Chapter Five: Focus Group Discussions

Research Methodology

Focus group discussions were conducted with five groups of NDDOT employees in July 2002. The goal of the discussions was to further explore certain issues that had been raised in the organization-wide survey and to come up with some suggestions for possible improvements. The five groups that participated in the discussions included workers of mixed occupations from the eastern district; workers of mixed occupations from the western district; Central Office employees with over five years experience; Central Office employees with less than five years experience; and managers.

The number of people in each group ranged from seven to nine, with a total of 41 individuals participating. People were allowed to volunteer to be part of the pool from which focus groups were assembled. Other participants were chosen randomly in the constraints listed above for each group. Each of the sessions lasted 2.5 hours. Two individuals from the UGPTI took part in all of the sessions. This allowed one person to facilitate discussion, while the other kept detailed notes. Group members were led through questions in each of four areas that had been highlighted by the earlier survey results. These areas were:

• work environment
• performance management
• human resource development
• compensation

Focus group participants for each of these areas were asked:

• What is NDDOT doing well?
• What are the problems?
• What can realistically be done to make positive changes?

Information from all five focus groups is summarized on the following pages. It is organized into the four general areas that were addressed during the discussions. For each area, the positive aspects are listed first, concerns next, and suggestions for improvements are listed at the end of the section. Suggestions are broken down into specific categories. For example, the human resource development suggestions are broken down into the following categories:

• recruitment, hiring, and promotion
• training and development
• other HR-related issues

All information from the focus groups was summarized by using as much of the original wording as possible to maintain the integrity of the participants' ideas. The number of groups that discussed each item is noted in parentheses following the item.

Summary of Focus Group Information

Work Environment

What is NDDOT doing well in this area?

• good co-workers and employees/longevity (three groups)
• flexibility in time-flexible schedules; can take one-hour increments of time off (all groups)
• good benefits (three groups)
• good, improved equipment (two groups)
• job security (four groups)
• good facility; air conditioning (one group)
• resource people to help with benefits and questions (one group)
• social times together with co-workers-cookouts, pizza parties, Christmas party (one group)
• communication is improving; upper management group is more open (three groups)
• some money spent to help enforce speed limits in work zones (one group)
• a big improvement in working and sharing information with other districts (one group)
• good relationships with supervisors (two groups)
• diversity of jobs in the department-can try different positions; lateral moves (two groups; not a consensus)
• DOT stays aware of family issues, concerns, and events (one group)
• new employee manual is a good reference (one group)
• training opportunities (one group)
• welcoming atmosphere to new hires (one group)
• some employees experience good public perception of the organization (one group)

What are some concerns?

• micro-management (one group)
• nothing changes; gather data, but no action after concerns are expressed (one group)
• morale issues--compensation (one group)
• Central Office does not regard local employees positively (one group)
• maintenance and construction are important when needed, but are the least regarded of working groups; the jobs are the most risky and hazardous (two groups)
• trust of management is not there (one group)
• no feeling of teamwork (one group)
• poor communication from management, especially on projects at the organizational level; need more follow up information (two groups)
• shouldn't have to use vacation and/or sick days when you are hurt on the job (one group)
• lack of windows; enclosed work spaces (one group)
• concern about asbestos in Central Office (two groups)
• lack of parking for visitors and employees; employee parking lot is confusing (two groups)
• negative public perception of DOT employees (one group)
• traffic is hazardous in highway maintenance; public needs to be patient with delays (one group)
• some buildings are old and outdated (two groups)
• crowded work stations; lack of privacy; limited space (two groups)
• office furnishings are old and outdated (two groups)
• few opportunities in the districts for job changes/promotions without relocating (one group)
• motor vehicle located in the auditorium-very crowded and inefficiently arranged (one group)
• poor air quality and air handling systems in the buildings (two groups)
• increased security after 9/11 did not last; is now much more relaxed (one group)
• need software, technology, and equipment upgrades (one group)
• long-term employees are resistant to change, especially when implementing a new process or re-introducing an idea (one group)
• there is a lack of repercussions when a job isn't done by a worker (one group)
• giving too much work to consultants (one group)

Suggestions for this area:

Work atmosphere/communication

• take action on employee suggestions (one group)
• give good direct communications; don't withhold information from employees (two groups)
• need more cohesiveness with bigger group-department-wide meetings (one group)
• more social opportunities/fun competition (one group)
• could use memos to give information about the budget and progress of projects in relation to other organizational issues; could also be addressed in division staff meetings (one group)

Physical working conditions

• need to enforce speed limits in work zones, especially with temporary (smaller) jobs, like patching, etc. (one group)
• lobby for new legislation for mandatory speed limits in work zones (one group)

Performance Management

What is the NDDOT doing well in this area?

