<%BANNER%>

Training and motivation

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

TRAINING AND MOTIVATION: KEY TO A QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY-DRIVEN COMPANY CULTURE By LUIS M. CAICEDO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 By Luis M. Caicedo

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family, friends, and all of those professors who made my years at the University of Florida so enriching. Sincere thanks go to my mother for always being there for me every step of the way. I thank you Nauro, Inc. for technical help with the web-survey. I also thank my committee (Drs. Robert Cox, Raymond Issa, and Robert Stroh) for their support with my thesis. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 1 Objectives of Study......................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Limitations..................................................................................................... 2 Methodology Overview .................................................................................................. 3 Thesis Overview ............................................................................................................. 4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................5 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5 Training Factors Involving Quality ................................................................................ 6 Implementing Training into Company Culture............................................................. 12 Motivation Factor in Productivity................................................................................. 13 Implementing Motivation into Company Culture......................................................... 17 Summary of Literature Review..................................................................................... 20 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................23 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 23 Survey Overview .......................................................................................................... 25 Website Survey............................................................................................................. 27 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS............................................................................29 Summary of Literature Review Results........................................................................ 29 Survey Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 29 Survey Response Breakdown ....................................................................................... 30 Group/Category Analysis.............................................................................................. 31 Participant Demographics............................................................................................. 32 Personal Profile...................................................................................................... 32 Company Profile .................................................................................................... 37 iv

PAGE 5

Company Training Implementation Profile.................................................................. 39 Company Motivation Implementation Profile.............................................................. 44 Quality Performance through Training......................................................................... 50 Productivity Performance through Motivation............................................................. 55 Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Turnover ........................................ 62 Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Satisfaction .................................... 66 Characteristics of Effective Training Implementation.................................................. 69 Characteristics of Effective Motivation Implementation.............................................. 78 Improvement Areas to Effective Training and Motivation........................................... 87 Summary of Survey Results ......................................................................................... 92 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................94 Introduction................................................................................................................... 94 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 95 Recommendations for Future Research........................................................................ 96 APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE-LEVEL SURVEY (S1) .........................................................................98 B PROJECT-LEVEL SURVEY (S2).............................................................................102 C SURVEY-PARTICIPANT INVITATION LETTER .................................................109 D SURVEY WEB PAGES.............................................................................................111 E SURVEY ROUGH DATA ANALYSIS.....................................................................116 F SURVEY RESULTS SPREADSHEETS....................................................................199 G RECOMMENDED SURVEY FOR FUTURE RESEARCH......................................216 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................218 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................220 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Overview of surveys................................................................................................25 4-1 Categorized survey responses.................................................................................30 4-2 Maximum performance potential through motivation............................................57 4-3 Identifying statements to effective training implementation...................................71 4-4 Well-defined training program................................................................................73 4-5 Quality performance through training.....................................................................74 4-6 Quality awareness through training.........................................................................74 4-7 New methods and innovations through training......................................................75 4-8 Task efficiency through training.............................................................................76 4-9 Teamwork through training.....................................................................................76 4-10 Personnel training coverage.....................................................................................77 4-11 Identifying statements to effective motivation implementation..............................80 4-12 Employee performance recognition........................................................................82 4-13 Valuing employee-opinion......................................................................................83 4-14 Valuable incentives.................................................................................................83 4-15 Competitive company benefits................................................................................84 4-16 Motivation's significance to productivity................................................................85 4-17 Driving performance with employee motivation....................................................85 4-18 Company incentives on employee productivity......................................................86 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Quality and productivity roadmap...........................................................................22 3-1 Methodology flow chart..........................................................................................24 3-2 Closed loop surveying.............................................................................................27 4-1 Executive level participants.....................................................................................32 4-2 Project level participants.........................................................................................33 4-3 Years with company (ALL)....................................................................................34 4-4 Years with company (EXEC)..................................................................................34 4-5 Years with company (PROJ)...................................................................................35 4-6 Years working in the industry (ALL)......................................................................35 4-7 Years working in the industry (EXEC)...................................................................36 4-8 Years working in the industry (PROJ)....................................................................36 4-9 Estimated annual volume........................................................................................37 4-10 Average project size................................................................................................38 4-11 Years in business.....................................................................................................38 4-12 Estimate # of employees..........................................................................................39 4-13 Companies implementing training programs..........................................................39 4-14 Personnel receiving training....................................................................................40 4-15 Length of establishment of training program..........................................................40 4-16 Source of training....................................................................................................41 4-17 Investment on training.............................................................................................41 4-18 Mandatory company training..................................................................................42 4-19 Training/educational seminars offered....................................................................43 4-20 Minimum hours of training per project-level employee.........................................43 vii

PAGE 8

4-21 Workforce taking advantage of training..................................................................44 4-22 Mentor program.......................................................................................................45 4-23 Employee performance reviews (newly hired).......................................................45 4-24 Employee performance reviews (not newly hired).................................................46 4-25 Continuing-education program benefits..................................................................46 4-26 Companies offering formal employee-recognition events......................................47 4-27 Formal employee-recognition events held annually...............................................47 4-28 Company-sponsored social activities held annually...............................................48 4-29 Performance incentives...........................................................................................48 4-30 Open communication tools......................................................................................49 4-31 Companies offering competitive employee benefits...............................................49 4-32 Trainings influence on quality work......................................................................50 4-33 Quality training and punch-list items ....................................................................51 4-34 Training and employee development......................................................................52 4-35 Trainings influence on task efficiency...................................................................53 4-36 Well-defined training program................................................................................54 4-37 Need for training.....................................................................................................54 4-38 Motivation for a productivity-driven company.......................................................55 4-39 Company motivating environment..........................................................................56 4-40 Maximum performance potential through motivation............................................57 4-41 Companies on employee recognition .....................................................................58 4-42 Employee productivity and performance/salary reviews........................................59 4-43 Feeling valued and appreciated effect on motivation..............................................60 4-44 Valuing employee opinion......................................................................................61 4-45 Company incentives and motivation.......................................................................61 viii

PAGE 9

4-46 Turnover and absenteeism on productivity.............................................................62 4-47 Training on employee turnover...............................................................................63 4-48 Motivation on employee turnover...........................................................................63 4-49 Career development investment and employee turnover........................................64 4-50 Attracting qualified candidates through training.....................................................64 4-51 Motivating workplace and employee turnover........................................................65 4-52 Employee turnover and length of employment.......................................................66 4-53 Company training on job satisfaction......................................................................66 4-54 Motivation on employee satisfaction......................................................................67 4-55 Training on belonging, satisfaction, and performance............................................67 4-56 Training on employee development........................................................................68 4-57 Company-training on employees career and potential...........................................69 4-58 Social activities on morale and satisfaction............................................................69 4-59 Effectively implementing training and motivation..................................................91 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction TRAINING AND MOTIVATION: KEY TO A QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY-DRIVEN COMPANY CULTURE By Luis M. Caicedo May 2003 Chair: Robert Cox Co chair: Raymond Issa Department: Building Construction The objectives of this study were to identify the key factors to achieving a quality and productivity-driven company culture; and to conduct a pilot evaluation of the industrys effectiveness in implementing them. The two factors key to a quality and productivity-driven company culture were training and motivation, as revealed in the literature review and supported by the survey results. Effective training is key to quality performance as much as motivation is to productivity performance. Training and motivation thrive most effectively where an endless and growing commitment from management exists at all levels of implementation. Quality and productivity-driven company cultures have characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates; and higher levels of employee satisfaction. Such a company culture thus benefits from the capability of achieving maximum quality and productivity performance. x

PAGE 11

The industrys implementation of training, although relatively effective, still has room for improvement. Training programs sponsored by the companies in the industry are currently not well defined. But, considering that most of them are still in their first decade of existence (based on the survey responses), they are moving on the right track. In comparison to the current effectiveness in implementation of training, the same cannot be said for the implementation of motivation. The construction industrys effectiveness in implementing motivation at the project personnel level is mediocre and needs special attention with all areas and issues pertaining to workforce motivation. It appears that the over focus on executive-level personnel motivation has blinded the industry to motivating its project-level personnel (who are directly responsible for delivering quality and productivity); and also the bottom line. The construction industry needs more effective implementation of motivation at all levels (in the way of employee recognition when accomplishments in quality and productivity performance are achieved). Effects and interaction of the above factors resulting from this initial study may be used by the construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in an effort to achieve a companys quality and productivity potential. xi

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Statement The chief obstacle confronting the contractor in his quest for a profit is having to operate in a competitive environment (Park and Chapin 1992, p.64). Characterized by its very competitive nature and high bankruptcy rates, the U.S. construction contracting business is faced with various problems remaining competitive both at home and in the international construction market (Nunnally 2000). The decline in productivity and cost effectiveness in recent years evidently served to reduce constructions share of the U.S. gross national product (Nunnally 2001). Increasingly the construction industry faces fierce competition and high-risk, and low-margin returns compared with other industries (Jackson 1999). The increased competition in the construction industry places firm on a constant push to improve capital productivity to remain in business and make a profit (Sanders and Thompson 1999). The construction process, as for other industries, it is important to remember that people are the essential element to improving productivity and cost effectiveness (Nunnally 2001). Perhaps the greatest challenge currently facing the construction industry, and over the next decade, is attracting and retaining qualified workers (Sanders and Thompson, 1999). The Construction Industry Training Report (Paul and Wilson 1999) confirms the continued struggle facing construction companies in finding qualified people at both the craft and management levels (at the cost of performance in terms of productivity and profitability). This is causing companies to re-examine employee 1

PAGE 13

2 relations and the ways in which they are attracting, retaining, and developing their workforce. It is managements responsibility to provide its employees with an environment in which they can thrive and perform at their maximum potential in an effort to establish a quality and productivity-driven company culture. After all, the work of these talented individuals directly brings about the high quality and productivity that reinforces a companys competitive edge. The Center for Construction Productivity and Quality Management at the University of Florida emphasizes low productivity and inadequate quality management (currently evidenced by costly time, budget overruns, and expensive and lengthy claims), as the direct threat facing the construction business (CCPQM 2001). In an industry where clients are increasingly demanding more for less, effective implementation of quality and productivity have become key for construction companies to make a profit and stay in business. Thus, it is necessary to define and analyze those critical factors affecting quality and productivity performance a talented workforce is out to promote. Objectives of Study The objective of this study is to define the key factors, as defined by industry advocates, to achieving a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture; and to evaluate the industrys effectiveness in implementing them. The findings on the effects and interaction of the above factors resulting from this study may be used by the construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in an effort to achieve a companys quality and productivity potential. Scope and Limitations This scope of the thesis results if limited to general contracting companies in the State of Florida, members of the of the AGC (The Associated General Contractors) and the

PAGE 14

3 ABC (Associates Builders and Contractors). Since only those companies appearing in the AGC and ABC membership directories that have a working website or email address were contacted, the results are further limited to this. Furthermore, only professionals within the company personnel at the Executive Level and Project Level were invited to participate. Executive-Level personnel include the CEO, CFO, President, VP, and HR Director. Project-Level personnel include Project Managers, Project Engineer, Superintendents, and other jobsite or project-based professionals. The research covers strictly those professional individuals, as the aim of the thesis is to study quality and productivity performance strictly at the professional level. Consequently, non-professional-level personnel and laborers were not asked to participate. A total of 386 individuals from 116 different companies were invited to participate. Of these 37 individuals from 10 different companies actually participated in the study. In other words, approximately a 10% response was attained within a total of 3 weeks. As a result of the relatively small sample-size available to work with, the study may more accurately apply to those company-demographics characteristic to the participants in this study. The sample demographics include those companies with an estimated annual volume of $10 to $100 million, with less than 100 employees, and average project sizes of $1 to $10 million. Methodology Overview A literature review was made to define the key quality and productivity (Q&P) factors most referenced by industry advocates, which encourage the attraction, retention, and development of a workforce, in an effort to attain a companys performance potential. Surveys were then prepared to evaluate the accuracy, perception, and correlation of the defined key factors to workforce quality and productivity performance, employee

PAGE 15

4 turnover, and employee satisfaction. The effectiveness and the actual level of implementation of these critical Q&P factors on the company culture were then assessed, and recommendations were made on the findings. Thesis Overview This introductory chapter is followed by a literature review in Chapter 2 that defines those key factors to a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture. All key factors are identified and discussed separately in the way they affect quality and productivity according to established studies and theories by industry advocates. The industry advocates recommendation for each key factor to quality and productivity is also discussed in this chapter, along with those secondary issues that affects them. Chapter 3 narrates the methodology used in this study. The process used to acquire and analyze the data is presented in this chapter. The information is acquired from two main sources, the literature review and surveys, respectively. The population sampled in the survey is that of general contracting companies in the state of Florida. These surveys were used to verify the validity and effectiveness in implementation of the key factors defined in the literature review. An analysis on the findings of the data acquired from the surveys is presented in Chapter 4. Each key factor herein is addressed in the way it affects quality, productivity, employee turnover and satisfaction. Rough data and additional charts from the analysis narrative made in this chapter can be found in Appendices D and E. Chapter 5 is the last chapter where a summary of the study along with the conclusions established is presented. Recommendations for future research are also provided in this final chapter denoting those items in need of special attention when conducting similar studies.

PAGE 16

5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction After reviewing quality and productivity studies, journals, books, and other literature, two critical factors kept resurfacing. One of them, directly related to quality, is training. Changing technology, industry consolidation, population shifts, and the shrinking labor pool have led contractors to recognize the need to boost the training and development efforts of their people (Cox and Issa, 2000, p.6). Finding qualified people at the supervisory and management level is one of the top ranked challenges facing an already highly competitive construction industry (Wolfe 1997). While the importance of training seems relatively low by construction firms, given the challenge of finding quality management, the importance of training and education is repeatedly mentioned on every study as a necessity in achieving quality. According to Matthews and Burati (1989), a Construction Industry Institute (CII) study indicated that training performed by contractors resulted in increased quality awareness. The second factor, crucial to productivity is motivation Once again, worker motivation became the center topic in achieving workforce productivity on several studies. The Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness (CICE) Study, probably the most comprehensive study ever made of the U.S. construction industry, confirms that inadequate performance in the areas of training and motivation have significantly led to the problems facing the U.S. construction industry in remaining competitive (BR 1982a, Nunally 2001). As a result of these 5

PAGE 17

6 findings, both training and motivation factors will be analyzed in detail to find the way in which they individually affect quality and productivity, respectively. These factors will be scrutinized and broken down to their influential elements to discover the effective ways to address them. After all, an environment where these quality and productivity stimulating factors are implemented allows for a talented workforce to perform at their maximum potential. Without the awareness and management of these stimulating factors, a contractor is at risk of losing its talented workforce and consequently producing poor quality work at a low productivity level. In turn, these issues and suggestions provide the industry an understanding of areas in need of attention, and on solution proposals that it should apply to excel in the highly competitive construction industry. The individual factors that are critical to quality and to productivity also interact to affect one another, as it will be noted in this study. This interaction is why it is important to consider both quality and productivity issues together when seeking to improve a companys competitive standing. Training Factors Involving Quality Training is found in this study to be the factor with most effect on quality by industry advocates. In an industry where quality awareness is growing, as owners demand more for less, improving company quality-performance through the implementation of training provides that additional edge over the competition to get the job. As respected industry advocate Ariel de Geus puts it, the ability to learn faster [through training] than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage. (Park and Chapin, 1992, p.42) So why have the benefits of training on quality performance been undermined in the construction industry? Recent studies conducted by the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida report that potential reasons

PAGE 18

7 are the cyclical nature of employment, the extreme high volume and growth of the current market, the fear of training and then not retaining the employee, and the lack of evidence that training improves the profitability of the firm (Cox and Issa, 2000, p.4). For quality training to occur and be successful there must first be a desire, be it from the individual or from the person in need of training, to want to get trained or to want to seek training from the employer or elsewhere. Before one can capitalize on the benefits of training, strong management involvement and good employee relations are needed to establish an environment where this desire and the need to get trained can naturally exist and be sustained. A company cannot expect training of others, such as subcontractors and laborers, without first expecting training of itself starting with its construction professionals with the largest authority and power to affect the companys direction. Consequently, the focus of this study is placed on management, at both the executive and project levels, where construction professionals are the responsible party for establishing the expected level of quality and making sure that it is reached. The current necessity for managements role in quality and training is made clear in an exhaustive study of quality related literature undertaken by Saraph, Benson, and Schroeder (1989). In their study of critical factors that are used to achieve quality management in an organization are narrowed to eight critical areas: Role of divisional top management and quality policy Role of quality department Quality-related training Product/service design Supplier quality management Process management and operating procedures Quality data and reporting Employee relations

