohibition Against Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation.

Analysis of Quantitative Questions

Respondents were asked a series of 18 questions that were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 1 meant the respondent completely agreed with the statement and a score of 5 meant they completely disagreed, a score of 3 was neutral. See Appendix A for the complete survey.

Due to the sample size and methodology used in analyzing the quantitative data, scores of 1 and 2 (completely agree and agree) are combined as a response, neutral stands alone, and scores of 4 and 5 (disagree and completely disagree) are combined for reporting purposes in the bar charts and detailed analysis. Bar charts and additional comments made by respondents are provided to aid in understanding the results.

Analysis of each question was done to see if differences occurred between any group demographic that was explained above such as supervisory or non-supervisory, length of tenure with the organization, and whether the respondent was a women and/or person of color. Where considerable differences occurred, those responses are explained.

Chart 1 provides a snapshot of results for each question that had a rating scale. The chart shows the responses for the rating categories of completely agree, agree, completely disagree and disagree. Neutral is not included in the chart.


27%18%

27%20%

14%27%

20%14%16%

14%25%

20%7%

25%20%

18%11%

18%27%

34%14%

30%52%

77%52%

36%25%

5%23%

48%23%

23%32%

14%7%

32%16%

43%95%

5%20%

7%7%

2%

2%7%

14%18%

14%7%

16%16%

5%18%18%

11%23%

2%

14%20%

11%11%

2%7%

25%23%

25%25%

11%16%

32%16%

20%23%

16%25%

16%2%

Chart 1. Summary Responses to Rated Questions

Recommend PBOT for employmentManagers understand my work Workplace safety Feel physically safeInterrupt unsafe behavior

Supervisor HR effectivenessInterrupt prejudicial comments/behavior

Manager HR effectivenessOverall HR effectivenesRight number of supervisors and managersEnough supervisors to manage workSupervisors set a good exampleTrust managers and believe what they sayUnit responsibility & accountabilityDivision responsibility & accountability Overall responsibility & accountability Open communication channels Management is fairTreated with respect at workKnow who to go to for harrassment, bullying, other problems

Completely Disagree Disagree Agree Completely Agree


1. I would recommend PBOT Maintenance Operations as a place to work

Of the respondents that have worked at MO for 11 or more years, 67% completely agree/agree with this statement. Respondents who have been at MO 2 years or less only agree 29% with this statement. These results are consistent with respondents who stated that new employees typically have the most challenging and difficult experiences at MO. As tenure increases, it appears that employees are more likely to recommend it as a place to work. Respondents commented that it was easier to recommend working in a certain section or with some specific supervisors than the overall organization.

Chart 2. Years of service compared to perception of MO as a good place to work

2. Managers have a good understanding of my work environment and processes

Respondents were divided or neutral on this question and provided little feedback about their response. Two of the three division managers at MO are very new to their positions and one has been in place several years. Because of this, respondents struggled a bit with their responses.

3. Workplace safety is taken seriously at MO

Non-supervisors responded to this question differently than supervisors. The chart below shows that 93% of supervisors completely agree/agree with this statement compared to non-supervisors at 40%. Workers expressed a difference due to the perception that supervisors and managers do not investigate and handle workplace safety issues/accidents consistently within their divisions or the entire organization. Each division has a safety committee and workers perceive that more could be done in this area to improve safety and consistency of investigating problems and accidents.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-2 Years 3-10 Years 11+ Years

Completely Agree or Agree Neither Agree or Disagree

Completely Disagree or Disagree


Chart 3. Percent of supervisor and non-supervisor respondents that believe work place safety is taken seriously

4. I feel physically safe working at MO

Differences occurred with this question based on demographics. Supervisors feel safer (92%), than non-supervisors (40%). This is largely due to the type of work they do, since supervisors work primarily in the office or for shorter periods of time in the field environment. Respondents with less tenure do not feel as safe (43%) as more tenured workers (68%). The longer tenure at the bureau, the safer employees feel due to exposure to the work, the equipment and the working conditions. Tenure and familiarity with a work crew also increases the feelings of safety since employees develop trust in co-workers and know whether they will behave safely.

Respondents expressed concerns about feeling less safe due to the increased volume of traffic and congestion in Portland; distracted drivers who are paying attention to phones and not road conditions; angry citizens who are upset about work being done; narrow streets due to bike lanes and additional on-street parking have made driving big equipment more challenging and less safe; and an increase in dealing with homeless citizens, some who have behaved aggressively towards field staff.

Respondents also expressed concerns about safety at MO headquarters on Kerby street due to its proximity to Emmanuel Hospital and some prior negative behavior that has occurred from citizens being discharged from the hospital and coming to MO and being disruptive. Concerns were also expressed about the direct access employees have to the building and the number of entrance points into the building. The potential for workplace violence is ever-present in today’s culture and employees expressed concern about the readiness of MO to handle a significant event and protect employees safety.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Supervisor Non-Supervisor




5. If I saw someone behaving in an unsafe way I would feel comfortable to say something

Employees agreed with this statement and expressed the importance of saying something if they see unsafe behavior. Employees are aware of the risks associated with their work and see safe work practices as a critical component of their job.