• employees are allowed to cash overtime hours into comp time (one group)
• some feedback for performance is given (one group)
• self-evaluation part of appraisal is good (three groups-not a consensus)
• during flood duty-some small rewards and thank yous were given (one group)
• organization is trying to improve on evaluation process and forms-new process has good potential (three groups)
• updating of PIQs; work elements are related to the PIQ-the effort is good (two groups)
• basic management structure is good-supervisors have open door (three groups), but dependent on the immediate supervisor-some are not effective (one group)
• day-to-day, workers who have been with the organization know what is expected of them (two groups)
• appreciate the more frequent (quarterly) feedback (two groups)
• more training opportunities available (one group)
• current merit raises and discretionary money (one group-not a consensus)
• praise and recognition are sometimes put in the "Grapevine" (one group)
• job standards are written (one group)
• can get rid of poor performers if necessary, but it is a long, complicated process (one group)
• good to have division heads as a check on supervisor ratings (one group)

What are some concerns?

• always "standard" or "satisfactory" on the performance evaluations; the steps above and below average are huge; no explanations are given with "average" ratings (four groups)
• employees are not given respect-only intermittent verbal or written praise (one group)
• some managers have difficulty dealing with problem employees; poor performers affect public perception (three groups)
• employees have more than one supervisor; support level above immediate supervisor is questionable (three groups)
• some managers have good technical skills, but not good people skills (in supervisory positions-role has been forced on them); training can't always help this (one group)
• employees close to retirement are always rated standard; get smaller raises (one group)
• questions of how performance evaluation ties in with compensation; unsure of how management comes to decisions on merit raises; raises are basically equal (four groups)
• inconsistent use of evaluation process by supervisors (three groups)
• evaluation form is changed too often-expectations differ from year to year; glitches with this transition (two groups)
• "be happy you have a job" attitude, at times (one group)
• new hires do not necessarily know what is expected of them; job standards may be too general or may not reflect the job accurately (three groups)
• difficult for employees to move upward (one group)
• no incentive to work hard; no distinction of harder workers from the rest (two groups)
• merit raises are discounted by "catch up" or equity raises-where poor performers are rewarded (two groups)
• new hires may be making as much as someone who has been in the organization for 15 years (with step raises); the ranges overlap too much (one group)
• PIQs are outdated (one group)
• evaluations are based on most recent month's performance-employee works more productively in that last month (one group)
• appears that some people who do more "special projects" get more recognition (one group)

Suggestions for this area:

Performance evaluations, two-way communication, and feedback

• evaluate for the job the person is doing, not just what the job is supposed to be (two groups)
• supervisors need to praise and punish; put notes of praise in the employee file and examples of work behaviors on the evaluations (three groups)
• supervisors need to look beyond the form and give good, regular feedback to employees on job performance, not just formal feedback (one group)
• implement bottom-up evaluations; so that supervisors can improve/develop (two groups)
• train supervisors in evaluating and giving feedback, also in decision making (one group)
• develop a system to measure performance at the individual, group, and organizational levels (one group)
• clarify information on the evaluations (self-evaluation part) to eliminate confusion (one group)
• have upper management come around more often so they can see what's going on (one group)
• listen to employees on how to cut waste and work more efficiently; change attitude that those without four-year degree don't have valuable input (one group)
• employees should be able to give input; involve employees in decision making (two groups)

Raises and pay for performance

• compensate for added responsibilities or use of special skills (two groups)
• implement policy as stated rather than "to the discretion of district supervisor"-should be the same across the state (one group)
• more money for merit raises (substantial, not minimal) (two groups)
• have open communication about available funding and possible raises (one group)
• let employees know at what level a decision was made (one group)
• raises should be based on performance of job, not who you are or department where you work-some are not regarded as valuable as others (two groups)
• treat all employees, especially those close to retirement, with respect (one group)
• revamp pay ranges; allow more employees to be above average (one group)
• give hazard pay for time on the road; note it separately from regular pay (one group)
• identify work behaviors with employees; communicate what leads to merit raises (one group)
• give higher entry-level salaries, but also avoid wage compression (one group)

Work expectations and development

• have more specific mandatory training for everybody (interpersonal skills, working with others, etc.) (one group)
• duties should be spelled out better-more specific for new hires (one group)
• update PIQs and classifications of workers (two groups)
• implement formal mentoring (one group)
• allow training and practice of different procedures (one group)

Rewards

• bonuses-give one time monetary rewards for extra work or projects (one group)
• have more social events-pizza parties, softball, bowling teams (one group)

Human Resource Development

What is the NDDOT doing well in this area?