PAGE 19

8 The third point highlights the acknowledged need for quality-related training being discussed which can only be achieved with the success of the first and second points that represent managements essential role and determination to the quality effort. The control of quality will not improve unless management acts upon it to change work procedure, and to communicate this information effectively to the workforce. Ensuring that the flow of information regarding the quality criteria extends right through to the workforce can change this situation (Churcher and Johnson 1996). This can be further achieved by implementing the hierarchy of quality documents originally introduced in the book titled The Control of Quality on Construction Sites (Churcher and Johnson 1996). These quality documents promote training at all levels, which in turn encourage quality awareness. The quality document levels are: Level 0, specification: From client/design team to contractor Level 1, contractors site quality plan: From contractor head office to staff. May be approved by clients representative. Level 2, inspection and test plan: From contractor site managers or senior engineers to engineers and supervisors. Level 3, method statement: Originates with contractor or subcontractor; for internal use but may be approved by clients representative. Level 4, operation plan: From contractors site engineers to site foremen Level 5, operational feedback Training managers on these and other tools available is essential to improving quality performance in the currently fast-paced information age. After all, without the proper transfer of information or education on the best and current methods available, a companys performance cannot operate at it maximum potential. Many training programs have become stagnant out-dated because they fail to view training as a highly

PAGE 20

9 dynamic process that must evolve along with the rapid changes in technology, information, and resources (Alter and Koontz 1996). A well-respected quality expert named K. Ishikawa influenced greatly the quality movement with his six quality-related characteristics. These included company-wide quality control; education and training in quality control; quality control circles; and quality control audits, among others. Company-wide quality control relates to managements role in promoting quality; education and training in quality control is just as critical in the automobile industry as in construction; quality control circles represent a quality culture where training can subsist; and audits provide a form of employee feedback and involvement (positive employee relations). Corbett (1997) said that maximum staff involvement and feedback (as achieved in training sessions) is crucial to insuring that quality factors are given appropriate consideration. It is worth noting how employee relations are another critical element of a successful quality oriented management team in the effectiveness of establishing and maintaining a desire and need for training. Churcher and Johnson (1996) said quality depends just as much on human interaction between the workforce and management as on the appropriate skills needed to complete the job (p. 29). Managements efforts in maintaining strong employee relations, to achieve a quality-eager culture that is attentive to training, are further supported by Total Quality Management (TQM) principles. In his thesis on the effectiveness of TQM principles, Floyd (1996) confirms through statistical data that better employee relations are commonly achieved when total quality management practices are applied.

PAGE 21

10 Total quality management identifies the existence of both internal and external customers. The external customer defined as the end customer, owner, or client who receives the final product or service and is responsible for the revenue. On the other hand, the internal customers are the contractors employees and are responsible for the profit. A contractor most often deals with a much larger amount of internal customers (employees) than external customers (owner/client). Therefore, a considerable amount of management training focus should be placed on employee relations (internal customers), which in turn lead to the successful implementation of quality. A quality system, according to Kolarik, constitutes a culture of people who functions as a unit or team (Corbett 1997). Trainings emphasis on teamwork and team development is critical in the maintenance of an atmosphere capable of sustaining continuous improvement. Deming (1982) developed fourteen points that are essential to improving and reaching Total Quality Management. Corbett describes Demings principles as a range from the institution of education, self-improvement and leadership training among workers to the elimination of slogans, numerical quotas and financial merit systems, which encourage performance, but may inhibit team spirit and organization growth. His [Demings] principles place the responsibility on management to create a work environment that is conducive to quality improvement through pride in workmanship, commitment and cooperation. (Corbett, 1997, p. 21) After all, management role in learning and developing each individual team members assets and pooling all resources available is critical to accomplish the task result maximize profits (Achor 2000). Demings fourteen points [see: Implementation of Training into Company Culture] complement managements critical role in creating a

PAGE 22

11 pleasant and satisfying environment for its employees where pride, education, self-improvement, leadership, and teamwork coexist. Demings points are to this date validated by industry advocates. It is all of these elements that contribute to an atmosphere in which quality can flourish where people are encouraged and eager to seek training. The incentives for contractors to implement training are clearly there. Contrary to the common misconception that training is costly for contractors, research indicates that training improves employee attitudes and morale and leads to reduced absenteeism and staff turnover (Stewart 2000). A survey by the FMI Corporation, management consultants for the construction industry, found that 86% of the construction companies utilize on-going skills training while 71% reported the use of internal career development as mechanisms to attract and retain good workers. The incentives for training dont stop here. Recent studies support that implementing training effectively provides an evident source of return on investment at the bottom-line of a company. Findings by Card and Kruger in 1992 reinforce this relationship between training and earning power first made in Denisons 1967 studies. Furthermore, studies by Glover support that an increase in the level of training is associated with an increase in productivity (Glover 1999). The individual factors that are critical to both quality and productivity will consequently indirectly affect one another as well. This is why it is important to consider both quality and productivity issues together when seeking to improve a companys competitive standing.

PAGE 23

12 Implementing Training into Company Culture In 1993, a group of industry advocates on Total Quality Management (TQM) published a report that gathered six common traits from twenty different studies selected for their flawless methodology and focus on TQM practices of organizations. This report, titled Does Quality Work? A Review of Relevant Studies (Hiam 1993) became known as the Conference Boards Report Number 1043. Two out of the six traits identified that played a pivotal role in quality managements success included those companies where: Employees were asked and empowered to continuously improve all key business practices. Management nurtured a flexible and responsive corporate culture. High employee interaction and feedback, along with an accommodating company culture, as seen in the above traits, are the first steps to a companys self-sufficient training program where employees are proactive in the desire for maintaining and achieving greater quality. The continuous improvement through employee involvement that training provides is a critical element to the success of total quality management. Deming (1982) proposed the following issues to consider when implementing a training program (and worth applying to any quality-driven company culture) Institute training on the job. Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people, machines, and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production of workers. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial

PAGE 24

13 relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. Put everybody to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybodys job. (Deming, 1986, p.23; Hall, 1997, 91-98) Management as well as all employees should be educated and trained on these or any principles the company culture seeks to embrace as part of their culture. The implementation of training is most effective when it reflects not only its company goals but also the principles and quality standards established as part of its culture. Training programs that focus on improving those skills that will reinforce the strategic goals and objectives of the firm experience greater effectiveness in impacting the bottom-line results of the firm (Cox and Issa 2000). Motivation Factor in Productivity Motivation can be defined as a combination of influences that causes the individual to want to do the job as quickly and/or as good as possible consistent with safety and quality goals while cooperating, on a larger scale, with his team in execution of the project as a whole (Warren, 1989 p. 2). Evidently, motivation drives the employee to perform the task at hand in a timely and efficient manner in unison for a common purpose while preserving quality standards. A motivated team can exert a major influence on the success of a project (Anchor 2000). Conversely, a lack of motivation resulting from low job satisfaction leads to high

PAGE 25

14 employee turnover rates and consequently to a demise of a companys talented and valuable workforce (Whyte 1960). Some of the worker demotivators identified in a study by industry advocates Borcherding and Garnee include: (Nunnally 2001, p.524-5) Disrespectful treatment of workers Lack of sense of accomplishment Non-availability of materials and tools Necessity to redo work Lack of recognition for accomplishments Failure to utilize worker skills Incompetent personnel Inadequate communication between project elements Workers not involved in decision making The Department of Energy indicates in a study that worker turnover and absenteeism can have a major impact on total project productivity (BR 1982b). Efforts to minimize employee turnover and absenteeism on the job must be made through the injection of motivation into the working environment and the employees themselves to help maximize productivity. Studies suggest that increased employee motivation results in increased productivity, and vice-versa, since a motivated employee will seek efficiency solely from the personal satisfaction of being able to perform his job without delays and other interference (Warren 1989). People further attain job satisfaction when their efforts are reflected on the permanent structures they placed their efforts in to produce. Thus, work facilitation is a strong motivator for individuals, and is easily achieved by management through the implementation of construction motivation programs. When it comes to productivity, motivation is of the essence. Motivation is affected by recognition, working environment, responsibility, communication, and rewards among

PAGE 26

15 others. Job conditions, management actions, and rewards can increase or decrease individual effort and its incentives. Motivation driven by financial incentives can be advantageous in that it can lead employees to improve the efficiency of construction methods, and to encourage other more inexperienced or less hard-working co-workers to excel. On the other hand, in striving for higher output and efficiency, quality and safety may be neglected. Likewise, the differences in earnings between employees resulting form incentives or inaccurate bonus rates, may give rise to bad feeling and employee problems onsite. (Heap 1987) It is important to understand that different incentive implementation strategies may be required for different organizations or even different employee groups within the same organization (Boyett 1998). While no single incentive pay strategy is right for everyone, skill-based pay plans that tie an individuals compensation to his or her ability to learn and to perform specific tasks of value to the organization is a good idea (Boyett 1998, p.284). However, incentive programs should be approached with great caution, considering difficulty of measuring employee performance and the variability in the construction environment, which can lead to competition conflicts that tend to harm the team setting in a working environment (BR 1982b). Other literature suggests that high performance can still be realized without the need for conflict-threatening incentives or rewards if upper management gives proper direction with constraints removed, and the employee has adequate knowledge and skills. A workforce will be motivated to attain higher skills that will lead to higher morale and performance when management provides the tools for necessary training, proper recognition, and appropriate communication. (BR 1982b)

PAGE 27

16 Observations of work performance by various industry advocates, including Connellan, Epstein, Johnson, Knapp, Hopper, and Bell, show that while money is not enough to motivate people to perform, rewards do. Rewarding and sincere appreciation for good performance does motivate people to perform better. (Hall 1997) Communication across all levels makes employees feel valued and part of a team, which in turn increases their motivation that leads to higher performance. The Business Round Table Report A-2 Construction Labor Motivation (BR 1982b) affirms how a construction employee will often be highly motivated if there is a sufficient supply of information, equipment, materials, energy and space for the needs of every team. Furthermore, participatory decision making through quality circles greatly improve employee motivation beyond what would normally be accomplished on a well-managed project (BR 1982b). Along with the above issues and methods, a satisfying work environment is essential to the enhancement of motivation on the job. Managers should also show concern for all level employees. Concern for employees capacity for work as it is affected by their age, nutrition, climate, health, and adaptation. Age affects the capacity at which physical labor is performed, but at the same time it is counterbalanced by the experience and efficiency gained from it. Adequate nutrition from balanced meals that provide high calorie and protein content should be encouraged on the site, as it gives workers more energy to perform tasks efficiently. Heat and humidity can lead to decreased work capacity and heat stroke. As a result, management should consider starting work at first light and avoid the heat for the day. Good health at the construction site should be encouraged through the enforcement of good hygiene and sanitation practices. New and unpracticed employees characterized for their initially

PAGE 28

17 low productivity need time to adapt and get instructed to the work before productivity can be improved. In a few words, as Heap puts it, if the employees observe that management is poor, unfair or corrupt, their morale, motivation, and consequently productivity will be reduced. (Heap 1987, p. 91-93) Implementing Motivation into Company Culture The importance of motivation to construction productivity is clear, and is best achieved in a company by implementing the following motivators: (Nunnally 2001, p. 525) Good employee relations, good safety programs, and enjoyable work Good worker orientation programs Well-defined goals, and well-planned projects Good pay, and recognition for accomplishments The implementation of good relations, good safety programs and enjoyable work positively affect job satisfaction and a satisfying work environment. Motivating employees through job satisfaction has proven very effective. A satisfying work environment is one that provides and maintains good working conditions through the implementation of everything from adequate safety standards to even social activities, which will also increase morale among workers. A strong management concern for their employees well being when expressed can be a significant motivator for any workforce. (BR 1982b) Implementing Heaps critical elements that comprise job satisfaction motivation provide a clear guideline for companies seeking to maximize employee-performance. The basic principle a firm should establish to attain is good working conditions, good worker-employee relations, and good terms of employment. The company should then encourage a work environment where employees have a sense of belonging by making

PAGE 29

18 each employees usefulness apparent. At the same time companies should be encouraging employees sense of achievement when performance goals are met, through the use of recognition and acknowledgement to further promote job satisfaction. Finally, pride in skill and a sense of responsibility are also to be encouraged; these should be rewarded with opportunities for advancement and promotion. (Heap 1987) Rewarding employees does not have to be costly. An acknowledgement and an honest show of appreciation can greatly enhance performance at little or no cost at all (Hall 1997). The implementation of good worker orientation programs more closely addresses the importance training and education has in motivating employees to perform. Just-in-time training targeted to each employees specific needs is key to a programs effectiveness. Each employee should be oriented on the specific tools, techniques, methods and technology available to perform their specific task best. (Boyett 1998) A firm can effectively motivate its workforce to perform as a team through the establishment of well-defined goals and well-planned projects, supported by open communication and readily available information to its workforce. Better, timelier, and more complete information about the organizations strategies, goals, and current performance motivates employees to strive for improved human performance (Boyett 1998). As for communication, it must be open and effective. Project orientations, suggestion boxes, newsletters, and bulleting boards have proved to be effective methods of communication other than oral that should be employed. (BR 1982b)

PAGE 30

19 A company seeking to improve the quality and timeliness of the information people receive can boost performance as much as 20 to 50% by providing employees the following two types of information: (Boyett, 1998, p.288) First, they need information to give them direction. They must understand the mission of their company, its business strategy, and what constitutes as performance. Second, they need information for confirmation. They need measures, goals, and objectives they can use to monitor and get feedback on their day-to-day performance. Appreciation in form of recognition by management must be shown to those individuals that engage in efficient practices as a way of stimulating motivation. Proper recognition should offer suitable publicity, or other public show of appreciation. Companies are encouraged to implement strong financial and non-financial incentives that are directly contingent upon superior performance and/or performance improvement (Boyett 1998). These can come in several forms such as awards, paid time-off, promotion, and financial incentives. Company incentives are most effective when employees participate in the development of the incentive system with efforts focused on what is important to the project at hand (Cox, 2000). In this manner it is a win-win situation for the company and its employees since the incentives will motivate individuals to maximize performance for the common benefit of the project. Incentive systems that compensate employees at both the individual and group level have proven most effective. The success of such compensation systems rests on base pay reflecting individuals skills and skill acquisition, while keeping incentive pay tied to group and/or company rather than individual performance. This model is ideal since it

PAGE 31

20 allows for corporate-wide profit sharing and stock ownership, coupled with gain sharing in major operating units. Nevertheless, before this or any such incentive plan is put into action, companies should first train employees to understand the method used to measure and monitor their performance and that of the business, and should hold regular meetings to keep all employees informed about the status of the business (Boyett 1998). A performance appraisal system should seek to measure job specific key performance indicators developed through a collaborative effort with the employee on an individual basis without being too generic. Companies should be reminded that when monitoring employee performance the idea is to measure to improve not to punish, the evaluation must conclude with an agreed upon strategy to improve (Cox 2000, p.31). Summary of Literature Review A strong correlation exists between training to quality, and between motivation to productivity. The literature review further reveals (Figure 2-1) how those implementing training and motivation into their company culture are more effective at attracting, retaining, and developing its workforce. Consequently, these company cultures are characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates and a higher level of employee satisfaction. These benefits of training and motivation, as evidenced from industry advocates in the literature review, provide those companies that implement them effectively into their company culture a higher quality and productivity performance potential. Training and motivation thrive most effectively where an endless and growing commitment from management exists at all levels of implementation. Such company culture will consequently benefit from the capability of achieving maximum quality and productivity performance. Attaining this quality-and-productivity-driven company culture results in a significantly higher competitive edge that serves to balance out the

PAGE 32

21 inequities between the high-risk to low-marginal-returns (profits) characteristic of the current construction environment. Figure 2-1 shows how training and motivation ultimately lead to quality and productivity performance. The dark exterior arrows show this primary relationship while emphasizing the more direct connections found between training to quality and motivation to productivity. The other two types of arrows within the figure display secondary relationships and connections between the issues affected, which serve to reinforce the primary relationship. Notice how a talented workforce, supported by the exterior dark arrows at the center of the figure, plays a crucial role in the way quality and productivity is reached through training and motivation. For the implementation of training and motivation to be effective and sustainable it must be infused into the company culture. The figure encloses company culture in a shaded ellipse to illustrate how it entails time to evolve and grow to embrace the key factors to quality and productivity referenced herein. The sequence the figure follows can be interpreted as follows. Implementation of training and motivation into a company culture provide for a working environment characteristic of high satisfaction where the attraction, retention, and development of a talented workforce are stimulated. This consequently minimizes employee turnover and improves a companys competitive edge through high quality-and-productivity performance.