6. If I saw someone making a prejudicial comment or inappropriate behavior I would interrupt

A slight variation of this question was asked at the beginning of the survey and was discussed above. With that question, 82% of respondents stated that they would interrupt or have interrupted prejudicial comments or behavior at work.

All supervisors completely agree/agree that they would interrupt inappropriate behavior, which is expected of an employee in a supervisory role at the city. As explained in the section above, there is a perceived conflict between what supervisors say they would do and how respondents experience their supervisor’s behavior.

Thirteen percent of non-supervisory respondents and 29% of less tenured respondents completely disagree/disagree they would interrupt someone making a prejudicial comment or inappropriate behavior. Respondents with the least seniority are the most uncomfortable interrupting negative behavior or comments because they feel pressure to fit in, do not want to draw attention to themselves, and fear they would be targeted. While on probation, respondents worried they would not pass probation and that the risks for retaliation outweighed the need for intervention.

Respondents did note that if they didn’t interrupt (or interrupt all the time) they wanted to convey that they wouldn’t participate in negative behavior or comments. This was an important distinction that a majority of respondents who were neutral or completely disagree/disagree on this statement wanted to make. These employees reiterated that they would consider interrupting based on the circumstance and severity of the problem, the individual or individuals who were making the comments or doing the behavior, and how well they knew the people involved.

The following three questions will be discussed together since they ask for respondents to rate supervisors HR effectiveness at the differing management levels at MO.

7. My supervisor is effective in dealing with HR problems that occur 8. My manager is effective in dealing with HR problems that occur 9. MO as a whole deals effectively with HR problems that occur

The chart below shows respondents perceive that there are challenges with MO dealing effectively with HR problems that occur within their units and throughout the organization. The

A strategy employed by respondents was to walk away from prejudicial comments or inappropriate behavior rather than interrupt what is occurring.


perception that MO deals effectively with HR problems decreases as the size of the organizational unit increases.

Chart 4. Percent of supervisor and non-supervisor respondents that perceive MO, as a whole, deals effectively with HR problems that occur

Employees perceive they are more likely to know what is happening in their immediate work unit and would have the greatest sense of how their supervisor handles HR issues that occur (see chart above). Once an employee is asked about other organizational units, it is likely that they are less aware of what is actually happening in these units. Some negative perceptions were based on past experience in other work units. As a result, respondents tend to perceive their supervisor as more effective than someone else’s supervisor.

Many employees rely on rumors and gossip to find out what is happening throughout the organization. This information isn’t always accurate which affects employee’s perceptions of effective, consistent handling of HR problems by supervisors. Also, employees use informal networks to try and find out what, if any, discipline has occurred to other employees for violating work rules. If employees perceive that HR problems are not handled consistently throughout the organization, it leads to a host of problems such as the perception of favoritism, inconsistent application of work rules and policies, confusion about what the behavior standards are, and difficulty enforcing work rules.

The longer an employee works at MO, the more likely they are to completely agree/agree that their supervisor is effective at dealing with HR problems (68%), compared to respondents with 0-2 years of service at 28%.

Women and people of color, compared to white males, differed in how effectively they perceive MO deals with HR problems (5% and 32% respectively).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




53% of non-supervisors perceive their work unit supervisor is effective at dealing with HR problems


Chart 5. Percent of women and people of color compared to white males that perceive MO, as a whole, deals effectively with HR problems that occur

Lack of supervisor accountability and inconsistency of supervision, poor interpersonal problem resolution, and favoritism were mentioned by respondents for why they scored this question as they did. These examples were also provided by white male respondents. Chart 5 shows the difference in perception between white males and women/people of color as to the significance of the problem. As would be expected, women and people of color and other employee subgroups such as newer employees, experience MO differently than long-term white males, who are the dominate culture. Personal experience and other variables may affect how respondents scored this question as well.

Follow-up analysis and more in-depth conversations with employees would need to be done to fully understand the dynamics that lead respondents to answer the question the way they did. Improving the overall quality and consistency of supervision for all employees and other effective strategies could decrease the difference in perception among these different employee groups.

Two of three division managers are relatively new to MO. At the time of the interviews, one manager had been in his position one month, another had been in his position for about 7 months, and the other had worked in the position for several years. Some respondents indicated they did not have enough work history with their respective manager to know how to respond accurately to the questions. Many said that they would agree or be neutral on the questions to give the new manager the benefit of the doubt until they had more experience with the manager and how they handled HR related problems.

The following two questions will be discussed together as they are closely connected to each other in determining the number of supervisory and management positions at MO.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Women and People of Color White Males




10. There are the right number of supervisors and managers at MO 11. There are enough supervisors to effectively manage the work

During the recession starting in 2010 and over several years prior, a mid-level layer of management was eliminated from MO. These positions functioned like assistant division managers and they were responsible for supervising the first line supervisors in each of the divisions. The positions were also responsible for handling HR related issues in a division, and managing a variety of special projects and initiatives within the division and bureau-wide. When this level of management support was cut over the years until it was finally eliminated, the work did not disappear, but had to be absorbed by either the Division managers or delegated down to the first line supervisors.