• in Fargo district, they do promote from within (one group)
• many good training opportunities are provided-40 hours/year, training library, and other resources (five groups); employees can also request what training they want (two groups)
• good internal job announcement system (one group)
• tuition reimbursement (two groups)
• employee orientation (recent program) is good (three groups)
• mentoring to new employees-working toward a formal program (two groups)
• bonuses (especially for years of service) are good (one group)
• Unisys training was good (one group)
• able ro recruit with higher salaries and sign-on bonuses (one group)
• job descriptions, PIQs, and evaluation forms are online (one group)
• HRD is doing the best they can with available resources (one group)
• employee handbook is a good reference for employees; everything is spelled out (one group)

What are some concerns in this area?

• limited promotion opportunities; slow advancement first 10 years; promotion "peaks" with many years left to work (two groups)
• no lateral moves; locked into positions (one group)
• ND pays less than MN (one group)
• training is determined/directed by supervisors, not employees (one group)
• ROADEO training should be restructured-if using it for training, don't also evaluate or use points (one group)
• sometimes older workers are hired to avoid paying more for retirement (one group)
• sometimes people with less experience are hired in order to avoid paying more (one group)
• top management usually is made up of engineers who aren't necessarily "people" people (one group)
• some hiring/promotions are political; people are moved without jobs being posted; harder for women to get promotions-jobs are filled before others are aware of openings (one group)
• feeling that some jobs are mysteriously designed for some employees (three groups)
• some employees are groomed for specific promotions; some favoritism at lower levels (one group)
• changing minimum standards for jobs; can change at will of management (one group)
• financial constraints on some training; certain groups (IT, mechanics) could use more opportunities (three groups)
• sometimes wrong people or not enough people are sent for specific training (two groups)
• not compensated for additional/extra responsibilities-for example, training others (one group)
• may not be hiring the best person-pay scales are a limitation; difficult to recruit; when advertising jobs, whole salary range is given, but actual pay is mid-range (three groups)
• legislature gave 2% raises to public employees and 13% to lawmakers (one group)
• interview questions for hiring are too general, not related to job (one group)
• other employees have to pick up the slack for those who are going to school or training (one group)
• it's a slow process when changes are made in positions (PIQs); some paperwork sits on desks too long (one group)
• Job Service does a poor job of screening candidates before forwarding them on (one group)
• DOT is seen as a "stepping stone" for new people (one group)
• HRD is too conservative-process for terminating a poor employee is too lengthy (one group)
• there will be a large number of retirements in management in the near future; not enough preparation to fill those positions (two groups)
• there is a lot of repetition in training sessions that are offered (one group)
• other experience and training is often not valued as much as experience with the State (one group)
• some employees are not treated well once they give notice of retirement (one group)

Suggestions for this area:

Recruitment, hiring, and promotion

• pay competitively in order to recruit; pay for valuable experience, but also make sure that new employees aren't making more than valued long-term employees (three groups)
• when hiring, budget for the high end of the salary range, not the midpoint (one group)
• let section supervisor have more say in hiring process (one group)
• do not lower qualifications to fill positions (one group)
• have Job Service send all applications to HRD office so that they can weed out unqualified applicants (one group)
• HRD office needs more staff (one group)
• need more complete interview process-include a bigger pool of people, not just one (one group)
• improve interview guidelines-use more specific (job related) questions (one group)
• HRD should assist in writing PIQs (one group)
• re-classify working groups (i.e. mechanics) to help make pay more competitive; work for quicker results on this, set time limits (six months-one year) (one group)
• let perspective employees live where they want and see if they can get to work easily (10 mile or 20 minute rule); use common sense, not an absolute rule, follow the same policy everywhere throughout the state (one group)
• some positions should not require an engineering degree (one group)
• training or on-the-job experience could be used to qualify people for certain jobs (one group)
• reward years of service and additional responsibilities such as training others (two groups)
• allow employees to test for promotions; then they know what to work toward; employees need to know guidelines for promotions (one group)
• need "promotion goals" (one group)

Training and development

• restructure the ROADEO training (one group)
• larger training budget; need more comprehensive training in specific areas (IT, maintenance, motor vehicle) and more variety in training that is offered (three groups)
• have a state-level field training officer-one person in the state for maintenance equipment and procedures to mentor new employees and challenge experienced workers (one group)
• consider dual career track models (one group)
• help construction managers in process of getting their EIT and PE (one group)
• further develop formal mentoring program; use mentoring to transfer job knowledge from long-term employees to others (two groups)
• implement succession planning (specific skills and training needed) (one group)
• better follow up (quicker approval) from HRD on specific training opportunities (one group)
• plan for the large number of retirements in some departments; need to increase the number of middle range employees (one group)
• keep all employees involved as key players, including those giving their notice and those heading toward retirement (one group)
• use cross-training to secure job knowledge among employees (one group)

Other HR-related issues

• give hazard pay for hazardous conditions (one group)
• utilize retirees as a model for other employment-work from home/telecommuting (one group)
• HR office needs to show direct support to employees; explain why decisions are made, and give attention to employees when they bring concerns (one group)
• develop a "sick bank" of donated sick time to avoid abuses and so that unused days that are donated can go back to a pool to be used by someone else who needs it (one group)

Compensation

What is the NDDOT doing well in this area?