PAGE 33

22 Figure 2-1. Quality and productivity roadmap

PAGE 34

23 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Methodology Figure 3-1 illustrates the methodology used for this research. As the methodology shows, this thesis will first define and measure those key critical factors that lead to a quality-and-productivity-driven (Q&P) company culture, which encourages the attraction, retention, and development of a talented workforce, in an effort to attain a companys performance potential. Moreover, once these Q&P factors are analyzed, this study will then determine the current effectiveness of their implementation by the construction industry. The thesis will follow the following structure and sequence. Information will be gathered at the Input stage from literature review and surveys, respectively. The literature review will focus on defining the key quality and productivity factors as referenced by industry advocates. Before the surveys are prepared, all the factors collected from the literature review will be analyzed, weighted, and narrowed-down, as shown in the Processing stage, to obtain only those critical factors that have the most profound effect on workforce quality and productivity. Only the most critical factors, once defined, will be considered. Surveys will then be prepared to evaluate the accuracy, perception, and correlation of the defined critical factors to workforce quality and productivity, employee turnover, and satisfaction, as illustrated in the Processing stage in Figure 1-2. It will also be 23

PAGE 35

24 interesting to note the effectiveness and the actual level of implementation of these critical Q&P factors into the company culture of the surveyed entity or individual. The final stage in the methodology is the Output stage where all the individual results previously evaluated have been sorted to obtain more accurate overall results. The categories in which the results will be sorted are designed to characterize a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture. The categories selected are a companys competitive edge, productivity and quality, employee turnover, and employee satisfaction. Consequently, the final Output will be a set of measured effects of the critical Q&P factors, earlier determined in the literature review and analyzed, on a quality-and-productivity driven company culture where a performance potential is met and maintained. Figure 3-1. Methodology flow chart

PAGE 36

25 Survey Overview Two different surveys were prepared and presented to each general contracting company. As Table 3-1 shows, the first survey [S1] contains questions that are designed to obtain basic company-specific information and facts. This survey is to be completed only by someone with authority within the Executive Level of the company. The second survey [S2] is a more personalized one that focuses on an individuals perceptions and experiences. This later survey is to be completed by both Executive Level and Project Level personnel, where they are asked for their level of agreement to a series of statements on a Likert scale. The participants may choose with each statement to: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree, or may choose the statement is not applicable to them. A copy of the executive-level survey (S1) and project-level survey (S2) can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Table 3-1. Overview of surveys SURVEY 1 (S1) SURVEY 2 (S2) I. Company specific information and facts. I. Individuals perceptions and experiences. II. Executive Level ( Only ) Macro-Level Administrative Personnel CEO, CFO, President, VP II. Executive Level, and Macro-Level Administrative Personnel CEO, CFO, President, VP Project Level Micro-Level Operational Personnel Project Manager, Superintendent, Project Engineer, Estimator, Secretary/Accountant III. Twenty-eight (28) multiple choice questions III. Fifty-four (54) statements participants provide their level of agreement to on a 7-point Likert Scale

PAGE 37

26 The Executive Level, as mentioned above, is composed of those individuals high up in the company structure with authority that administer the company in a macro-level. Whereas, the Project Level is composed of those individuals directly employed by the general contractor that are most commonly found on a job-site performing daily management and supervisory activities for a specific project, thus in a micro-level. These individuals include: Project Managers, Superintendents, Project/Field Engineers, Estimators, and Secretaries/Accountants. This type of closed loop surveying, illustrated in Figure 3-2, gives a more accurate overall company condition by considering the perception of individuals at both the macro and micro levels within a typical construction company. The Closed Loop Surveying figure further illustrates that information gathered to be used as test factors [I, II] and that used as input sorting information [II, IV]. The test factors refer to the perception of individuals on their own and their companys Q&P performance, and the way in which their companies implement or act on them. The input sorting is composed of company data and individuals data. Company and individual specific information (such as number of employees, work volume, work experience, years employed, etc.) is used for input sorting when evaluating the test factors.

PAGE 38

27 Figure 3-2. Closed loop surveying Website Survey General contracting companies appearing in the AGC (The Associated General Contractors) and the ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors) membership directories for the years 2000 and 2002, respectively, that have working website or email address were invited to participate in the survey. A letter of invitation to participate in the study was sent via email to executive and project level personnel with addresses made public by either their companys website or by the ABC and AGC directories. This invitation

PAGE 39

28 letter contained a link that automatically directed the individual to the survey website. A copy of the survey invitation letter emailed to participants can be found in Appendix C. Once on the website the participant selects and completes the survey that best fits its job title or position. When the survey is completed the participant is asked to click on a link titled End Survey which automatically generates an output file of the responses. Additional information presented on the website can be found in Appendix D.

PAGE 40

29 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Summary of Literature Review Results The key factors to a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture, according to an extensive literature review of related material, were determined to be training and motivation. Although both factors are inter-related and can both affect quality and productivity performance in some way, overall, it was evident that training was most critical to quality performance while motivation was found to be most critical to productivity performance. In addition, the literature review suggests that quality-and-productivity-driven company cultures are characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates and higher levels of satisfaction. Survey Data Analysis Surveys prepared and distributed to contractors are designed to confirm the validity of the identified key factors, and to evaluate the effectiveness in their implementation by the industry. As explained in the Survey Overview section of this thesis, the first survey [S1] contains questions designed to obtain basic company-specific information, completed by personnel in the Executive Level (i.e. CEO, President, VP, etc.) of the company. The second survey [S2] is a more personalized one that focuses on an individuals perceptions and experiences, completed by both Executive Level and Project Level (i.e. PM, Superintendent, PE, etc.) personnel, where they are asked for their level of agreement on a Likert scale to a series of statements. Refer to Appendices A and B for both surveys as 29

PAGE 41

30 presented on the website. The rough data results from both surveys are found in Appendix E, while Appendix F contains the responses in spreadsheet form. Survey Response Breakdown A total of 116 companies were contacted via email and invited to participate in the survey. In its entirety, 389 emails were sent out directly to the individuals email when available and/or to the general-information email address provided by the company. Out of the gross number of emails sent, 50 were deemed undeliverable for several reasons, including but not limited to: outdated email address, unable to contact server, etc. Survey responses were received for a period of three weeks, during which two extra survey-participant invitations were distributed via email as a reminder to complete the survey. Table 4-1 displays the actual amount of responses received. During the three-week period a total of thirty-seven people from ten different companies participated in the survey, from which twenty-three are executive level personnel and fourteen are project level personnel. The higher level of Executive-level participants to Project-level participants is largely due to the fact that most of the emails publicly available are those of executives. The executive level participants completed both surveys [S1 and S2], while the project level participants were only asked to complete one of the two [S2]. Table 4-1. Categorized survey responses Survey Participants Total No. # Description # Description % Questions [S1] Company-specific Data 23 Executive Level only 100% 28 [S2] Individual Perception 14 Executive Level, and 62% 23 Project Level 38% 37 100% 54

PAGE 42

31 In total there were thirty-seven participants for Survey 2, and twenty-three participants for Survey 1. Sixty-two percent of the responses to the statement-perception survey [S2] came from executive level personnel, while the project level personnel makes up the remaining 38 percent. Four out of the ten different companies that completed the survey have participants at both the executive and project levels. The names of the participating companies were not disclosed for confidentiality reasons. Instead, the companies were labeled alphabetically. The four companies with participants from both the executive and project levels were identified as companies A, B, C, and D. The raw data results from these surveys are found in Appendix E, while Appendix F contains the responses to both surveys in spreadsheet form. Group/Category Analysis The rough data obtained from the two surveys was analyzed in three mayor categories for clearer interpretation. Each response to a question in the statement perception survey [S2] was collectively categorized into the executive level personnel responses (EXEC), the project level personnel responses (PROJ), and the general responses of both executive and project level personnel all together (ALL). Appendix E includes the rough-data analysis of the above three categories for this survey. Graphic tools such as pie charts, bar charts, and line graphs were used as an aid to demonstrate in a more visual manner the degree of selection for each response, which in turn allows for easier comparison across the board between data.

PAGE 43

32 Participant Demographics Personal Profile All participants, from both the executive and project level, were asked to provide their job-title, the number of years working for their current company, and the number of years working in the industry. This information was important to recognize areas where experience and job title have a significant effect on the individuals response. A close look at the job-titles of the survey participants revealed how company vice-presidents largely represented executive level participants, and how project managers represented the majority of the project level participants. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the executive and project level participants job titles, respectively. Figure 4-1 shows Vice-Presidents making up 48% of the executive-level participants. Followed by Presidents at 17%, Human-Resources Managers and CEOs at 9% each, and the remaining executive participants at 4% each. Figure 4-1. Executive level participants [N=23]

PAGE 44

33 Figure 4-2 shows Project Managers making up 36% of the project-level participants. Followed by Project Engineers at 21%, Estimators at 14%, and the remaining project-level participants at 7% each. Figure 4-2. Project level participants [N=14] Once the representation of the participants from each level was identified, the work experience at both the executive and project levels was defined. The executive and project-level participants experience in terms of years with their company is illustrated in Figures 4-3 through 4-5, while their experience in terms of years in the industry is as seen in Figures 4-6 through 4-8. The figures analyze the responses at all three categories, as discussed in the Group/Category Analysis section of the Survey Response Breakdown in this Chapter. According to the survey results, as Figure 4-3 shows, 43% of both executive and project-level participants (ALL) have been with their current company for anywhere between 2 to 10 years. Followed by 24% that have worked with the same company for

PAGE 45

34 10 to 20 years. At last, out of the remaining 32%, half (16%) have worked for more than 20 years while the other half (16%) have for less than 2 years. Figure 4-3. Years with company (ALL) [N=37] Figure 4-4 shows that 35% of executive-level participants (EXEC) have been with their current company for anywhere between 2 to 10 years. Followed with 26% each by that group that has worked with the same company for 10 to 20 years, and that which has for more than 20 years. The remaining 13% have worked for less than 2 years for their company. Figure 4-4. Years with company (EXEC) [N=23] Figure 4-5 shows that 57% of project-level participants (PROJ) have been with their current company for anywhere between 2 to 10 years. Followed with 21% each by that group that has worked with the same company for 10 to 20 years, and that which has for

PAGE 46

35 less than 20 years. None of the project-level participants have worked for their current company for more than 20 years. Figure 4-5. Years with company (PROJ) [N=14] According to the survey results, as Figure 4-6 shows, 46% of both executive and project-level participants (ALL) have been working in the construction industry for more than 20 years. Followed by 38% that have worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years. At last, out of the remaining 16%, half (8%) have worked for anywhere between 2 to 10 years while the other half (8%) have for less than 2 years. Figure 4-6. Years working in the industry (ALL) [N=37] Figure 4-7 shows that 52% of executive-level participants (EXEC) have been working in the industry for anywhere between more than 20 years. Followed by 39% that have

PAGE 47

36 worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years. Out of the remaining 8% of executives, half (4%) have worked for anywhere between 2 to 10 years while the other half (4%) has for less than 2 years. Figure 4-7. Years working in the industry (EXEC) [N=23] Figure 4-8 shows that the group that has worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years, and that which has for more than 20 years each represents 36% of the project-level participants. Out of the remaining 28% of project-level participants, half (14%) have worked for anywhere between 2 to 10 years while the other half (14%) have for less than 2 years. Figure 4-8. Years working in the industry (PROJ) [N=14] The previous six figures reveal that the average responded has more than 20 years of work experience in the industry, out of which at least half of that time has not been by

PAGE 48

37 working under their current employer. It is interesting to note that none of the project level respondents have been with their current company for more than 20 years, while twenty-six percent of executive level respondents have. Yet over one-third of the project-level participants have worked in the industry for more than 20 years, while over one-half of executive-level participants have worked in the industry for more than 20 years. Furthermore, out of the 46% of participants (ALL) that have been working in the industry for more than 20 years, only 16% have spent at least 20 of those years working for their current company. That is a difference of 30% of both executive and project-level participants (ALL) that have worked for at least more than one employer up to this point in their career. The percentage gaps between those years working in the industry and those working for the current company by both level participants give us an insight into the employee turnover experienced in the companies of the sample surveyed. Company Profile An estimated annual company volume ranging from $10 to $100 million was common for 78% of the companies participating in the survey, while the remaining 22% experienced annual volume of $100 to $500 million [Figure 4-9]. Figure 4-9. Estimated annual volume [N=23]

PAGE 49

38 It was also found that of the companies surveyed 78% had an average construction project size of $1 to $10 million, while just 13% of the companies maintained an average project size of $10 million or more. The remaining 9% of the companies had average project sizes of less than $1 million. [Figure 4-10] Figure 4-10. Average project size [N=23] Most (40%) of the companies that participated in the survey have been in business for more than 80 years. Thirty percent of the companies have been in business for anywhere between 20 to 40 years, seventeen percent for 40 to 80 years, and thirteen percent for 10 to 20 years. [Figure 4-11] Figure 4-11. Years in business [N=23] The number of employees is estimated at less than 100 hundred for 70% of the companies surveyed, while the remaining 30% estimate anywhere between 100 to 1,000

PAGE 50

39 employees [Figure 4-12]. Although, contractors employing one hundred or more workers make up less than 1 percent of the nations construction firms, they still account for about 30 percent of the value of work performed (Nunnally, 2001, p.2). Figure 4-12. Estimate # of employees [N=23] The later data reveals how the majority of the survey participants work for small to medium-sized general contracting companies. Consequently, the survey results will more closely apply to similarly sized companies in the Florida construction industry. Company Training Implementation Profile While most (78%) companies, according to executive level participants, implement a formal training program, there are still 22% of them that dont implement one at all [Figure 4-13]. Figure 4-13. Companies implementing training programs [N=37]

PAGE 51

40 The training is offered to all-level personnel in 61% of those companies surveyed. On 17% of the companies the training is offered to only entry-level personnel, while the remaining 22% of the companies do not offer training at all. [Figure 4-14] Figure 4-14. Personnel receiving training [N=23] Forty-seven percent of all the companies surveyed have their training programs in place for anywhere between the last 2 to 10 years. Twenty-two percent of the companies have one established for more than 10 years. Nine percent recently established one in the past 2 years. Note that the remaining 22% of the companies do not have one established in the first place. Although most of the companies have been in business for over 80 years seen in Figure 4-11, these formal training programs are still relatively new. Over 70% of only those companies that actually offer a formal training program started implementing it within the last 10 years. [Figure 4-15] Figure 4-15. Length of establishment of training program [N=23]

PAGE 52

41 Fifty-two percent of the companies surveyed have training programs where training is performed by both the company (In-house) and outside individuals/organizations. Twenty-six percent have training performed solely by the company (In-house), while the remaining 22% do not offer a formal training program at all. [Figure 4-16] Figure 4-16. Source of training [N=23] The estimated dollar amount spent on training for each individual per year is less than $500 for 43% of the companies surveyed. Twenty-two percent of the companies spend $500 to $1,000 per year. Another 22% of them spend more than $2,000. The remaining 13% of the companies spend $1,000 to $2,000 per year in training for each individual. [Figure 4-17] Figure 4-17. Investment on training [N=23]

PAGE 53

42 While in most cases both the company personnel and an outside organization perform the training provided by the employer, the average company invests less than $500 per individual annually on training. This is considerably lower than the national average amount invested in senior level and middle level management personnel of $2000 and $1000, respectively (Cox and Issa 2000). This translates to an average investment in ALL training of 2.3% as a percentage of payroll (Cox and Issa 2000). Of the training offered by the average company, only "some" of it is mandatory. Forty-four percent of the companies surveyed state that some training is mandatory. Seventeen percent state that all training is mandatory. Nine percent deem most of the training mandatory. Four percent do not have mandatory training. The remaining 26% of all companies surveyed found the question not applicable to them for the most part because they do not offer a training program in the first place. [Figure 4-18] Figure 4-18. Mandatory company training [N=23] Thirty-nine percent of the companies surveyed offer 3 to 4 training/educational seminars per year to jobsite-level (project-level) personnel on average. Thirty-five percent offers 2 of them on average. Thirteen percent offers one per year. Nine percent offer more than 4 per year, while the remaining 4% of the companies do not offer these training seminars to jobsite-level (project-level) personnel. [Figure 4-19]

PAGE 54

43 Figure 4-19. Training/educational seminars offered [N=23] The minimum hours of training per jobsite-level (project-level) employee per year are less than 12 hours according to 57% of the companies surveyed. Twenty-six percent of them offered a minimum of 12 to 24 hours of training, while the remaining 17% of the companies offered 24 to 48 hours minimum. None of the surveyed companies offered more than 48 hours of training as a minimum to their project-level personnel. [Figure 4-20] Figure 4-20. Minimum hours of training per project-Level employee [N=23] The two previous figures illustrate how average most companies offer three to four training seminars annually for project-level personnel that all together total less than 12 hours.