All of the supervisors, especially those with the most tenure, expressed the greatest concerns about the cuts and how the cuts had affected their ability to be in the field and provide effective, consistent and on-going supervision to the crews. The goal for each supervisor is to spend time, ideally 2-3 hours, in the field each day to monitor productivity, work effectiveness, planning, and provide general supervision to the crews. One supervisor stated a sentiment shared by many that he “had to manage by paper” more often than he liked since it was becoming increasingly difficult to be in the field and have direct observation of the work and the employees. Although the supervisors are eligible for overtime if they are responding to emergencies with their crews, many routinely work additional overtime that is not compensated daily to keep up with the demands of the job such as coming in early in the morning to deal with problems that occurred overnight and to coordinate and collaborate with others on crew composition and assign work projects for the day. Many routinely stay late to get work done on projects, answer emails, and prepare for the next day.

Unfortunately, question 10 asked about both supervisors and managers. Supervisor respondents that completely agree/agree there are the right number of supervisors and managers at MO (8%) explained that their answer to question 10 was based on the number of managers only and did not include supervisors.

While 54% of supervisors indicated there were enough supervisors to effectively manage the work (question 11), they commented that plans to re-establish an additional night supervisor to handle after-hours calls would help alleviate the work load on supervisors who rotate the after-hours call assignment. Managers and supervisors stated that adding the mid-level management position(s) back would improve their overall ability to more effectively manage the work assigned to them.

Forty-seven percent of non-supervisors completely agree/agree there are the right number of supervisors and managers at MO and 80% completely agree/agree there are enough managers to effectively manage the work. This difference in perception between supervisory and non-supervisory employees is likely from non-supervisory employees not having a complete understanding of the job demands and responsibilities of supervisors and managers.


Cuts that occurred at all levels in the organization were mentioned by respondents when answering these two questions. Respondents felt that positions should first be restored in MO that work in field crews or out of the office rather than in supervisory roles.

12. Our managers and supervisors set a good example for how to behave at work

Thirty-seven percent of non-supervisory respondents completely agree/agree with this statement in contrast to supervisors who completely agree/agree 62% of the time. Respondents offered reasons for this response similar to the comments they made about lack of supervisory accountability in the sections above. Supervisor comments were largely connected to witnessing unprofessional behavior in other supervisors, lack of collaboration and information sharing (silo behavior), and supervisors not always establishing and adhering to workplace standards that have been established.

13. I can trust our management and believe what they say

Overall 30% of respondents completely agree/agree with this statement. The recent arrival of two new managers was mentioned as a reason for a neutral rating of 22%. However, as Chart 6 indicates, there is a difference between non-supervisory and supervisory respondents that completely agree/agree with this statement (17% and 61% respectively).

Chart 6. Percent of supervisor and non-supervisor respondents that trust management and believe what they say

A difference between non-supervisor and supervisor respondent’s perception of trust in management is not uncommon in assessments of this type but this response rate does show a gap between these two groups in their perception of trust in management.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





Reasons cited by all respondents about lack of trust in management at MO include lack of formal communication or no communication which creates reliance on the rumor mill and gossip for information; inability to give honest, direct and timely feedback; unwillingness to deal with conflict; cliques at work; and lack of management holding supervisors accountable.

Accountability builds trust within teams and organizations, because people know they can depend on each other. Leaders who are accountable are more likely to be trusted and respected, because people know that they will keep their word.

14. Managers establish responsibility and accountability among employees a) in my unit b) in my division c) overall in MO

As explained earlier in this report, employees identified lack of accountability as a problem overall in MO but perceive there is more accountability and responsibility established at the unit level than MO taken as a whole. The chart below shows overall responses to this question. Like the questions about effective HR problem solving in the various organizational units at MO, responses to this question trend in the same direction: as operating unit size increases, accountability and responsibility is perceived to decrease.

Chart 7. Percent of supervisor and non-supervisor respondents that completely agree/agree that managers establish responsibility and accountability among employees in the work unit, division and overall MO

Further, there is a striking difference in perception between supervisor and non-supervisor respondents when answering this question. Supervisor respondents consistently perceive that managers establish responsibility and accountability among employees at a higher rate.

The main difference between responsibility and accountability is that responsibility can be shared while accountability cannot.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unit Division MO



Supervisors may have responded at such a high rate on this question, 84% for their unit, due to the inherent additional responsibilities that come with managing employees and the perception that they are both accountable for themselves as well as for the work occurring in their unit.

15. Communication channels are open between employees and management

All organizations that are large and have a dispersed workforce struggle with effective and meaningful communication and MO is no exception. Communication problems were identified during the assessment process.

When asked this question, respondents completely agree/agree (43%) that communication channels are open between employees and management. Thirty percent were neutral about this statement and 27% completely disagree/disagree with this statement.

Respondents talked about the rumor mill and gossip problems that exist at MO and how these informal channels of communication were frequently used to gather and disseminate information, or misinformation, about what is happening. More frequent, formal communication about what is occurring at MO is desired and is a better, more effective use of the assembly area gathering in the morning before crews are deployed.

Collaboration and communication between work units, divisions and within MO needs to increase for work to be done more efficiently and effectively. Communication breakdowns, changing priorities and lack of clear direction between MO and downtown PBOT staff were mentioned frequently as a source of work frustration and challenge to getting work accomplished collaboratively. These conditions apply to MO as well even though some respondents report more collaboration and communication among their teams and to a lesser degree, within their divisions.