• benefits are good-health insurance (five groups)
• salaries have improved for newer employees and hard to fill positions (two groups)
• annual and sick leaves are good (four groups)
• merit raises used right can improve workers' productivity (two groups)
• annual raises (two groups)
• bonuses-sign-on and others; would like more (two groups)
• retirement multiplier increased to 2% is good; continue to raise it in the future (2 group)
• can be paid 100% of unused leave at retirement; should be a higher percentage (one group)
• pay checks are on time (one group)
• direct deposit feature is good (one group)
• being a state employee is very compatible with a military career (one group)
• good work hours (one group)
• holidays (one group)

What are the concerns?

• not enough compensation; legislature not committing money; North Dakota cost of living is not that low; compensation not keeping up with cost of living or market (four groups)
• step increases and equity raises invalidate merit raises (three groups)
• those close to retirement are less likely to receive merit raises (two groups)
• salaries tend to hover at mid-range; hard to get above mid-point, except for hard to fill positions (three groups)
• favoritism is a problem (one group)
• dual employment-no compensation for spouses both having insurance through state (one group)
• in the 70's, medical coverage was given in lieu of raises-employees haven't forgotten (one group)
• lack of equity in managers dispersing raises (one group)
• one classification gets raises, and others don't (one group)
• too much money spent on consultants that could be spent on employees (three groups)
• wage compression (two groups)
• there are still low entry level salaries in some areas (equipment operators) (one group)
• incorrect public perception of what DOT employees earn and what they do (one group)
• hard to control abuses of sick leave (one group)
• full-time, long-term temporary employees do not get benefits (one group)
• problems with health plan-BCBS has coverage restrictions (one group)
• those that work 10 hour days in the summer are only paid for 8-hour holidays (one group)

Suggestions in this area:

Benefits

• vision insurance (three groups)
• dental-expand plan (four groups)
• increase percentage of unused sick leave paid out at retirement or 10 years (one group)
• increase the $4.50 amount to cover health insurance in retirement (one group)
• give double time pay for working holidays (one group)
• more clothing allowances-for good boots, gloves, etc. (two groups)
• pay for tools required/used on the job; all districts should be reimbursed the same for tools purchased for work (make sure policy is consistently implemented) (one group)
• give back the extra 2 hours of holiday pay that used to be given to those employees on the four ten-hour day schedule in the summer (one group)

Salary and compensation policies

• step raises should be given annually (one group)
• when budget is submitted to legislature, ask for more compensation for employees-put together upper management and employee groups to lobby the legislature (three groups)
• have same percentage raise for management as for other employees (one group)
• give same raise in dollar amount (not percentage) to everyone (one group)
• cost of living raise needed (two groups)
• more bonuses needed, based on performance (one group)
• to stop losing people to Minnesota, need to be competitive in pay (one group)
• need to see positive movement in the future; not there yet (one group)
• pay employees two times a month, not just once (one group)
• compensate for training (one group)
• pay should be based on what you do-job performance, not length of time with the organization; spread out pay scales; move people to top of pay scale for job performance (don't lump group together); re-assess what skills are required and pay accordingly (one group)
• compare apples to apples in wage comparisons-include all important skills (one group)
• give significant merit increases periodically (otherwise the small percentages above legislated raises are not very motivating); maintain the merit pay and differences that result throughout employees' careers; don't give merit raises unless they are deserved (two groups)
• look into step increases for all areas (one group)
• quantify or spell out path to compensation, such as merit increases (one group)
• money spent on consultants could be shared with more employees (one group)
• compensate for overseeing and correcting work of consultants (one group)

Other rewards or options (non-compensation)

• supportive letters to the editor from the DOT Commissioner help employees feel supported and appreciated (one group)
• less red tape to get new equipment; get money where it needs to go-less re-routing of funds (one group)
• better lateral movement for employees with experience and qualifications; allow employees to test for other jobs (one group)
• show employees you are listening to them (one group)
• other rewards for good work, such as a half or whole day off (not counted against vacation time) (one group)
• personal touch-email from Director at holidays (one group)
• promote more teamwork; all work together on job (one group)

Public relations-making a case for better compensation

• publish salary info for public vs. private organizations and compare internal to external costs for a job or project (two groups)
• PR needs to improve for state employees; give information to public about what employees are doing-products and efficiency provided, compare productivity with other state DOTs, publish accomplishments (two groups)