PAGE 55

44 Forty-eight percent of executives affirm that less than of their companys workforce takes advantage of training/educational seminars. Thirty-one percent affirm to of their companys workforce, thirteen percent affirm more than and the remaining 9% of executives felt it was more of to of their companys workforce that takes advantage of training. [Figure 4-21] Figure 4-21. Workforce taking advantage of training [N=23] Company Motivation Implementation Profile Motivation can come in many forms as discussed in the literature review. The statements analyzed on this section deal with those issues that most closely affect workforce motivation as defined in the literature review. Some of those issues include: formal recognition events, education programs, incentives, mentor programs. Mentor programs usually involve the assignation of a company individual to guide and advice an employee, most commonly a newly hired one, in an effort to assist on his/her development with the company. Survey results show that thirty-nine percent of the companies surveyed generally assign a mentor to a newly hired individual. Thirty-five percent sometimes assign a newly hired individual a mentor, twenty-two percent generally do not, and four percent of these companies always do. [Figure 4-22]

PAGE 56

45 Figure 4-22. Mentor program [N=23] Formal employee performance reviews for new hires are held semi-annually by 53% of the companies surveyed. Thirty percent hold them annually, 13% of the companies vary their frequency, while 4% never hold performance reviews for newly hires at all. [Figure 4-23] Figure 4-23. Employee performance reviews (newly hired) [N=23] Survey results show that the majority of all newly hired individuals are assigned a mentor and are given formal employee performance reviews semi-annually, as Figure 4-23 revealed. On the other hand, formal employee performance reviews for all other personnel are used by all the companies, and are usually held on an annual basis. Formal employee performance reviews for all other hires are held annually by 70% of the companies surveyed. Seventeen percent hold them semi-annually, and 13% of the

PAGE 57

46 companies vary the frequency they hold formal employee performance reviews. [Figure 4-24] Figure 4-24. Employee performance reviews (not newly hired) [N=23] The majority of the companies are also implementing continuing-education program benefits, such as a tuition reimbursement program. Thirty-six percent of the companies surveyed generally implement such program, 30% of the companies surveyed always implement it, and 17% sometimes do. Companies that generally do not implement continuing-education program benefits make up 13% of those surveyed, and those that never implement it make up 4%. [Figure 4-25] Figure 4-25. Continuing-education program benefits [N=23]

PAGE 58

47 Formal events where employees are recognized and rewarded for their contributions are established in 78% of the companies; the remaining 22% do not have such events formally established [Figure 4-26]. Figure 4-26. Companies offering formal employee-recognition events [N=23] Thirty-five percent of the companies surveyed hold 2 to 4 of these formally established employee-recognition events annually. Thirty percent hold these events once a year; thirteen percent hold these more than 4 times a year. The remaining 22% of the companies surveyed do not offer these employee recognition events at all; those companies responded not applicable. [Figure 4-27] Figure 4-27. Formal employee-recognition events held annually [N=23] Social activities sponsored by the company for its employees are offered by 87% of the companies surveyed; the remaining 13% do not hold any at all. Forty-eight percent of

PAGE 59

48 the companies surveyed hold social activities 2 to 4 times per year. Twenty-two percent of the companies surveyed hold these social activities more than 4 times a year, while 17% of them do it only once a year. [Figure 4-28] Figure 4-28. Company-sponsored social activities held annually [N=23] According to executives the most common performance incentives used by their companies are financial incentives, awards, promotion, and paid time off, respectively. Financial incentives are used by 87% of the companies surveyed, awards by 74%, promotion by 65%, and paid time off by 43% of them. Seventeen percent of the companies surveyed also implemented other incentives in addition, while 4% did not use any form of incentives at all. Most companies offer all four of the prior incentives to motivate its workforce, while the remaining use a combination of them. [Figure 4-29] Figure 4-29. Performance incentives [N=23]

PAGE 60

49 In an effort to promote open communication within the company, the preferred method was reported to be through newsletters. Suggestion boxes are also a popular means of communication. As for performance incentives, companies used a combination of these tools to promote open communication. Sixty-five percent of the companies surveyed provided newsletters, followed by 39% that used suggestion boxes, 35% used other tools, and 30% used bulletin boards. Twenty-two percent of the companies found the question not applicable to them. [Figure 4-30] Figure 4-30. Open communication tools [N=23] According to the surveyed company executives, 61% of the companies offer competitive employee benefits, while the other 39% affirm they offer employee benefits that exceed the industry. [Figure 4-31] Figure 4-31. Companies offering competitive employee benefits [N=23]

PAGE 61

50 Quality Performance through Training Survey results show that most executive and project level personnel (80%) agree that company-training efforts had improved their quality performance. Furthermore, an even higher percentage (95%) of them agree to some level that the overall quality awareness was improved through company training. Although company sponsored training leads to improved quality awareness and performance, it is important to evaluate the direct influence training has on a company culture in increasing its commitment to producing quality work, see Figure 4-32. This influence is most perceived by project personnel, as reflected by their high (93%) level of agreement, in contrast to the lower (70%) level of agreement by executives. This difference is due in part to 26% of them that found it not applicable. Figure 4-32. Trainings influence on quality work [N=37]

PAGE 62

51 Conceivably, while company training keeps its workforce up to speed with new methods and innovations that improve the quality of work, this benefit is most perceived at the project level rather than at the executive. In response to the question in Figure 4-33 stating that the number of punch-list or deficient items had been reduced since the introduction of quality training, 57% somewhat agreed, but the statement received a 27% response of being not applicable by both executive and project level participants. This could be interpreted in two ways: either most participants dont directly deal with punch-list items, or they just do not find a connection between quality training and punch-list items. Initially the logic and the aim of the question was that when applying quality training one is made more aware of potentially deficient items (punch-list items) and can act to prevent them from occurring, resulting in a reduction of the items. Off course something that was or was not prevented from happening is hard to measure and track especially when each project can present new and unique challenges that are not common from project to project, be it a result of new building issues or new individuals in the construction team. Figure 4-33. Quality training and punch-list items [N=23]

PAGE 63

52 Ninety-seven to one hundred percent of all survey participants strongly agree their company thinks that training employees is beneficial to company quality performance, and that their investment in training leads to increased time and money savings. It is interesting to note that although there is a 97% agreement from both executives and project level personnel that their company values the benefits of training, not all project level participants agree that their company feels this training is as important for their development. Figure 4-34 illustrates that while 100% of executives believe their company indeed feels that training is an important part of their development, 14% of project level personnel disagree (while the remaining 86% agree) with their companys importance placed in training as part of their development. Figure 4-34. Training and employee development [N=37] It is interesting to note that the 14% of the project level personnel seen here also feel their current company training is ineffective and poorly defined. Nevertheless, they all strongly agree that company training is important and that more training opportunities are

PAGE 64

53 needed. So far the survey results make known project level personnels stronger desire for training and its benefits than the executives themselves. To further confirm this tendency, Figure 4-35 illustrates how 70% of executives in comparison to 93% of project level participants are in agreement with the fact that training had made them more efficient at completing their tasks. Twenty-six percent of the executive-level personnel found the statement not applicable to them, while none of the project-level personnel responded in the same manner. Perhaps executives do not find training as having as much of a direct connection with task efficiency as project-level personnel does. Another reason for this difference could rest in that executives are not involved on as many task-oriented activities as project-level personnel is exposed to as part of their job. Figure 4-35. Trainings influence on task efficiency [N=37] Even though 96% strongly agree their company encourages training and 86% feel the training programs are effective, as survey results show, there is still 27% of all

PAGE 65

54 participants that feel the companys training program is not well defined. On the other hand, there is the 70% of both executive and project-level participants that responded favorably to their company having a well-defined training program [Figure 4-36]. Figure 4-36. Well-defined training program [N=37] For executive and project level personnel, company-sponsored training is important and it has been beneficial to them. Moreover, most strongly agree that additional company sponsored training opportunities are needed. Seventy-five percent of all respondents responded favorably to the need for more company-sponsored training, while 22% disagree to some level of such need. [Figure 4-37] Figure 4-37. Need for training [N=37]

PAGE 66

55 Productivity Performance through Motivation Out of all the survey participants no one objected to the fact that maximum productivity potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. The survey results reveal that motivating employees is beneficial to job and productivity performance. Executive and project level personnel showed a high-level of agreement with the statement that company motivation encourages more productive work. Interestingly enough, while all executives surveyed believe management feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company, 21% of project level participants are in disagreement [Figure 4-38]. This 21% also believes that company motivation is indeed beneficial to job performance and strongly agree that a motivated workforce significantly influences the success of a project. Furthermore, while this group of project-level personnel agrees that feeling valued and appreciated by their company motivates them, they all feel the company doesnt value their opinion. Two out of three from this group of project level personnel believe their company does not promote a sufficiently motivating environment and are not currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential. Figure 4-38. Motivation for a productivity-driven company [N=23; N=14]

PAGE 67

56 Evidence to the possible motivation preference placed on executives versus other personnel can be seen from the 96% level of agreement by executives in comparison to the 86% level of agreement by project level personnel to the statement that their company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment [Figure 4-39]. Overall both executive and project level personnel somewhat agreed with the above statement. Even though the level of agreement percentages are relatively high, there is still more improvement needed from the companies to achieve a truly motivating environment with especial consideration placed on project level personnel motivation. Management needs to do a better job at keeping its workforce motivated. Twenty percent of the participants do not feel that management is doing a good job motivating its workforce. Even 17% of the high level executives themselves are in disagreement with the statement that management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. Figure 4-39. Company motivating environment [N=23; N=14] The survey results reveal a difference in the levels of motivation between executive and project level personnel. Figure 4-40 shows how approximately 30% of the project participants are in disagreement with the statement that they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential.

PAGE 68

57 Figure 4-40. Maximum performance potential through motivation [N=23; N=14] Conversely, the executives showed no disagreement to the same statement, instead 91% of them were in agreement with being motivated to perform up to their maximum potential, while the remaining 9% found it not applicable [Table 4-2]. Table 4-2. Maximum performance potential through motivation I AM CURRENTLY MOTIVATED TO PERFORM UP TO MY MAXIMUM POTENTIAL (EXEC) (PROJ) # Resp Response # Resp Response 0% 0 Strongly Disagree 7% 1 Strongly Disagree 0% 0 Disagree 7% 1 Disagree 0% 0% 0 Somewhat Disagree 29% 14% 2 Somewhat Disagree 13% 3 Somewhat Agree 14% 2 Somewhat Agree 61% 14 Agree 36% 5 Agree 91% 17% 4 Strongly Agree 71% 21% 3 Strongly Agree 9% 2 N/A 0% 0 N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% 14 Total Responses Although 75% of this group of project level personnel agrees that their company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment, the same respondents also feel their company does not recognize their performance or value their opinion. This is important since 3 out of 4 of the individuals in that 29% group also agree that feeling valued by the company motivates them. Half of that 29% of project level personnel believe management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. They all in turn

PAGE 69

58 strongly agree a motivated workforce significantly influences the success of a project. Furthermore, along with the other project level individuals, they all agree company motivation is beneficial to job performance and acknowledge that maximum productivity potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. While most people agree that they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential, the question now is whether they feel the company is recognizing their performance appropriately. As we learned from the literature review in this study, recognition is a very important part of employee motivation. When management recognizes an employees performance and dedication, motivation can be increased and maintained. Survey participants agree their company recognizes their performance appropriately, but a closer look at Figure 4-41 reveals that 21% of project level and 13% of executive level personnel are actually in some form of disagreement with this statement. This leads to the conclusion that companies still have improvements to make in the way they are recognizing their employees performance. Companies cannot ignore the need for employee-recognition since as the survey results reflect it can greatly affect motivation, which in turn affects task efficiency that leads to maximum performance and high productivity. After all, a motivated workforce considerably influences the success of a project. Figure 4-41. Companies on employee recognition [N=23; N=14]

PAGE 70

59 Survey participants were also asked to provide their opinion on whether they felt people are more productive at or around the time of performance/salary reviews. The general response was not very affirmative, as Figure 4-42 illustrates most participants only somewhat agreed to the statement. One third of all respondents expressed a level of disagreement with this statement, largely coming from 57% of the project level personnel in contrast to 17% of the executive level personnel that also expressed disagreement. On the other hand, the remaining 83% of executives feel that people are indeed in some degree more productive at or around the time of performance/salary reviews. Once again a considerable difference between executives and project level personnel is seen. Figure 4-42. Employee productivity and performance/salary reviews [N=23; N=14] The basic conception behind the statement in question is that one is willing to perform more productively at or around the time of such review since ones dedication to high productive performance should ideally result in valuable recognition and/or rewards by ones company. Even though performance/salary reviews have some effect on employee productivity performance at or around the time at which they are held as the results suggest, there are too many mixed feelings by employees overall to validate and much less generalize this statement.

PAGE 71

60 Other important elements affecting motivation are also addressed in the survey to evaluate how effective companies generally are at implementing them. These elements include feeling valued and appreciated, company incentives, working conditions, social activities, and company benefits. Feeling valued and appreciated by the company motivates both executive and project level participants as seen in Figure 4-43, for most of them strongly agree. Figure 4-43. Feeling valued and appreciated effect on motivation [N=37] It is not a complex relationship to understand that feeling valued and appreciated by ones employer is motivating. Yet the companies surveyed are having difficulties with effectively projecting this feeling to their employees across all levels, as Figure 4-44 illustrates. Approximately one third (31%) of project level personnel as compared to only 4% of executives say they dont feel their respective company values their opinion. In other words, companies surveyed are more effective at making executive-level personnel feel valued than they are at making the project-level personnel feel the same way.