Lack of standard operating procedures, or clear administrative policies were also mentioned as a source of communication problems for knowing how to handle issues as they arise.

Respondents indicated that they desire more feedback about work performance especially coaching and support on expanding skills, and more feedback about the selection process and how to be competitive for other jobs. Feedback loops about performance are missing or are not as effective as employees would like. When a problem is brought forward, respondents often don’t know if or how it was resolved leading to reluctance to identify future issues and bring them forward.

MO has many aspects of a chain of command culture, even though it is not a paramilitary organization like the Fire or Police Departments. This structure at MO aids in getting field work

Being accountable not only means being responsible for something, but also ultimately being answerable for your actions.


done daily, and establishes the hierarchy of position influence or “pecking order”. A chain of command culture, regardless of how strong it is, can prohibit free flow of communication between upper management/leadership and employees who are many levels down in the hierarchy. Even if MO expresses it has an “open door” policy, often the lowest level workers do not believe that, and are discouraged from advancing problems or issues. This is particularly true in a work environment that has a strong “don’t snitch” culture such as the one identified in MO.

A striking difference occurred between respondents based on their tenure within the organization. The chart below shows that employees with the least tenure at MO feel that communication channels are not open.

Chart 8. Perception that communication channels are open between employees and management and years of service

New employees at best feel neutral about this question, and the chain of command culture at MO may be contributing to this problem, as well as lack of exposure to management and leadership within the organization. More tenured employees likely feel more comfortable communicating with management due to feeling more established in their position and role within the organization. Exposure to management through committee work, special assignments and union leadership positions can also create more open channels of communication with management, and typically employees are placed on committees or given special assignments once they have worked for an organization for several years.

In contrast, 68% of supervisor respondents completely agree/agree that communication channels are open with management. Neutral ratings at 33% may be due in part to the hiring of two new managers.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-2 Years 3-10 Years 11+ Years




Supervisory employees are part of management and have more access to upper management and leadership of the organization through meetings, projects, and office conditions. These factors would lead to the perception that communication channels are more open with management.

16. Management deals fairly with employees

Elements of a fair workplace include treating employees respectfully and honestly; having common rules, and consistent consequences for breaking rules; consistent treatment of employees and avoidance of showing favoritism towards one employee over another by treating employees with the same standards for accountability and performance; promoting employees based on skills and abilities, and developing all employees regardless of whether or not they are seeking promotions; and being aware of conscious and unconscious bias and how it effects your treatment of employees.

Issues with favoritism, cliques, and lack of accountability have been discussed in previous sections of this report. Those issues lead to the perception by employees that management does not deal fairly with employees.

Responses to this question were split: 34% completely agree/agree and 48% completely disagree/disagree. As would be expected due to the nature of the question, the more dramatic differences occur on this question when comparing data between supervisors versus non-supervisors.

The chart below shows the two groups, non-supervisor and supervisors, perception to being treated fairly by management is just the opposite of each other.

Chart 9. Percent of supervisor and non-supervisor respondents that believe management deals fairly with employees

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





Respondents who are women and people of color completely disagree/disagree at roughly the same percentage as non-supervisors at 63%. In contrast, white males completely disagree/ disagree at 36%.

The respondents that completely disagree/disagree at the highest rate are the least tenured employees at 71%. The most tenured employees, those with 10 plus years of work, completely disagree/disagree at 36%.

The perceptual differences about being treated fairly are important to understand both for the various demographic groups as well as all employees who work at MO. Likely, the factors listed above for conditions that create a fair work environment may not be occurring consistently throughout MO which has led to employees perceptions about not being treated fairly.

17. I am treated with respect at work

Seventy-one percent of respondents said they completely agree/agree with this statement. This question asked about respect in general and didn’t make a distinction about management’s respect towards the employee.

Respondents with the least tenure, and women and people of color, completely agree/agree with this statement at 42% and 47% respectively. Respondents with more than 10 years of experience and white males completely agree/agree at 75% and 86% respectively.

This difference in perception is important and should be identified as an area, like fair treatment, that needs to be improved with attention and effort from all supervisors and managers at MO.

18. I know who to go to if I have a problem about harassment of bullying or something else that makes me feel uncomfortable at work

Virtually all employees, 98%, answered completely agree/agree, when this question was posed to them.

Conclusions Based on the findings of this assessment, the culture at MO is not effectively supporting the goal articulated by PBOT Director Treat of wanting the culture to foster a safe, welcoming, respectful, and harassment free work environment with improved morale.

Workplace culture is made up of the values, beliefs, underlying assumptions, attitudes, and behaviors shared by a group of people. Culture is the behavior that results when a group, or subgroup, arrives at a set of, generally unspoken and unwritten, rules for working together. The organizational culture at MO was formed over years of interaction among the employees in the organization. Workplace culture is usually not defined as good or bad since personalities and life experiences of employees create the culture of an organization, and workplace


behavior needs to support the vision, mission, and values of the organization, not just the personal values of the employees.

Differences in perception exist, sometimes to a large degree, between how supervisors/ managers experience the workplace compared to non-supervisor employees. This is not an unusual finding since it is often the case in organizational assessments that supervisors/ managers and non-supervisor employees have differing perspectives on how they view the workplace. Other groups such as women and people of color, and less tenured employees view the workplace culture differently too. While not unusual for employee subgroups to view the organization differently, it is the large gap in perception on some key indicators that has been identified in this assessment that needs to decrease to improve the workplace culture for all employees at MO.

The current workplace culture at MO can be improved by increasing management and supervisor capacity and staffing, professional behavior, accountability and responsibility, communication, training and education, HR problem solving effectiveness, and morale.

Recommendations to Improve the Workplace It is not unreasonable to expect that the recommendations contained in this report will take commitment of resources over time, up to 3 years, to develop and implement. Executive sponsorship from Director Treat and the MO Group Manager is crucial to the success of the change process.

Many issues that were raised through the assessment process over the summer of 2017 were already identified by the MO Group Manager, Suzanne Kahn, and her management team as areas of concern that needed attention or staffing to fix. Steps had already been taken in many cases to begin to address these issues, and those efforts are noted below.

Respondents were asked what they would do to improve the culture of MO. They were also asked what one thing they would change about MO. Answers to these questions were wide ranging and varied. Respondent suggestions for how to improve the work culture are woven into the recommendations listed below.

Themes emerged around accountability, professional behavior, effective management and supervision, communication, employee morale connected to recognition and appreciation, training and education, staffing and HR related issues.

Tackling these problems will require prioritization, commitment, constant attention, and will take up to 3 years of change management process to accomplish


Recommendation: Create Task Force/Labor Management Committee

A task force/Labor Management Committee comprised of supervisors, managers and employees who are committed to improving the culture should be assembled. The work that is needed to change the culture at MO must come from within the organization and the workers know better than anyone what is needed to improve the culture.

The purpose of this committee is to delve into this assessment, review the findings and recommendations, and develop a plan of action to address the identified issues, and any other issues the committee feels are needed to be addressed. For example, the task force/LMC group could be tasked with developing operating agreements for behavior at work, a code of conduct that all employees would be accountable for.

This work should be done in conjunction with the PBOT Equity Committee. The Equity Committee has been active since 2012 and currently is accountable for:

x Evaluating progress towards the Bureau’s equity and diversity goals, and x Developing a strategy and collaboratively taking action to increase the bureau’s cultural

understanding of how policies, procedures, and services may impact diversity and equity internal and external to PBOT.

x Reducing barriers to inclusion in the organization and help PBOT employees succeed within the workplace,

x Building relationships with diverse communities within and outside of PBOT, x Creating a workplace community where everyone feels valued and has the opportunity

to be heard, x Understanding and correcting behavior and assumptions that impact a work culture

aiming to be diverse and equitable.

Recommendation: Increase Accountability

Accountability has been discussed throughout this report as a major issue to be addressed to improve the culture at MO. Accountability applies to all actions taken by every employee at all levels of the organization, and every employee should be held accountable for their performance and behavior at work. Most employees want to do a good job and succeed at work and need leadership to create an environment where that potential is reached.

1. Set and communicate clear expectations for respectful and appropriate behavior, and develop and monitor performance standards and metrics.

2. Align individual and team goals with division and organizational strategies and vision. 3. Model appropriate behavior. 4. Coach employees on how to be accountable, acknowledging when mistakes are made

and being honest.


5. Hold each other accountable – establish a norm where it is acceptable to deal with inappropriate behavior by employees and supervisors in other work units, not just your own.

6. Provide training, tools, time and resources needed to accomplish the work. 7. Provide consistent recognition and feedback to help performance. 8. Take appropriate action, including discipline, consistently when individual and teams

do not meet expectations.

Recommendation: Set Expectations for Professional Behavior

Individuals who show consideration and respect for others demonstrate a commitment to professionalism and professional behavior has nothing to do with what level a person is in the organization. Traits like honesty, integrity, competency, reliability, accountability and self-regulation of emotions are components of professional behavior. Managers and supervisors have additional responsibilities and should be held to a higher standard in this area as leaders who need to model professional behavior. The list below outlines basic behavior expectations for employees at MO.

1. Encourage employees to exhibit positive behavior at work by discouraging discourteous treatment, emotional outbursts, anger and lack of self-control at work

2. Increase expectations for professional language to be used at work including refraining from making inappropriate and negative comments both in person and over the work radios used by crews

3. Encourage employees to use formal communication for information and discourage gossip and the use of the rumor mill for information and misinformation

4. Encourage employees to be accountable for work quality and quantity 5. Encourage employees to take responsibility for their actions by acknowledge mistakes

and not blaming others for problems 6. Encourage employees from talking about politics, religion, and other sensitive issues

while at work

Recommendation: Set Management/Supervision Standards and Expectations

Supervisors and managers need to treat employees respectfully and honestly; have common rules, and consistent consequences for breaking rules; provide consistent treatment of employees as much as possible, avoidance of showing favoritism towards one employee over another by treating employees with the same standards for accountability and performance; promoting employees based on skills and abilities, and developing all employees regardless of whether or not they are seeking promotions; and being aware of conscious and unconscious bias and how it effects their treatment of employees they manage and lead. These


expectations should apply to the entire supervisory and management structure of the organization, and the division managers and group manager should be responsible for ensuring consistency among the divisions. This would aid in developing accountability, trust and creating a fairer work environment.