PAGE 72

61 Figure 4-44. Valuing employee opinion [N=23; N=14] Company incentives proved to be another area where inequities between executive level and project level can be perceived, as Figure 4-45 illustrates. While all executives feel without any disagreement that their company incentives motivate them to be more productive, 29% of project level personnel feel otherwise. The reason for this can be deducted from the 91% agreement from executives to the company currently offering them valuable incentives, versus the lower 79% agreement to the same statement from project level personnel. Figure 4-45. Company incentives and motivation [N=23; N=14]

PAGE 73

62 Most companies, over 92% of them, offer appropriate working conditions and competitive benefits according to the project and executive personnel. As for social activities, the majority of all participants (87%) believe their company sponsors social activities that increase the morale among workers. Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Turnover The survey results further confirm employee turnover and absenteeism strongly influence productivity performance. Executive and project-level personnel are all in agreement with the statement that worker turnover and absenteeism can have a major impact on total project productivity. Eighty-one percent of all participants strongly agree with the statement, 16% agree, and 3% somewhat agree. [Figure 4-46] Figure 4-46. Turnover and absenteeism on productivity [N=37] Effective training as well as effective motivation minimizes employee turnover, as survey results illustrate in Figures 4-21b and 4-21c. A closer look at training shows how 39% percent of all participants somewhat agree with the statement that effective training minimizes employee turnover. In addition, thirty-two percent agree, 16% strongly agree, 8% somewhat disagree, and 5% disagree with the same statement. Overall, 87% of all participants responded favorably to trainings ability in minimizing employee turnover. [Figure 4-47]

PAGE 74

63 Figure 4-47. Training on employee turnover [N=37] Similarly, motivation received a favorable response on its ability to minimize turnover. When the same participants were asked for their level of agreement to, 40% of all participants agree with the statement that effective motivation minimizes employee turnover. An additional 30% somewhat agree, 24% strongly agree, 3% somewhat disagree, and 3% disagree. In total, 96% of all participants responded favorably to motivations ability in minimizing employee turnover. [Figure 4-48] Figure 4-48. Motivation on employee turnover [N=37] Although both factors were perceived to have a considerable effect on employee turnover, motivation received a higher overall percentage of responses on its capacity of minimizing employee turnover than training did. Nevertheless, the survey results show that a companys investment on their employees, by ways of training for example, are

PAGE 75

64 perceived as beneficial to keeping employee turnover to a minimum. Forty-one percent of all participants agree that employees are less likely to leave a company that invests in their career. In addition, 27% strongly agree, 24% somewhat Agree, 5% disagree, and the remaining 3% of participants somewhat disagree to the above statement. [Figure 4-49] Figure 4-49. Career development Investment and employee turnover [N=37] The availability of training programs is shown to contribute to the attraction of more qualified candidates. Only 3% of both the executive and project-level personnel surveyed somewhat disagree with trainings ability to attract qualified candidates, while the remaining 97% responded favorably to it. In total, 60% somewhat agree, 32% agree, and 5% strongly agree with the statement that the availability of training programs attracts more qualified candidates. [Figure 4-50] Figure 4-50. Attracting qualified candidates through training [N=37]

PAGE 76

65 It is important that the company establishes a working environment in which its employees are motivated to work. Ninety-four percent of all participants expressed agreement to the statement that employees are likely to leave a company in which they are not motivated to work. While out of the remaining 6%, 3% disagree and the other 3% somewhat disagree to the statement. The majority (45%) strongly agree employees are likely to leave a company in which here they are not motivated to perform. This was followed by 30% of participants that agree and 19% that somewhat agree. [Figure 4-51] Figure 4-51. Motivating workplace and employee turnover [N=37] Companies should keep in mind, as survey results show [Figure 4-52], that employee turnover is also affected by the length of employment of the individual. All survey participants are in agreement with the statement that employee turnover declines with the length of employment; Forty-nine percent agree, 27% strongly agree, and 24% somewhat agree. With this in mind, company efforts to minimizing employee turnover of talented personnel and thus maximizing their length of employment can be achieved by decreasing their likeliness of leaving their company. As survey results have shown [See previous Figures 4-49, 4-51] employees are less likely to leave a company that invests in their career and one in which they are motivated to work. Consequently, the

PAGE 77

66 effective implementation of training and motivation is not just key to quality and productivity performance, but also plays an important role in addressing employee turnover. [Figure 4-52] Figure 4-52. Employee turnover and length of employment [N=37] Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Satisfaction Survey results show how both company training and a motivating environment are conducive of employee satisfaction. As Figure 4-53 illustrates, all responses received were favorable to trainings capacity in promoting job satisfaction. Forty-eight percent agree company training promotes job satisfaction, 30% strongly agree, and the remaining 22% of the participants somewhat agree. Figure 4-53. Company training on job satisfaction [N=37]

PAGE 78

67 Motivation received a seemingly favorable response as training did on its conduciveness of employee satisfaction. Fifty-two percent agree a motivating working environment is conducive of employee satisfaction, 43% strongly agree, and the remaining 5% of the participants somewhat agree. [Figure 4-54] Figure 4-54. Motivation on employee satisfaction [N=37] All survey participants also make evident the importance of training to employee satisfaction, which in turn affects company performance. Fifty-four percent of the survey participants agree training fosters a sense of belonging to the company, increases employee satisfaction and accelerates performance. In addition, 30% of them strongly agree, while the remaining 16% somewhat agree to the same statement. [Figure 4-55] Figure 4-55. Training on belonging, satisfaction, and performance [N=37]

PAGE 79

68 That sense of belonging to the company is a vital to employee satisfaction and cannot be fully perceived unless the employee feels as a contributing source to the company. Survey results show, as seen in Figure 4-56, that 97% of all surveyed are in agreement with the statement that training encourages new hires to quickly develop into informed, contributing employees. Forty-eight percent agree, 38% strongly agree, 11% somewhat agree, and the remaining 3% of the participants somewhat disagree. Figure 4-56. Training on employee development [N=37] The advantages of company training on its employees and on the firms itself do not stop here. The benefit of company-sponsored training in increasing the potential of employees as it helps their careers is perceived by 97% of all personnel surveyed. Fifty-seven percent of the participants strongly agree to the statement that company sponsored training increases my potential and helps my career. Thirty-five percent agree, and the 5% of the participants somewhat agree to this statement. The remaining 3% of respondents found the statement not applicable to them. [Figure 4-57]

PAGE 80

69 Figure 4-57. Company-training on employees career and potential [N=37] Social activities among employees are viewed as morale boosting activities that contribute to satisfying environment for 92% of the survey participants. Forty-nine percent of executives and project-level personnel agree social activities among employees increase morale among workers. Twenty-seven percent strongly agree, 16% somewhat agree, and the remaining 8% of he participants somewhat disagree to the benefits of social activities may have on increasing employee morale. [Figure 4-58] Figure 4-58. Social activities on morale and satisfaction [N=37] Characteristics of Effective Training Implementation In an effort to identify the common characteristics or qualities to effective training implementation a more detailed analysis of the survey results was made. A number of questions from the surveys were selected according to their ability to identify the

PAGE 81

70 companies among those surveyed whose participants perceived it to implement training effectively. It is worth noting is that for training implementation to be successful, as survey results suggest, it must first be formally established and perceived as effective and beneficial not just to the company itself but most importantly to its employees. Only those participants that are employed by a company which implements a formal training program [per S1 survey results] and that responded favorably (in agreement) to the identifying survey statements were analyzed. This group of participants is defined as the Selected Participants (SP). The two statements selected are as follows: The company training programs are effective. The training provided by the company has been beneficial. The Selected Participants (SP) group thus represents those survey participants that are employed by a company which implements a formal training program that is perceived as effective and beneficial to them. For distinction purposes all of the survey participants, even those not part of the SP group will be referred to as the All Participants (AP) group. The All Participants (AP) group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in other words, the general surveyed population. In total, 70% of the executive-level participants and 43% of project-level responded favorably to the previous identifying statements. The executive level represents 73% of the Selected Participants group, while the project level represents the remaining 27%. Refer to Table 4-3 on the following page for a clearer visual interpretation of the above information.

PAGE 82

71 Table 4-3. Identifying statements to effective training implementation EFFECTIVE TRAINING IMPLEMENTATION IDENTIFYING STATEMENTS (S2: T1) The company training programs are effective. (S2: T4) The training provided by the company has been beneficial. EXECUTIVE-LEVEL PARTICIPANTS [N= 23] PROJECT-LEVEL PARTICIPANTS [N= 14] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N= 37] YES NO YES NO YES NO 70% 23% 43% 43% 59% 30% 16 5 6 6 22 11 CODING: (S2: T1) Survey 2: Training question # 1 The Selected Participants (S.P.) group is composed of 73% executive-level participants and 27% project-level participants. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS (S.P.): 70% OF EXEC = 16 Participants = 73% S.P. 43% OF PROJ = 6 Participants = 27% S.P. TOTAL S.P. = 22 Participants = 100% S.P. The All Participants (A.P.) group encompasses all the survey participants. This group includes all of the executive-level participants and all of the project-level participants that are either in agreement or in disagreement with the statements evaluated herein (does not include those participants responding not applicable to any one of the statements, or those that are not available). ALL PARTICIPANTS (A.P.): 59% OF EXEC = 22 Participants = 100% S.P. 30% OF PROJ = 11 Participants = 0% S.P. TOTAL S.P. = 33 Participants = 100% S.P. NOTE: Not all percentages may add up to 100% since some participants may have selected the statement to be not applicable instead of agreeing or disagreeing to it.

PAGE 83

72 These participants were then individually analyzed in their responses to a selected number of qualitative statements from the survey. These qualitative statements refer to the qualities characteristic of an effective training program as presented in the literature review. The following are the seven qualitative statements selected for analysis: The company has a well-defined training program in place The company [training] has improved my quality performance Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks Training programs have improved teamwork Who receives training? The responses of the Selected Participants (SP) to each statement are compared to those of All Participants (AP) in the survey, as previously defined in Table 4-3. In this analysis, any favorable or agreeable response to a statement is represented by a YES answer, while any unfavorable or disagreeable response to a statement is represented by a NO answer. Each qualitative statement for analysis is discussed and presented in its own Table. Refer to Figure 4-59 for a graph that illustrates the performance of those Selected Participants group in implementing training effectively as compared to that of the All Participants group.

PAGE 84

73 The analysis of the first statement, as summarized in Table 4-4, shows that 86% of the Selected Participants, compared to 70% of All Participants, believe their company has a well-defined training program in place. This percentage difference between both groups means that 16% more companies have well-defined training programs in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 14% of the Selected Participants, compared to 27% of All Participants, believe their company does not have a well-defined training program in place. Evidently, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement training, according to its employees, is having a well-defined training program. Table 4-4. Well-defined training program (S2: T2) The company has a well-defined training program in place. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 86% 14% 70% 27% 16% 13% The second qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-11, shows 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants, believe their company [training] has improved their quality performance. This percentage difference between both groups means that 19% more companies have improved its employees quality performance through training in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining 16% of All Participants, believe the company [training] has not improved their quality performance. Consequently, successful training is characteristic of addressing and improving quality

PAGE 85

74 performance; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement training. Table 4-5. Quality performance through training (S2: T5) The company [training] has improved my quality performance. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 81% 16% 19% 16% The third qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-6, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 95% of All Participants, believe their company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. This percentage difference between both groups means that 5% more companies have improved overall workforce quality awareness through training in the SP group than in the AP group. The small difference in percentage between the SP and AP group does not necessarily validate this characteristic being of as high priority as perhaps the others previously discussed, which encounter greater percentage gaps. Nevertheless, successful training is characteristic of improving overall workforce quality awareness, according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement training. Table 4-6. Quality awareness through training (S2: T7) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 95% 0% 5% 0%

PAGE 86

75 The fourth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-7, shows that 86% of the Selected Participants, compared to 78% of All Participants, believe their company training keeps them up to speed with new methods and innovations. This percentage difference between both groups means that 8% more companies keep their workforce up to speed with new methods and innovations through training in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 9% of the Selected Participants, compared to 8% of All Participants, believe their company does not have a well-defined training program in place. Although the relatively small percentage difference doesnt hold as much weight as that of a well-defined training program, as previously discussed in Table 4-8, training that keeps personnel up to speed with new methods and innovations is nevertheless another characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement training. Table 4-7. New methods and innovations through training (S2: T8) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 86% 9% 78% 8% 8% 1% The fifth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-8, shows 91% of the Selected Participants, compared to 78% of All Participants, believe training has made them more efficient at completing their tasks. This percentage difference between both groups means that 13% more companies made their workforce more efficient at completing their tasks through training in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining 5% of All

PAGE 87

76 Participants, believe training has not made them more efficient at completing their tasks. Consequently, successful training is characteristic of improving task efficiency; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement training. Table 4-8. Task efficiency through training (S2: T9) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 91% 0% 78% 5% 13% 5% The sixth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-9, shows 86% of both the Selected Participants and All Participants group believe training programs have improved teamwork. This equality between both groups means that the same percentages of companies have improved teamwork through training in both the SP group and the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining 6% of All Participants, believe training has not improved teamwork. The percentage distributions still suggest that successful training is characteristic of improving teamwork; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement training. Table 4-9. Teamwork through training (S2: T13) Training programs have improved teamwork. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 86% 0% 86% 6% 0% 6%

PAGE 88

77 The seventh and last qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-10, shows 95% of the Selected Participants, compared to 61% of All Participants, are employed by companies that offer training to all-level personnel. This percentage difference between both groups means that 34% more companies offer training to all-level personnel in the SP group than in the AP group. In addition, companies that offer training to just entry-level personnel employ 5% of the Selected Participants, compared to 17% of All Participants. Furthermore, 22% of the AP group, compared to 0% of the SP group, found the question not applicable to them; reason being that their companies do not implement training at all in the first place. Notice that only executive-level personnel participated in this question since it was part of Survey 1 (S1), which was only distributed to executives. Consequently, successful training is characteristic of covering all-level personnel; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement training. Table 4-10. Personnel training coverage (S1: 1b) Who receives training? SELECTED PARTICIPANTS (Execs only) [N=16] ALL PARTICIPANTS (EXECS ONLY) [N=23] N/A ENTRY LEVEL HIGH LEVEL ALL LEVEL N/A ENTRY LEVEL HIGH LEVEL ALL LEVEL 0% 5% 0% 95% 22% 17% 0% 61% This isolated analysis of the responses from this selected group of participants revealed the following common characteristics that provide a starting point to the successful implementation of training. A n effective company-training program: Is Well-defined Improves quality performance and awareness

PAGE 89

78 Actualizes employees with new methods and innovations Maximizes employees task efficiency Emphasizes teamwork Covers all-level employees Applying these characteristics as a base for the implementation of training, as survey results show, serves to maximize a companys quality performance. Characteristics of Effective Motivation Implementation The same analytical process carried out to find the common characteristics to effective training implementation was performed here to identify those qualities common to the effective implementation of motivation. Once again a series of identifying statements were used to filter-through those participants that perceive their companys implementation of motivation best. This means that only those participants who responded favorably (in agreement) to all identifying statements were considered. This group of participants is defined as the Selected Participants (SP). The three statements selected are as follows: Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment. I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential. Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. The Selected Participants (SP) group thus represents those survey participants that are employed by a company that promotes a sufficiently motivating environment where they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential and where management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated, as perceived by the employees themselves. For distinction purposes all of the survey participants, even those not part of the SP group will be referred to as the All Participants (AP) group. The All Participants

PAGE 90

79 (AP) group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in other words, the general surveyed population. In total, 74% of the executive-level participants and 64% of project-level responded favorably to the above identifying statements. The executive level represents 65% of the Selected Participants group, while the project level represents the remaining 35%. Refer to Table 4-11 on the following page for a clearer visual interpretation of the above information.

PAGE 91

80 Table 4-11. Identifying statements to effective motivation implementation EFFECTIVE MOTIVATION IMPLEMENTATION IDENTIFYING STATEMENTS (S2: M1) Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment. (S2: M6) I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential. (S2: M12) Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. EXECUTIVE-LEVEL PARTICIPANTS [N= 23] PROJECT-LEVEL PARTICIPANTS [N= 14] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N= 37] YES NO YES NO YES NO 74% 23% 64% 36% 70% 27% 17 5 9 5 26 10 CODING: (S2: M1) Survey 2: Motivation question # 1 The Selected Participants group is composed of 65% executive-level participants and 35% project-level participants. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS (S.P.): 74% OF EXEC = 17 Participants = 65% S.P. 64% OF PROJ = 9 Participants = 35% S.P. TOTAL S.P. = 26 Participants = 100% S.P. The All Participants group encompasses all the survey participants. This group includes all of the executive-level participants and all of the project-level participants that are either in agreement or in disagreement with the statements evaluated herein (does not include those participants responding not applicable to any one of the statements, or those that are not available). ALL PARTICIPANTS (A.P.): 70% OF ALL = 26 Participants = 100% S.P. 27% OF ALL = 10 Participants = 0% S.P. TOTAL A.P. = 36 Participants NOTE: Not all percentages may add up to 100% since some participants may have selected the statement to be not applicable instead of agreeing or disagreeing to it.

PAGE 92

81 These participants were then individually analyzed in their responses to a selected number of qualitative statements from the survey. These qualitative statements refer to the qualities characteristic of an effective training program as presented in the literature review. The following are the eight qualitative statements selected for analysis: The company recognizes my performance appropriately I feel the company values my opinion The company offers valuable incentives The company offers competitive benefits The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive The responses of the Selected Participants (SP) to each statement are compared to those of All Participants (AP) in the survey, as previously defined in Table 4-11. In this analysis, any favorable or agreeable response to a statement is represented by a YES answer, while any unfavorable or disagreeable response to a statement is represented by a NO answer. Each qualitative statement for analysis is discussed and presented in its own Table. Refer to Figure 4-56 for a graph that illustrates the performance of those Selected Participants group in implementing motivation effectively as compared to that of the All Participants group.

PAGE 93

82 The analysis of the first statement, as summarized in Table 4-12, shows that 92% of the Selected Participants, compared to 73% of All Participants, believe their company recognizes their performance appropriately. This percentage difference between both groups means that 19% more companies recognize their workforces performance appropriately in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 4% of the Selected Participants, compared to 16% of All Participants, believe their company does not recognize their performance appropriately. Evidently, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is the appropriate recognition of their workforces performance. Table 4-12. Employee performance recognition (S2: M7) The company recognizes my performance appropriately. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 92% 4% 73% 16% 19% 12% The second qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-13, shows that 92% of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants, feel their company values their opinion. This percentage difference between both groups means that 11% more companies value the opinion of their workforce in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 4% of the Selected Participants, compared to 14% of All Participants, feel their company does not value their opinion. Again, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is the way in which their workforces opinion is valued.

PAGE 94

83 Table 4-13. Valuing employee-opinion (S2: M9) I feel the company values my opinion. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 92% 4% 81% 14% 11% 10% The third qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-14, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 86% of All Participants, believe their company offers valuable incentives. This percentage difference between both groups means that 14% more companies offer valuable incentives to their workforce in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 8% of All Participants, feel their company does not offer valuable incentives. Thus, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is the valuable incentives offered to its employees. Table 4-14. Valuable incentives (S2: M16) The company offers valuable incentives. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 86% 8% 14% 8% The fourth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-15, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 92% of All Participants, feel their company offers competitive benefits. This percentage difference between both groups means that 8% more companies offer competitive benefits to their workforce in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants,

PAGE 95

84 compared to 8% of All Participants, feel their company does not offer competitive benefits. Consequently, successful motivation is characteristic of offering competitive benefits; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement motivation. Table 4-15. Competitive company benefits (S2: M17) The company offers competitive benefits. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 92% 8% 8% 8% The fifth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-16, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 86% of All Participants, believe their company [management] feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company values their opinion. This percentage difference between both groups means that 14% more companies believe motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 8% of All Participants, believe their company [management] feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company. Again, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is the way in which motivation is made a vital part their productivity-driven company.

PAGE 96

85 Table 4-16. Motivations significance to company productivity (S2: M18) The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 86% 8% 14% 8% The sixth qualitative statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-17, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 89% of All Participants, believe their company [management] feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. This percentage difference between both groups mean that 11% more companies believe motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 6% of All Participants, believe their company [management] feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. Therefore, successful motivation is characteristic of making employees feel its company truly finds motivating them is beneficial to productivity performance; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively implement motivation. Table 4-17. Driving performance with employee motivation (S2: M19) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 89% 6% 11% 6%

PAGE 97

86 The seventh and last qualitative statement analysis, as summarized in Table 4-18, shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants, believe their company incentives motivate them to be more productive. This percentage difference between both groups means that 19% more companies have company incentives that motivate its workforce to be more productive in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 11% of All Participants, believe their company incentives dont motivate them to be more productive. Evidently, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is offering company incentives that motivate its workforce to be more productive. Table 4-18. Company incentives on employee productivity (S2: M11) Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive. SELECTED PARTICIPANTS [N=22] ALL PARTICIPANTS [N=37] DIFFERENCE (SP AP) YES NO YES NO YES NO 100% 0% 81% 11% 19% 11% The following common characteristics serve as guidelines to an effective implementation of motivation, as evident from the selected group of participants herein and their companies. Companies effectively implementing motivation: Recognize employee performance Value employees and their opinion Offer valuable incentives and benefits Acknowledge motivation as a vital part of productivity performance

PAGE 98

87 These qualities all emphasize the importance for the need of individual attention employees require from their company. Feeling valued and recognized is the essence around which employee performance is maximized. Implementation efforts to address these needs serve to build a strong and determined company culture. Improvement Areas to Effective Training and Motivation Once the characteristics to each effective training and motivation implementation were defined through an analysis of qualitative statements from the survey, their importance was then prioritized. The idea behind prioritizing these characteristics is to identify those areas in most need of attention that are key to the effective implementation of training and motivation. The graph in Figure 4-59 plots each qualitative statement characteristic of effectively implemented training and motivation previously analyzed in the series of Tables 4-5 and 4-6. The percentage of companies, according to its respondents, that possessed each one of these qualities were plotted for the Selected Participants (SP) group and the All Participants (AP) group. As previously discussed, the Selected Participants group for the qualitative training statements represents those survey participants that are employed by a company which implements a formal training program that is perceived as effective and beneficial to them. The Selected Participants group for the qualitative motivation statements represents those survey participants that are employed by a company that promotes a sufficiently motivating environment where they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential and where management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated, as perceived by the employees themselves. Finally, the All

PAGE 99

88 Participants group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in other words, the general surveyed population. Comparing between both groups [SP and AP] serves to highlight those characteristics and qualities of high priority that are most prevalent in an organization that effectively implements training and motivation. The characteristics of high priority are those where All Participants (AP) realized the highest percentage-gaps of affirmative responses in the plotted graph [Figure 4-59] to the Selected Participants (SP), and consequently the ones in need of more immediate attention. Furthermore, these comparisons give us an idea of the current state of the general surveyed population (AP) relative to that of those already effectively implementing these key quality-and-productivity factors (SP). Figure 4-59 shows a graph with four lines plotted. The top line defined by a dark-blue diamonds represents the affirmative (YES) responses to the qualitative statements by the Selected Participants, while the bottom line defined by light-blue squares represents the negative (NO) responses to the same qualitative statements by the Selected Participants. Likewise, the top line defined by red triangles represents the affirmative (YES) responses to the qualitative statements by All Participants, while the bottom line defined by the orange X represents the negative (NO) responses to the same qualitative statements by All Participants. The X-margin and Y-margin on the graph represent the percentage of YES/NO responses and the corresponding qualitative statement, respectively. The data table for the graph is presented with the figure for intelligibility along with the actual statement that accompanies it. The plotted data table provides information acquired from the initial analysis of the qualitative statements undertaken in the series of Tables 4-5 and 4-6, which includes the percentages for each YES and NO

PAGE 100

89 answer to a statement along with the coding and numbering system that identifies were each statement came from. The graph serves as a good visual tool that shows the parallel performance of both the AP and SP groups on implementing the qualitative statements to both effective training and motivation. On average, the general surveyed population (AP) is performing 15% lower relative to those companies perceived to effectively implement training (SP). It is evident from the graph in Figure 4-59 that the highest percentage-gaps, which denote those issues of high priority in most need of attention, are encountered with the following qualifying statements: The company has a well-defined training program in place [1. (S2: T2)] The company [training] has improved my quality performance [2. (S2: T5)] The company recognizes my performance appropriately [7. (S2: M7)] Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive [13. (S2: M11)] The coding system displayed in parenthesis after each of these four high-priority qualifying statements tells us that the first two statements are of key importance to the effective implementation training, while the last two are of key importance to the effective implementation of motivation. This means that for the general surveyed population (AP) to reach the level of implementation of the Selected Participants it must first address these four issues. To remain competitive with the SP, AP should have better-defined training programs in place that address quality-performance, and improve employee-recognition along with incentives geared to increase productivity-performance. In addition, the graph in Figure 4-59 also shows those areas where even those companies perceived to effectively implement training (SP) still have room to improve.

PAGE 101

90 The Selected Participants (SP) may still improve performance by an additional 10%, and All Participants by an additional 25%, on the following six qualitative statements: The company has a well-defined training program in place [1. (S2: T2)] H.P. Co. training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations [4. (S2: T5)] Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks [5. (S2: T9)] Training programs have improved teamwork [6. (S2: T13)] The company recognizes my performance appropriately [7. (S2: M7)] H.P. I feel the company values my opinion [8. (S2: M9)] Interestingly enough, two already noted high-priority issues still have room for improvement even for those companies already perceived to be implementing the key Q&P factors effectively. These two issues point out the increased need for better definition of training programs and better employee-recognition. Furthermore, these companies can further increase the edge over their competition by introducing more innovative methods that increase task-efficiency and teamwork through its training programs, while showing added value towards employee-opinion.

PAGE 102

91 SP [N=22] AP [N=37] YES NO YES NO 1 (S2: T2) The company has a well-defined training program in place. 86% 14% 70% 27% 2 (S2: T5) The company [training] has improved my quality performance. 100% 0% 81% 16% 3 (S2: T7) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. 100% 0% 95% 0% 4 (S2: T8) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations. 86% 9% 78% 8% 5 (S2: T9) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks. 91% 0% 78% 5% 6 (S2: T13) Training programs have improved teamwork. 86% 0% 86% 6% 7 (S2: M7) The company recognizes my performance appropriately. 92% 4% 73% 16% 8 (S2: M9) I feel the company values my opinion. 92% 4% 81% 14% 9 (S2: M16) The company offers valuable incentives. 100% 0% 86% 8% 10 (S2: M17) The company offers competitive benefits. 100% 0% 92% 8% 11 (S2: M18) The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company. 100% 0% 86% 8% 12 (S2: M19) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. 100% 0% 89% 6% 13 (S2: M11) Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive. 100% 0% 81% 11% Figure 4-59. Effectively implementing training and motivation

PAGE 103

92 Summary of Survey Results The surveys confirm that both training and motivation are indeed key factors crucial to quality and productivity performance, as industry advocates point out in the Literature Review. The effectiveness in the implementation of training and motivation by the industry was split and inconsistent. Even though the implementation of training received good results, it is still far from its maximum potential. Training programs offered by the companies are not well defined and lack direction, especially at the project level. But in comparison to the shortcomings perceived in the implementation of motivation, training did not fare bad at all. The implementation of motivation was the area of greatest concern where most companies are performing in an average manner, as perceived by the survey participants on 10 of the 19 statements presented. A significant imbalance in the implementation of motivation between executive and project-level personnel is evident. The following are some of the areas in need of attention: Project-level personnel are not currently motivated as much as the executive-level personnel to perform at their maximum potential. Twenty-nine percent of project-level participants expressed disagreement to the statement that they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential, while none of the executives expressed any disagreement at all. Companies are not doing a good enough job at motivating or at recognizing executive personnels performance appropriately, and much less that of the project personnel.

PAGE 104

93 Only 64% of project-level personnel are in agreement that the company feels motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company culture, while 100% of executive level personnel are in full agreement. Companies are not making the project-level personnels opinion feel anywhere as valued as that of the executives. Company incentives are as effective in motivating project-level personnel, as they are executive level personnel. Social activities meant to increase the morale among workers and valuable incentives are not being implemented at the project level as effectively as they are at the executive.

PAGE 105

94 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study is limited to small-to-medium-sized general contractors in the State of Florida with an estimated annual volume of $10 to $100 million, less than 100 employees, and average project sizes of $1 to $10 million. Contractors not listed in the AGC and ABC membership directories with a working website or email were not contacted. This study is further limited to professional personnel at both the executive and project levels only; laborers are not covered. Introduction High turnover rates, fierce competition, and high risk to low marginal-returns in respect to other comparable industries has led the construction industry to focus on the ways in which current human resource management is affecting bottom-line quality and productivity performance. Implementation of training and motivation, key quality and productivity performance factors, by management may lead to greater worker quality and productivity, and can further serve to stimulate the attraction, preservation and development of talented workforce. Managements important leadership role in implementing training and motivation into their company culture is at the cornerstone for a quality-and-productivity-driven environment. Conversely, a companys triumph rests on the value management places on these key factors that not only affect its employees welfare but also the companys quality and productivity performance. The need for effective implementation of training and motivation is key to achieving a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture. 94

PAGE 106

95 Attaining this quality-and-productivity-driven company culture results in a significantly higher competitive edge that serves to balance out the inequities between the high-risk to low-marginal-returns (profits) characteristic of the current construction environment. Conclusions The two key factors to a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture are training and motivation, as identified in the literature review. Effective training is key to quality performance, while motivation is key to productivity performance. Both factors, training and motivation, not only complement each other but also affect employee turnover and employee satisfaction in a positive manner when effectively implemented. The results from the literature review and those of the survey confirm how effective implementation of training and motivation into a company culture lead to increased quality and productivity, lower employee turnover, increased satisfaction, and consequently an increased competitive edge. After measuring the gross effectiveness in implementation of the key factors by all participants surveyed, an implementation effectiveness of the participating construction companies was split. Small to medium sized Florida construction contractors implementation of training, although relatively effective, still has room for improvement. Company-sponsored training programs although lacking definition, they are moving on the right track considering that for the most part they are still on their first decade of existence, as survey results reflect. In comparison to the current effectiveness in implementation of training, motivation is follows far behind. The construction industrys low effectiveness in implementing motivation at the project personnel level is in need of special attention with all areas and issues pertaining to employee motivation. It appears that companies over-focus on

PAGE 107

96 executive level motivation has led them to forget about motivating its project level personnel, which is directly responsible for delivering not just quality and productivity but also the bottom line. The construction industry needs to be more effective in their implementation of motivation at all levels, especially in the way of employee recognition when accomplishments in quality and productivity performance are perceived. Survey findings suggest a training program that can be effectively implemented is one that is well defined, improves quality performance and awareness, keeps informed employees with new methods and innovation, maximizes employees task efficiency, emphasizes teamwork, and covers all-level employees. Similarly, survey findings confirm that effective implementation of motivation is best achieved when a firm recognizes employee performance, values employees and their opinion, offers valuable incentives and benefits, and acknowledges motivation a vital part of productivity performance. The Literature Review provides information that can serve the construction industry in effectively implementing training and motivation into company culture that elaborates on the characteristics mentioned herein. It is important to realize that the implementation of both training and motivation can only be as effective as it is perceived by not just the company but most importantly how it is perceived by its employees. This is why it is critical to involve employees directly from the start at the design, development, and implementation stages of a program. Recommendations for Future Research The results of this survey are limited to small-to-medium-sized general contracting companies in Florida. Future research is encouraged to cover a wider geographical area, or even the whole nation. Another limitation of this study is the small sample size

PAGE 108

97 available to work resulting from a lack of resources and time. Shorter surveys with fewer questions than the one used here will yield more participants and thus a larger sample size. Larger sample sizes in future research will allow for more accurate results. Appendix G includes a recommended shorter survey composed of only those questions of most significance to this study and its results. A similar study could be designed that focuses on the labor-level instead of the professional-level personnel, which allows for a comparison of both. Surveys are encouraged o be distributed by all channels available, including post-mail and fax, and not just limited to email and a website surveying, in an effort to reach more potential participants.

PAGE 109

98 APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE-LEVEL SURVEY (S1)

PAGE 110

Training and Motivation: Key to a Quality & Productivity Driven Company Culture Executive Level Survey. GENERAL INFORMATION. Company Position Years with current company less than 2 years Years of working in the industry less than 2 years Estimated Annual Volume less than $1 m illion Average Project Size less than $1 m illion Estimated # of Employees less than 100 Years in Business less than 10 Please answer the following questions. 1. Is there a formal training program being implemented in your company? Yes a. For how long has the program been in place? n/a b. Who receives the training? n/a c. Who performs the training? n/a d. How much training is mandatory? n/a 2. What is the estimated dollar amount spent on training for each individual per year? less than $500

PAGE 111

3. On average, how many training/ educational seminars per year are offered to job-site-level personnel? none 4. What are the minimum hours of training per job-site-level employee per year? less than 12 5. What percent of the workforce takes advantage of training/educational seminars?" 0% 6. Is a mentor assigned to a newly hired individual? never 7. Does your company offer em ployee continuing-education program benefits such as a tuition reimbursement program? never 8. How often does your company hold formal employee performance reviews? never a. For New Hires (less than 1yr): semi-annually b. For All Other Personnel: semi-annually 9. Does your company have es tablished formal events were employees are recognized and rewa rded for their contributions? Yes a. If so, approximately how many of these types of events are held annually? n/a 10. What types of performance in centives does your company use? (Select all that apply). Press and hold CTRL key to make multiple selections. none financial paid time off promotion awards other

PAGE 112

11. To promote open communication, our company provides: (Select all that apply). Press and hold CTRL key to make multiple selections. Suggestion Boxes Newsletters Bulletin Boards Oher n/a 12. On average, how many social activities does your company sponsor for its employees per year? n/a 13. Does your company offe r competitive employee benefits? None Continue S urvey ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WI LL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL!