1. Managers need to formally evaluate supervisors on a yearly basis. Summary feedback about performance is critical to holding supervisors accountable for leadership and performance objectives and for measuring the behavior you want to see in the organization. The performance review form should be amended to reflect the operating environment at MO, and include topic areas identified in this assessment that need improvement such as increasing trust and communication, and effective resolution of HR problems. Training and development plans should also be developed for each supervisor, and employees, based on their career goals and objectives as part of the process. Routinely, once a supervisor reaches the top of their pay scale, formal reviews have not been conducted on an on-going basis at MO and this practice should stop.

2. Supervisors should get more feedback and input about probationary employee’s performance from lead workers, other co-workers and the employee themselves, if they are not already doing so. This would create stronger feedback loops for performance management and correction of problems, if identified.

3. Develop a process for strategically rotating and reassigning supervisors to different units for development purposes, to increase their cross training, and to provide a fresh perspective on work crews who may benefit from a different supervisory perspective. Although this recommendation might be met with resistance, it is meant to support developmental opportunities for supervisors if applied strategically, and used for training and development.

4. Continue the practice of moving employees in work units as needed to increase cross-training, development of the employee’s skills and as a strategic way to interrupt conflict between workers, and to separate workers who have formed negative and unproductive alliances with each other, when managing their performance hasn’t resulted in positive change.

The practice of rotating supervisors has been used in the past at MO and should be evaluated for applicability again. Employees identified recommendations 3 and 4 as effective ways to deal with improving the “clique” culture at MO.


Recommendation: Reinstate Key Staffing Positions

The mid-level management positions between the division managers and Public Works Supervisor II that were eliminated due to budget cuts should be restored to MO as budget allows. This will increase the ability of supervisors to be in the field and more effectively manage work crews. Lead workers, when present, are not supervisory. The last of these cuts occurred approximately 5 years ago and has had a detrimental effect on the organization. The work of these positions was absorbed by division managers or delegated down to supervisors. To support the change management that is needed, it would be beneficial to have additional management support to effectuate the change.

1. MO should consider apprenticeship, training programs, or the use of the Utility Worker I classification as a way of recruiting entry level employees and developing a career ladder. Currently it is a significant jump to go from being a seasonal maintenance worker to a Utility Worker (UW) II. Although the UW II may be more skilled or well-rounded, there are work assignments that could be done by a UW I and this would increase promotional opportunities. The Water Bureau has implemented a successful apprenticeship program and that could be reviewed for applicability at MO.

2. As budget allows, MO should consider hiring retirees on a project basis to help develop and implement some of these recommendations based on the retiree’s skill set and willingness to work. This could be an excellent way to begin work on needed projects by using someone with deep organizational knowledge of the current culture and the changes wanting to be made.

3. Given the size of MO, with turnover, sick leave and vacations, consideration should be given to creating an in-house pool of “traveling” workers who could be redeployed as needed to fill in for employees who are out such as on vacation or have quit. This would help alleviate some of the management stress and scramble in the morning to compile crews and assign work. In-house staff assigned to move around would enable job enrichment and cross-training and would expose employees to a variety of work units and styles. Staffing and budget analysis would need to be done to see if this suggestion is a viable solution.

Recommendation: Improve Morale through Employee Recognition and Feedback

While respondents discussed low morale most frequently in the context declining employee recognition, appreciation events and activities, other aspects of morale were also mentioned.

The mid-level management positions are slowly being added back and one was recently filled. MO should continue to move forward on this initiative as budget allows. Additional positions such as a night shift supervisor and more schedule planners for the entire group have been added recently and this should help relieve some organizational pressure.


1. Managers and Supervisors should be more aware of the effects of positive reinforcement and provide more positive feedback and support to employees to help boost morale.

2. Form a recognition or team spirit committee to create goals and action plans for employee recognition. The goal would be to recognize the actions, behaviors, approaches, and accomplishments that MO wants to foster and reinforce. Recognition could take many forms depending on the person being recognized (or teams) and the event or behavior that lead to the recognition.

3. Develop and implement an award system that might cover things like safety, work productivity increases, innovation and the like. The recognition committee could be tasked with this activity.

4. Re-institute, on a yearly or semi-annual basis, employee events that provide lunch or breakfast and training, awards or other programmatic events. This would foster team work, allow for comprehensive messaging on topics of importance such as strategic plans, project updates, etc.

5. Create team building activities that allow employees to get to know each other from various units and break down silos; redeploying employees to do a group activity can increase morale and builds relationship. Activities like this were implemented for fixing potholes and should be considered for other projects.

6. Maintenance field day was mentioned by employees as a morale builder and should be considered for re-instatement; it could be tied to some other public relations campaign or aspect of PBOT operations

7. Tell the story of MO in a more effective way to citizens through press release and stories that highlight all the excellent work of the group. Employees work in the community every day and have amazing stories to tell of helping citizens and solving problems. Their stories and successes should be publicized which would build morale, provide recognition, and increase positive messaging about public employees and PBOT.