PAGE 113

99 APPENDIX B PROJECT-LEVEL SURVEY (S2)

PAGE 114

Training and Motivation: Key to a Quality & Productivity Driven Company Culture Project Level Survey. GENERAL INFORMATION Company Position Years with current company less than 2 years Years of working in the industry less than 2 years Indicate your level of agreement with the following fi fty statements by selecting one of the seven options in the drop-down list. *1. Strongly Disagree, *2. Disagree, *3 Somewhat Disagree, *4. Somewhat Ag ree, *5. Agree, *6. Strongly Agree, *7. N/A. QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 1) The company training programs are effective. Please Select One 2) The company has a well-defined training program in place. Please Select One 3) The company encourages training. Please Select One 4) The training provided by the company has been beneficial. Please Select One 5) The company has improved my quality performance. Please Select One

PAGE 115

6) Employees regard company-s ponsored training as important. Please Select One 7) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. Please Select One 8) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations. Please Select One 9) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks. Please Select One 10) Training has increased my commi tment to producing quality work. Please Select One 11) More company sponsored training opportunities are needed. Please Select One 12) Since introducing quality training, the number of punch-list items has been reduced. Please Select One 13) Training programs have improved teamwork. Please Select One 14) The company feels that traini ng is an important part of employee development. Please Select One 15) The company thinks that training employees is beneficial to company quality performance. Please Select One 16) The company values the benefits of training. Please Select One 17) The company's investment in training leads to increased time and money savings. Please Select One

PAGE 116

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 1) Our company promotes a su fficiently motivating environment. Please Select One 2) Company motivation is beneficial to job performance. Please Select One 3) Company motivation encourages more productive work. Please Select One 4) Motivation affects task efficiency. Please Select One 5) Maximum productivity potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. Please Select One 6) I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential. Please Select One 7) The company recognizes my performance appropriately. Please Select One 8) People are more productive at or around the time of performance/salary reviews. Please Select One 9) I feel the company values my opinion. Please Select One 10) Feeling valued and appreciated by the company motivates me. Please Select One 11) Our company incentives moti vate me to be more productive. Please Select One 12) Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. Please Select One

PAGE 117

13) A motivated workforce significantly influences the success of a project. Please Select One 14) Our company provides appropriate working conditions. Please Select One 15) The company sponsors social acti vities that increase the morale among workers. Please Select One 16) The company offers valuable incentives. Please Select One 17) The company offers competitive benefits. Please Select One 18) The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivitydriven company. Please Select One 19) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. Please Select One EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 1) Effective training minimizes employee turnover. Please Select One 2) Employees are less likely to leav e a company that invests in their career. Please Select One 3) Availability of training programs attracts more qualified candidates. Please Select One 4) Employee turnover declines with the length of employment. Please Select One

PAGE 118

5) Effective motivation minimizes employee turnover. Please Select One 6) Worker turnover and absenteeism can have a major impact on total project productivity. Please Select One 7) Workers are likely to leave a com pany in which they are not motivated to work. Please Select One SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 1) Training sponsored by the company increases my potential and helps my career. Please Select One 2) Company training promotes job satisfaction. Please Select One 3) Training encourages new hires to quickly develop into informed, contributing employees. Please Select One 4) Training fosters a sense of belonging to the company, increases employee satisfaction and accelerates performance. Please Select One 5) Effective company organization increases morale among workers. Please Select One 6) Social activities among employ ees increase morale among workers. Please Select One 7) A motivating working environment is conducive of employee satisfaction. Please Select One

PAGE 119

End S urvey ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WI LL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL!

PAGE 120

100 APPENDIX C SURVEY-PARTICIPANT INVITATION LETTER

PAGE 121

UF GRADUATE STUDY Training and Motivation: Key to a Quality & Productivity Driven Company Culture Dear Sir/Madam, I am a graduate student in the Building Construction Program at the University of Florida. As part of my course work I am conducting a survey, the purpose of which is to analyze how training and motivation in a supporting company culture contributes to the attraction, retention, and development of a skilled workforce and how it affects quality & productivity performance. I am asking you to participate in this survey because of your close connection with these issues. You will not have to answer any question(s) you do not wish to answer. Only I will have access to the survey that you fill out. The statistical data collected from your survey and others will be documented in my thesis. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by the law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. Visit the website below to participate on this survey or to find more information on this study. http://www.nauro.com/caicedo/ Please forward this email to your co-workers and/or company list-server to assure that all interested individuals get an equal opportunity to participate. Sincerely, Luis Caicedo University of Florida If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (954) 523-5346 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. R. Raymond Issa, at (352) 392-7438. Questions or concerns about your rights as a participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 11225, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph (352) 392-0433.

PAGE 122

101 APPENDIX D SURVEY WEB PAGES

PAGE 123

THE RINKER SCHOOL OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Training and Motivation: Key to a Quality & Productivity Driven Company Culture GRADUATE THESIS BY LUIS CAICEDO Continue Any questions please direct them to: vivacali@ufl.edu Pa g e 1 of 1 surve y s. p a g e 1/31/03 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Word\surve y s _p a g e.htm

PAGE 124

INFORMED CONSENT Training and Motivation: Key to a Qualit y & Productivity Driven Company Culture Survey Questionnaire Dear Participant, I am a graduate student in the Build ing Construction Program at the Univer sity of Florida. As part of my course work I am conducting a surv ey, the purpose of which is to analyze how training and motivation in a supporting company culture contributes to the attraction, retention, and de velopment of a skilled workforce and how it affects qual ity & productivity performance. I am asking you to participate in the survey because of your close connection with these issues. The survey should take you no longer than 20 minutes to complete. You will not have to answer any question(s) you do not wish to answer. Only I will have access to the survey that you fill out. The statistical data collected from your survey and others will be documented in my thesis. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by th e law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this survey. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and ma y discontinue your participation in the survey at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about th is research protocol, please co ntact me at (352) 224-6439 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. R. Raymond Issa, at (352) 392-7438. Questions or concerns about your rights as a participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 11225, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph (352) 392-0433. By filling out the provided survey, you give me the permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submi tted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work. Sincerely, Luis Caicedo University of Florida I accept the consent terms described above. No, I do not wish to participate in this survey. Pa g e 1 of 1 Web Surve y 1/31/03 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Word\Web%20Surve y .htm

PAGE 125

Please select the survey that best matches your job title. Executive Level Survey. (CEO, CFO, President, Vice-President, etc.) Project Level Survey. (Project Manager, Superintendent, Projec t Engineer, Field Engineer, Assistant Superintendent, Assistant PM/PE, Estimator) Pa g e 1 of 1 Select Surve y 2/1/03 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Word\Select%20Surve y .htm

PAGE 126

Thank you for participat ing in this survey. developed and hosted by n a uro. com Pa g e 1 of 1 Thank y ou. 2/1/03 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Word\Thank y ou.htm

PAGE 127

102 APPENDIX E SURVEY ROUGH DATA ANALYSIS

PAGE 128

POSITION / TITLE# Co. (EXEC) [1]E President [2]B President # of Responses Response [3]F CEO 9% 2CEO [4]G V.P. Operations 17% 4President [5]C President 48% 11Vice President [6]D VP 9% 2HR Manager [7]A Exec. VP/Co-Owner 4% 1CFO [8]B Director of Operations 4% 1Director of Operations [9]A Vice President Business Development 4% 1Marketing Director [10]H HR Manager, Division Manager 4% 1Chief Estimator [11]I CFO 100% 23 Total Responses [12]J Vice President [13]K Vice President, Design Build 100% [14]L Human Resources Manager [15]M Vice President [16]L Vice President/ Director of Business Development [17]C Vice President/Owner [18]N Chief Estimator [19]O Vice-President [20]P President [21]Q Vice President [22]R Marketing Director [23]B CEO # of Responses Response 9% 2CEO 17% 4President 48% 11Vice President 9% 2HR Manager 4% 1CFO 4% 1Director of Operations 4% 1Marketing Director 4% 1Chief Estimator 100% 23 Total Responses 100% Position / Title (EXEC) Position / Title (EXEC) Position / Title (EXEC) 4% 4% 4% 9% 48% 17% 9% 4% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% CEO President Vice President HR Manager CFO Director of Operations Marketing Director Chief Estimator

PAGE 129

YEARS WITH COMPANY# Co. (EXEC) [1]E more than 20 [2]B more than 20 # of Responses Response [3]F more than 20 13% 3less than 2 [4]G 10 to 20 35% 82 to 10 [5]C more than 20 26% 610 to 20 [6]D less than 2 26% 6more than 20 [7]A 2 to 10 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 2 to 10 [9]A less than 2 100% [10]H 2 to 10 [11]I 2 to 10 [12]J 10 to 20 [13]K 2 to 10 [14]L less than 2 [15]M 10 to 20 [16]L 10 to 20 [17]C 10 to 20 [18]N 2 to 10 [19]O 10 to 20 [20]P more than 20 [21]Q 2 to 10 [22]R 2 to 10 [23]B more than 20 Yrs with Company (EXEC) YRS WITH COMPANY (EXEC) 26% 26% 35% 13% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% less than 2 2 to 10 10 to 20 more than 20

PAGE 130

YEARS WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY# Co. (EXEC) [1]E more than 20 [2]B more than 20 # of Responses Response [3]F more than 20 4% 1less than 2 [4]G more than 20 4% 12 to 10 [5]C more than 20 39% 910 to 20 [6]D more than 20 52% 12more than 20 [7]A more than 20 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 10 to 20 [9]A 10 to 20 100% [10]H 2 to 10 [11]I 10 to 20 [12]J 10 to 20 [13]K more than 20 [14]L less than 2 [15]M 10 to 20 [16]L 10 to 20 [17]C 10 to 20 [18]N more than 20 [19]O more than 20 [20]P more than 20 [21]Q 10 to 20 [22]R 10 to 20 [23]B more than 20 Yrs Working in the Industry (EXEC) Yrs Working in the Industry (EXEC) 4% 4% 39% 52% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% less than 2 2 to 10 10 to 20 more than 20

PAGE 131

ESTIMATED ANNUAL VOLUME# Co. (EXEC) [1]E $10 $100 million [2]B $10 $100 million # of Responses Response [3]F $10 $100 million 0% 0less than $1 million [4]G $10 $100 million 0% 0$1 $10 million [5]C $10 $100 million 78% 18$10 $100 million [6]D $100 $500 million 22% 5$100 $500 million [7]A $10 $100 million 0% 0$500 million $1 billion [8]B $10 $100 million 0% 0more than $1 billion [9]A $10 $100 million 100% 23 Total Responses [10]H $10 $100 million [11]I $100 $500 million 100% [12]J $100 $500 million [13]K $100 $500 million [14]L $10 $100 million [15]M $10 $100 million [16]L $10 $100 million [17]C $10 $100 million [18]N $10 $100 million [19]O $10 $100 million [20]P $10 $100 million [21]Q $100 $500 million [22]R $10 $100 million [23]B $10 $100 million Est. Annual Volume (EXEC) Est. Annual Volume (EXEC) $100 $500 million 22% $10 $100 million 78%

PAGE 132

AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE# Co. (EXEC) [1]E $1 $10 million [2]B $1 $10 million # of Responses Response [3]F $1 $10 million 9% 2less than $1 million [4]G $1 $10 million 78% 18$1 $10 million [5]C $1 $10 million 13% 3$10 $50 million [6]D $10 $50 million 0% 0$50 $100 million [7]A $1 $10 million 0% 0more than $100 million [8]B $1 $10 million 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A $1 $10 million [10]H less than $1 million 100% [11]I $10 $50 million [12]J $10 $50 million [13]K $1 $10 million [14]L $1 $10 million [15]M $1 $10 million [16]L $1 $10 million [17]C $1 $10 million [18]N $1 $10 million [19]O $1 $10 million [20]P $1 $10 million [21]Q $1 $10 million [22]R less than $1 million [23]B $1 $10 million Avg. Project Size (EXEC) Avg. Project Size (EXEC) $10 $50 million 13% $1 $10 million 78% less than $1 million 9%

PAGE 133

ESTIMATED # OF EMPLOYEES# Co. (EXEC) [1]E 100 to 1,000 [2]B less than 100 # of Responses Response [3]F less than 100 70% 16less than 100 [4]G less than 100 30% 7100 to 1,000 [5]C less than 100 0% 01,000 to 10,000 [6]D 100 to 1,000 0% 0more than 10,000 [7]A less than 100 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B less than 100 [9]A less than 100 100% [10]H less than 100 [11]I 100 to 1,000 [12]J 100 to 1,000 [13]K 100 to 1,000 [14]L less than 100 [15]M less than 100 [16]L 100 to 1,000 [17]C less than 100 [18]N less than 100 [19]O less than 100 [20]P less than 100 [21]Q 100 to 1,000 [22]R less than 100 [23]B less than 100 Est. # of Employees (EXEC) Est. # of Employees (EXEC) 100 to 1,000 30% less than 100 70%

PAGE 134

YEARS IN BUSINESS# Co. (EXEC) [1]E more than 80 [2]B 20 to 40 # of Responses Response [3]F more than 80 0% 0less than 10 [4]G more than 80 17% 410 to 20 [5]C more than 80 30% 720 to 40 [6]D more than 80 13% 340 to 80 [7]A more than 80 39% 9more than 80 [8]B 20 to 40 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A more than 80 [10]H 20 to 40 100% [11]I 10 to 20 [12]J more than 80 [13]K 40 to 80 [14]L 10 to 20 [15]M 20 to 40 [16]L more than 80 [17]C 40 to 80 [18]N 10 to 20 [19]O 10 to 20 [20]P 20 to 40 [21]Q 20 to 40 [22]R 40 to 80 [23]B 20 to 40 Yrs in Business (EXEC) Yrs in Business (EXEC) 10 to 20 17% 20 to 40 30% 40 to 80 13% more than 80 40%

PAGE 135

1 ) Is there a formal trainin g p ro g ram bein g im p lemented in y our com p an y ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E No [2]B Yes # of Responses Response [3]F Yes 78% 18Yes [4]G Yes 22% 5No [5]C Yes 100% 23 Total Responses [6]D Yes [7]A Yes 100% [8]B Yes [9]A No [10]H Yes [11]I No [12]J Yes [13]K Yes [14]L Yes [15]M Yes [16]L Yes [17]C Yes [18]N Yes [19]O No [20]P No [21]Q Yes [22]R Yes [23]B Yes QUESTION 1 (EXEC) QUESTION 1 (EXEC) 78% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% YesNo

PAGE 136

1a ) For how lon g has the p ro g ram been in p lace?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E n/a [2]B 2 to 10 # of Responses Response [3]F 2 to 10 9% 2less than 2 [4]G 2 to 10 48% 112 to 10 [5]C less than 2 22% 5more than 10 [6]D more than 10 22% 5N/A [7]A more than 10 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 2 to 10 [9]A n/a 100% [10]H 2 to 10 [11]I n/a [12]J 2 to 10 [13]K 2 to 10 [14]L more than 10 [15]M 2 to 10 [16]L 2 to 10 [17]C 2 to 10 [18]N 2 to 10 [19]O n/a [20]P n/a [21]Q more than 10 [22]R more than 10 [23]B less than 2 QUESTION 1A (EXEC) QUESTION 1A (EXEC) less than 2 9% 2 to 10 47% more than 10 22% N/A 22%

PAGE 137

1b ) Who receives the trainin g ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E n/a [2]B All Level Personnel # of Responses Response [3]F All Level Personnel 17% 4Entry Level Personnel [4]G All Level Personnel 0% 0High Level Personnel [5]C All Level Personnel 61% 14All Level Personnel [6]D All Level Personnel 22% 5N/A [7]A All Level Personnel 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B All Level Personnel [9]A n/a 100% [10]H All Level Personnel [11]I n/a [12]J Entry Level Personnel [13]K All Level Personnel [14]L All Level Personnel [15]M Entry Level Personnel [16]L All Level Personnel [17]C All Level Personnel [18]N All Level Personnel [19]O n/a [20]P n/a [21]Q Entry Level Personnel [22]R Entry Level Personnel [23]B All Level Personnel QUESTION 1B (EXEC) QUESTION 1B (EXEC) Entry Level Personnel 17% All Level Personnel 61% N/A 22%

PAGE 138

1c ) Who p erforms the trainin g ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E n/a [2]B Both In-house and outside # of Responses Response [3]F The Company (In-house) 26% 6The Company (In-house) [4]G The Company (In-house) 0% 0Outside Organization (Person) [5]C Both In-house and outside 52% 12Both In-house and outside [6]D Both In-house and outside 22% 5N/A [7]A The Company (In-house) 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B Both In-house and outside [9]A n/a 100% [10]H Both In-house and outside [11]I n/a [12]J The Company (In-house) [13]K Both In-house and outside [14]L Both In-house and outside [15]M The Company (In-house) [16]L Both In-house and outside [17]C Both In-house and outside [18]N Both In-house and outside [19]O n/a [20]P n/a [21]Q Both In-house and outside [22]R The Company (In-house) [23]B Both In-house and outside QUESTION 1C (EXEC) QUESTION 1C (EXEC) The Compan y (In-house) 26% Both In-house and outside 52% N/A 22%