Recommendation: Increase Training and Education Opportunities

Virtually every employee in the assessment talked about wanting more training and development to either increase the skills needed to be successful in their current position or to develop skills for promotion, lateral moves or to support cross training so employees can be effectively deployed to other units when needed. Training was also seen as key to help employees feel more comfortable and confident in interrupting inappropriate behavior and comments.

1. A Training and Development committee should be established, if one does not already exist, at MO. A high functioning training committee could provide recommendations on how to prioritize and implement training throughout the organization, how the training should be provided, and look at how training


opportunities are equitably distributed through the group. This effort could be combined with Safety training efforts for efficiencies.

2. Safety resources allocated to MO should be re-evaluated. Accountability and consistency of the safety function, and influence over safety programs and training, are critical to improving the perceptions of employees that workplace safety can improve. The current safety officer position was recently vacated, after being filled for a brief period, and this would be an ideal time to evaluate the safety functions and resources needed at MO. Traction on improving the safety function was beginning to occur and the quick turnover in the position has set this effort back.

3. American Public Works Association (APWA) – has robust opportunities for training and development for supervisory and management employees as well as field staff looking to develop themselves for supervisory positions. This national organization has a local chapter, and a regional Public Works Institute where a certificate could be obtained. The Institute content is designed to address the supervisory and management needs of current first-line supervisors and up, including those individuals aspiring to be better leaders and supervisors. It is recommended that MO leadership look at the course offerings of APWA and invest in its workers by training them through APWA, as appropriate. Attendance at conferences and workshops for skill development is also recommended.

4. On-boarding for new employees – new employees, including seasonal workers, should receive a comprehensive orientation to MO that could take up to two weeks to cover all the basics of orienting an employee to the organization. The on-boarding process should expose new employees to the mission, vision and values and the technical and operational aspects of the job including assessment and training on equipment found at MO; workplace expectations should be set for professional behavior and exposure to the division manager and group manager should occur so appropriate messaging can occur. It is critical to the success of the employee to not just be “thrown in” to a job without comprehensive orientation to the organization.

5. Assign a mentor or “work buddy” to each new employee – current employees suggested this as well to allow a new employee to have exposure to someone who can mentor and support them during probation, in addition to their supervisor.

6. Although not a supervisory position, the role of Crew Lead is critical to the success of employees assigned to a crew where a lead is present. Explore the role of crew lead to evaluate the responsibilities of the job and see if there is opportunity for the position to take a greater leadership role within the organization.

7. During probation, “skip level” check ins and reviews should occur where division managers have more frequent exposure to the new employee who is reporting to a

MO is working on developing a more comprehensive on-boarding process and should continue this effort and evaluate expanding the orientation to cover more topics and trainings over the course of the probationary period. This should occur for all levels of employees within the organization.


supervisor to get to know the employee, help assess probationary progress, and identify any barriers to work success. This will increase comfort in identifying issues the employee may have by making it more comfortable to have exposure to the manager. This will also aid in developing trust through more communication and exposure to the manager.

8. HRAR 2.02 training and refresher training should be handled by the HR Business Partner assigned to MO who can tailor the presentation to real life examples that occur at MO. This would also increase exposure of the HRBP to all employees.

9. Employees want more training and opportunities to learn how to operate equipment that they are normally not exposed to or to job shadow someone in another unit or division. Employees acknowledge they need to take the initiative to increase their skills, but would like to see MO offer more structured opportunities for cross training, exposure to other work units and different equipment. This would also help the employee become more competitive for promotions or bidding to other units. This recommendation applies to all employees not just field staff.

Recommendation: Provide Conflict Resolution Training

All employees, particularly new employees and those with two years or less of service, need to be trained on conflict management, how to have difficult conversations, including appropriate ways to handle and interrupt uncomfortable or inappropriate behavior; problem solving processes, and who to go to for support, in addition to their supervisor, if they experience a problem they feel they can’t handle. Training could be developed specifically for MO employees by an outside training consultant, developed and implemented by the HRBP or other city HR staff, or purchased through other organizations that offer the appropriate relevant training needed. Effective training in these areas would create a more positive work environment and would aid in reducing the “don’t snitch” culture because it would become the norm to identify problems and conflicts and resolve them as opposed to suppressing them for fear of getting someone else in trouble or being retaliated against for bringing them forward.

MO should consider partnering with HR and the union on developing a mediation or conflict resolution program for use in resolving and handling interpersonal conflicts between employees at work. Supervisory support would be crucial to the process. The successful Culture Shapers program could be reinstituted at the organization or a new pilot program could be developed to address conflict resolution at work. Respondents in the assessment consistently stated that when conflict occurs they want more tools and techniques to deal with the problem quickly at the lowest possible level rather that immediately progressing to formal HR investigations and processes. Employees expressed the desire to have the conflict resolved rather than “punishment” occur in the form of formal discipline. This recommendation would need to be implemented in tandem with HRAR 2.02 Prohibition Against Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation requirements not in lieu of the rule, and the City’s obligations


under it. Creative options for this could be explored too with the union such as hiring mediation specialists and sharing the cost with MO or providing paid time from work to meet with a mediator to resolve the problem.

Recommendation: Increase the Substance and Frequency of Communication

1. Increase the frequency of formal communication about MO projects, initiatives, and general updates about work in other units and divisions through effective use of meetings, memos, and more effective use of time the employees are gathered in the morning in the assembly area prior to being deployed to the field. This will build trust and aid in transparency, minimize the rumor mill, help break down silos and create greater awareness of issues occurring in MO.

2. Use the expanded staff meetings for time to reinforce messaging about workplace behavior.

3. Increase collaboration and communication between work units, other divisions and work units based in the Portland Building, and within MO, to increase work efficiency and effectiveness.

4. Establish and develop work priorities and adhere to priorities established to reduce collaboration challenges and communication breakdowns between MO and downtown PBOT staffs.

5. Increase collaboration and communication with other units where there is dependency of work. Institute quick check-in meetings between supervisors in the mornings so work and crews can deploy, and work assigned more efficiently. Model this after best practices that are already occurring in other areas of the organization.

6. Develop and institutionalize standard operating procedures, and clear administrative policies to alleviate communication problems for knowing how to handle issues as they arise.

Recommendation: Improve Response to HR Related Issues

1. Increase the role and visibility of the Human Resource Business Partner (HRBP) assigned to MO which is an excellent resource for the organization and should be an ally not just enforcer of rules and investigations. Encourage proactive engagement rather than reactive HR responses and increase visibility with line staff though job shadowing and other activities.

2. The HRBP should work in partnership with leadership at MO on developmental tasks such as custom training, performance evaluation development, sick leave abuse reporting, and other HR related projects that are needed.

3. HR should provide feedback loops such as ‘teach backs’ to managers and supervisors on trends and patterns in MO such as accidents investigated, common infractions, outcomes of investigations and what the learning has been at the expanded leadership


team meeting. Names of employees would not be mentioned to protect privacy. This would aid in creating consistency among managers and increase accountability.

4. Employees want supervisors and managers to both model professional behavior and deal with unprofessional behavior from the staff as soon as possible. What is ignored becomes acceptable.

5. Improvements can be made to the recruitment and selection processes. They are cumbersome, long and often ineffective in measuring all the core competencies needed in the various positions. Communication needs to be increased to candidates who do not get promotions and feedback should be provided to aid in their professional development.


Appendix A PBOT Maintenance Operations Workplace Environment Assessment Questionnaire I am interested in understanding what it is like to work at PBOT Maintenance.

1. What’s it like to work at Maintenance Operations? 2. How would you describe the culture of MO? 3. What three words would you use to describe the culture of MO? 4. What suggestions would you make to improve the culture of MO?

Do employees at Maintenance participate in horseplay, jokes or pranks? Yes or No

If yes, how do you define these things? What happened or give examples

Do you ever feel that employees at Maintenance participate in horseplay, jokes or pranks that are derogatory to any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation? Yes or No

Do you feel pressure to participate? Pranks in general and/or those directed at other groups?

If they occur in your presence, would you or have you refused to participate in jokes or pranks or comments that are derogatory to any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation? Yes or No

If you have refused to participate, was there any change in the way you were treated by these people after?

Would you, or have you, interrupted prejudicial comments or behavior at work, if they occurred in your presence? If you interrupted comments or behavior, was there any change in the way you were treated by these people after?

Have you ever heard of or seen managers or supervisors participate in jokes or pranks? Yes or No

Do managers or supervisors participate in jokes or pranks that are derogatory to any group, culture, gender or sexual orientation? Yes or No

If it is occurring, is there anything the bureau could do to help you feel more comfortable with interrupting horseplay, jokes, pranks or unsafe behavior?

The next series of questions ask you to rate the bureau on a 1-5 scale with 1 being you completely agree with the statement and 5 being you completely disagree.

1. I would recommend PBOT Maintenance as a place to work


2. Managers have a good understanding of my work environment and processes

3. Workplace safety is taken seriously at Maintenance 4. I feel physically safe working at the bureau 5. If I saw someone behaving in an unsafe way I would feel comfortable saying

something 6. If I saw someone making a prejudicial comment or inappropriate behavior I

would interrupt 7. My supervisor is effective in dealing with HR problems that occur in my work

unit – this includes things like rules for attendance, dealing with conflict between workers, abuse of sick leave etc.

8. My manager is effective in dealing with HR problems that occur 9. PBOT Maintenance as a whole deals effectively with HR problems that occur 10. There are the right number of supervisors and managers at PBOT 11. There are enough supervisors to effectively manage the work 12. Our managers and supervisors set a good example for how to behave at work 13. I can trust our management and believe what they say 14. Managers establish responsibility and accountability among employees a) in

my unit b) in my division c) overall in MO 15. Communications channels are open between employees and management 16. Management deals fairly with employees 17. I am treated with respect at work 18. I know who to go to if I have a problem about harassment or bullying or

something else that makes me feel uncomfortable at work

Do you have any suggestions that could prevent inappropriate horseplay/pranks or unsafe work practices at work?

If you could change one thing about the bureau, what would it be?

Is there anything else you would like to tell me or to discuss?

Some quick demographics

I have worked in the bureau:

0-2 years

2-10 years

More than 10 years

If comfortable, would you tell me what section/division you work in?

Supervisor or nonsupervisory

Ask if willing to identify racial/gender identity

portland bureau of transportation maintenance...

Documents