PAGE 139

1d ) How much trainin g is mandator y ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E n/a [2]B All # of Responses Response [3]F All 4% 1None [4]G Some 43% 10Some [5]C Some 9% 2Most [6]D Most 17% 4All [7]A Some 26% 6N/A [8]B Most 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A n/a [10]H All 100% [11]I n/a [12]J None [13]K Some [14]L Some [15]M Some [16]L Some [17]C Some [18]N All [19]O n/a [20]P n/a [21]Q Some [22]R Some [23]B n/a QUESTION 1D (EXEC) QUESTION 1D (EXEC) Some 44% None 4% Most 9% All 17% N/A 26%

PAGE 140

2 ) What is the estimated dollar amount s p ent on trainin g for each individual p er y ear?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E $1000 to $2000 [2]B $1000 to $2000 # of Responses Response [3]F $500 to $1000 43% 10less than $500 [4]G less than $500 22% 5$500 to $1,000 [5]C less than $500 13% 3$1,000 to $2,000 [6]D more than $2000 22% 5More than $2,000 [7]A less than $500 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B $500 to $1000 [9]A less than $500 100% [10]H more than $2000 [11]I less than $500 [12]J less than $500 [13]K more than $2000 [14]L less than $500 [15]M more than $2000 [16]L $500 to $1000 [17]C more than $2000 [18]N $1000 to $2000 [19]O less than $500 [20]P less than $500 [21]Q less than $500 [22]R $500 to $1000 [23]B $500 to $1000 QUESTION 2 (EXEC) QUESTION 2 (EXEC)$1,000 to $2,000 13% $500 to $1,000 22% less than $500 43% More than $2,000 22%

PAGE 141

3 ) On avera g e, how man y trainin g /educational seminars p er y ear are offered to j ob-site-level p ersonnel?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E 3-4 [2]B 3-4 # of Responses Response [3]F 3-4 4% 1none [4]G 1 13% 31 [5]C 3-4 35% 82 [6]D more than 4 39% 93-4 [7]A 2 9% 2more than 4 [8]B 2 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A 2 [10]H 1 100% [11]I none [12]J 2 [13]K 2 [14]L more than 4 [15]M 2 [16]L 2 [17]C 3-4 [18]N 3-4 [19]O 2 [20]P 3-4 [21]Q 3-4 [22]R 1 [23]B 3-4 QUESTION 3 (EXEC) QUESTION 3 (EXEC)39% 4% 13% 35% 9%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%none123-4more than 4

PAGE 142

4 ) What are the minimum hours of trainin g p er j ob-site-level em p lo y ee p er y ear?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E less than 12 [2]B 12-24 # of Responses Response [3]F less than 12 57% 13less than 12 [4]G less than 12 26% 612-24 [5]C less than 12 17% 424-48 [6]D 24-48 0% 0more than 48 [7]A 12-24 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 12-24 [9]A less than 12 100% [10]H less than 12 [11]I less than 12 [12]J 12-24 [13]K 24-48 [14]L less than 12 [15]M less than 12 [16]L 24-48 [17]C 12-24 [18]N less than 12 [19]O less than 12 [20]P less than 12 [21]Q 24-48 [22]R less than 12 [23]B 12-24 QUESTION 4 (EXEC) QUESTION 4 (EXEC) 0% 57% 26% 17%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%less than 1212-2424-48more than 48

PAGE 143

5 ) What p ercent of the workforce takes advanta g e of trainin g /educational seminars?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E less than 25% [2]B 50%-75% # of Responses Response [3]F 25%-50% 48% 11less than 25% [4]G less than 25% 9% 225%-50% [5]C less than 25% 30% 750%-75% [6]D 50%-75% 13% 3more than 75% [7]A 50%-75% 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 25%-50% [9]A less than 25% 100% [10]H less than 25% [11]I less than 25% [12]J less than 25% [13]K 50%-75% [14]L more than 75% [15]M less than 25% [16]L 50%-75% [17]C more than 75% [18]N more than 75% [19]O 50%-75% [20]P less than 25% [21]Q less than 25% [22]R less than 25% [23]B 50%-75% QUESTION 5 (EXEC) QUESTION 5 (EXEC) 48% 9% 30% 13%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%less than 25%25%-50%50%-75%more than 75%

PAGE 144

6 ) Is a mentor assi g ned to a newl y hired individual?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E sometimes [2]B sometimes # of Responses Response [3]F generally yes 0% 0never [4]G generally yes 22% 5generally not [5]C sometimes 35% 8sometimes [6]D generally yes 39% 9generally yes [7]A sometimes 4% 1always [8]B generally yes 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A generally not [10]H generally yes 100% [11]I sometimes [12]J sometimes [13]K generally yes [14]L generally not [15]M sometimes [16]L generally not [17]C generally yes [18]N always [19]O generally yes [20]P generally yes [21]Q sometimes [22]R generally not [23]B generally not QUESTION 6 (EXEC) QUESTION 6 (EXEC) sometimes 35% generally not 22% always 4% generally yes 39%

PAGE 145

7 ) Does y our com p an y offer em p lo y ee continuin g -education p ro g ram benefits such as a tuition reimbursement p ro g ram?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E always [2]B generally yes # of Responses Response [3]F always 4% 1never [4]G generally yes 13% 3generally not [5]C generally yes 17% 4sometimes [6]D always 35% 8generally yes [7]A sometimes 30% 7always [8]B sometimes 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A never [10]H generally not 100% [11]I always [12]J always [13]K generally not [14]L generally yes [15]M always [16]L generally yes [17]C generally yes [18]N generally not [19]O sometimes [20]P always [21]Q generally yes [22]R sometimes [23]B generally yes QUESTION 7 (EXEC) QUESTION 7 (EXEC) generally yes 36% sometimes 17% generally not 13% never 4% always 30%

PAGE 146

8 ) How often does y our com p an y hold formal em p lo y ee p erformance reviews?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E always [2]B generally yes # of Responses Response [3]F always 0% 0never [4]G always 0% 0generally not [5]C always 9% 2sometimes [6]D always 17% 4generally yes [7]A always 74% 17always [8]B always 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A always [10]H always 100% [11]I sometimes [12]J always [13]K generally yes [14]L always [15]M always [16]L always [17]C always [18]N always [19]O always [20]P generally yes [21]Q always [22]R generally yes [23]B sometimes QUESTION 8 (EXEC) QUESTION 8 (EXEC) generally yes 17% sometimes 9% always 74%

PAGE 147

8a ) How often does y our com p an y hold formal em p lo y ee p erformance reviews for new hires ( less than 1 y r ) ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E varies [2]B varies # of Responses Response [3]F annually 52% 12semi-annually [4]G annually 30% 7annually [5]C semi-annually 13% 3varies [6]D semi-annually 4% 1never [7]A annually 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B semi-annually [9]A semi-annually 100% [10]H varies [11]I semi-annually [12]J semi-annually [13]K annually [14]L annually [15]M annually [16]L semi-annually [17]C semi-annually [18]N semi-annually [19]O never [20]P semi-annually [21]Q annually [22]R semi-annually [23]B semi-annually QUESTION 8A (EXEC) QUESTION 8A (EXEC) semi-annually 53% annually 30% varies 13% never 4%

PAGE 148

8b ) How often does y our com p an y hold formal em p lo y ee p erformance reviews for all other p ersonnel ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E annually [2]B annually # of Responses Response [3]F annually 17% 4semi-annually [4]G annually 70% 16annually [5]C semi-annually 13% 3varies [6]D annually 0% 0never [7]A annually 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B annually [9]A semi-annually 100% [10]H varies [11]I annually [12]J annually [13]K varies [14]L annually [15]M annually [16]L annually [17]C semi-annually [18]N semi-annually [19]O annually [20]P annually [21]Q annually [22]R annually [23]B varies QUESTION 8B (EXEC) QUESTION 8B (EXEC) semi-annually 17% annually 70% varies 13%

PAGE 149

9 ) Does y our com p an y have established formal events were em p lo y ees are reco g nized and rewarded for their contributions?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E Yes [2]B Yes # of Responses Response [3]F No 78% 18Yes [4]G No 22% 5No [5]C Yes 100% 23 Total Responses [6]D Yes [7]A Yes 100% [8]B No [9]A Yes [10]H No A Yes [11]I Yes H No [12]J No I Yes [13]K Yes J No [14]L Yes K Yes [15]M Yes L Yes [16]L Yes M Yes [17]C Yes L Yes [18]N Yes C Yes [19]O Yes N Yes [20]P Yes O Yes [21]Q Yes P Yes [22]R Yes Q Yes [23]B Yes R Yes B Yes QUESTION 9 (EXEC)

PAGE 150

9a ) If so, a pp roximatel y how man y of these t yp e of ( em p lo y ee reco g nition ) events are held annuall y ?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E 2-4 [2]B 2-4 # of Responses Response [3]F n/a 0% 00 [4]G n/a 30% 71 [5]C 2-4 35% 82-4 [6]D 2-4 13% 3more than 4 [7]A 2-4 22% 5N/A [8]B n/a 100% 23 Total Responses [9]A 2-4 [10]H n/a 100% [11]I 1 [12]J n/a [13]K 1 [14]L 2-4 [15]M 1 [16]L more than 4 [17]C 2-4 [18]N 1 [19]O 1 [20]P 1 [21]Q more than 4 [22]R 1 [23]B more than 4 QUESTION 9A (EXEC) QUESTION 9A (EXEC) 0% 30% 35% 13% 22%0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%012-4more than 4N/A

PAGE 151

10 ) What t yp es of p erformance incentives does y our com p an y use?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E awards [2]B financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other # of Responses Response [3]F financial, awards, other 87% 20Financial [4]G financial, promotion, awards 43% 10Paid time off [5]C none 65% 15Promotion [6]D financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 74% 17Awards [7]A financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 17% 4Other [8]B financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 4% 1None [9]A financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 100% 67 Total Responses [10]H financial, paid time off [11]I financial, promotion, awards 291% [12]J financial, promotion [13]K financial, paid time off, promotion, awards [14]L financial, promotion, awards, other # of Responses Response [15]M financial, promotion, awards 9% 2 financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other [16]L financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other 26% 6 financial, paid time off, promotion, awards [17]C financial, promotion, awards 4% 1 financial, promotion, awards, other [18]N financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 17% 4 financial, promotion, awards [19]O financial, promotion 4% 1 financial, awards, other [20]P financial, paid time off 4% 1 financial, awards [21]Q financial, awards 9% 2 financial, paid time off [22]R financial 9% 2 financial, promotion [23]B awards 4% 1 financial 9% 2 awards 4% 1 none 100% 23 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 10 (EXEC) QUESTION 10 (EXEC) (EXEC)43% 87% 65% 74%4%17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Financial Paid time off Promotion Awards Other None

PAGE 152

10 ) What t yp es of p erformance incentives does y our com p an y use?# of Responses Response 9% 2 financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other 26% 6 financial, paid time off, promotion, awards 4% 1 financial, promotion, awards, other 17% 4 financial, promotion, awards 4% 1 financial, awards, other 4% 1 financial, awards 9% 2 financial, paid time off 9% 2 financial, promotion 4% 1 financial 9% 2 awards 4% 1 none 100% 23 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 10 (EXEC) QUESTION 10 (EXEC) 9% 4% 9% 4% 4% 17% 4% 9% 9% 26% 4% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30% financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other financial, paid time off, promotion, awards financial, promotion, awards, other financial, promotion, awards financial, awards, other financial, awards financial, paid time off financial, promotion financial awards none

PAGE 153

11 ) To p romote o p en communication, our com p an y p rovides:# Co. (EXEC) [1]E Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Other [2]B Newsletters, Other # of Responses Response [3]F Newsletters 39% 9Suggestion Boxes [4]G Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters 65% 15Newsletters [5]C n/a 30% 7Bulletin Boards [6]D Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards 35% 8Other [7]A Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards 22% 5N/A [8]B Newsletters, Other 100% 44 Total Responses [9]A Suggestion Boxes, Bulletin Boards, Other [10]H Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other 191% [11]I Other [12]J Newsletters [13]K Newsletters, Bulletin Boards [14]L Newsletters, Other [15]M Newsletters # of Responses Response [16]L Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters 9% 2 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other [17]C Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters 9% 2 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards [18]N Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other 4% 1 Suggestion Boxes, Bulletin Boards, Other [19]O n/a 4% 1 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Other [20]P Bulletin Boards 13% 3 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters [21]Q n/a 4% 1 Newsletters, Bulletin Boards [22]R n/a 13% 3 Newsletters, Other [23]B n/a 13% 3 Newsletters 4% 1 Bulletin Boards 4% 1 Other 22% 5 n/a 100% 23 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 11 (EXEC) QUESTION 11 (EXEC) (EXEC)65% 39% 30% 35% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Suggestion Boxes Newsletters Bulletin Boards OtherN/A

PAGE 154

11 ) To p romote o p en communication, our com p an y p rovides:# of Responses Response 9% 2 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other 9% 2 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards 4% 1 Suggestion Boxes, Bulletin Boards, Other 4% 1 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Other 13% 3 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters 4% 1 Newsletters, Bulletin Boards 13% 3 Newsletters, Other 13% 3 Newsletters 4% 1 Bulletin Boards 4% 1 Other 22% 5 n/a 100% 23 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 11 (EXEC) QUESTION 11 (EXEC) 13% 4% 4% 22% 9% 13% 9% 4% 4% 4% 13% 0%5%10%15%20%25% Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards Suggestion Boxes, Bulletin Boards, Other Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Other Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters Newsletters, Bulletin Boards Newsletters, Other Newsletters Bulletin Boards Other n/a

PAGE 155

12 ) On avera g e, how man y social activities does y our com p an y s p onsor for its em p lo y ees p er y ear?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E 0 [2]B more than 4 # of Responses Response [3]F 0 13% 30 [4]G 0 17% 41 [5]C more than 4 48% 112-4 [6]D more than 4 22% 5more than 4 [7]A 2-4 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B 2-4 [9]A more than 4 100% [10]H 1 [11]I 2-4 [12]J 2-4 [13]K 2-4 [14]L more than 4 [15]M 2-4 [16]L 2-4 [17]C 2-4 [18]N 2-4 [19]O 2-4 [20]P 1 [21]Q 2-4 [22]R 1 [23]B 1 QUESTION 12 (EXEC)

PAGE 156

13 ) Does y our com p an y offer com p etitive em p lo y ee benefits?# Co. (EXEC) [1]E Exceeds Industry [2]B Comparable to Industry # of Responses Response [3]F Exceeds Industry 0% 0None [4]G Comparable to Industry 0% 0Minimum Required [5]C Exceeds Industry 61% 14Comparable to Industry [6]D Exceeds Industry 39% 9Exceeds Industry [7]A Comparable to Industry 100% 23 Total Responses [8]B Comparable to Industry [9]A Comparable to Industry 100% [10]H Exceeds Industry [11]I Comparable to Industry [12]J Exceeds Industry [13]K Comparable to Industry [14]L Comparable to Industry [15]M Comparable to Industry [16]L Comparable to Industry [17]C Exceeds Industry [18]N Exceeds Industry [19]O Comparable to Industry [20]P Comparable to Industry [21]Q Comparable to Industry [22]R Exceeds Industry [23]B Comparable to Industry QUESTION 13 (EXEC) QUESTION 13 (EXEC) Exceeds Industry 39% Comparable to Industry 61%

PAGE 157

POSITION / TITLE # Co. (PROJ) [1]S Administrative Assistant [2]T Project Engineer # of Responses Response [3]A Estimator Project Manager 36% 5Project Manager [4]D Engineer 7% 1Superintendent [5]B Project Manager 21% 3Project Engineer [6]C Superintendent 7% 1Operations Manager [7]U Senior Preconstruction Manager 7% 1Preconstr. Manager [8]T Project Engineer 14% 2Estimator [9]C Senior Estimator 7% 1Admin. Assistant [10]V Project Manager 100% 14 Total Responses [11]W Operations Manager [12]A Estimator 100% [13]X Project Manager [14]B Project Manager Position / Title (PROJ)

PAGE 158

YEARS WITH COMPANY# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E more than 20 S 2 to 10 [2]B more than 20 T less than 2 # of Responses Response [3]F more than 20 A less than 2 16% 6less than 2 [4]G 10 to 20 D 2 to 10 43% 162 to 10 [5]C more than 20 B 2 to 10 24% 910 to 20 [6]D less than 2 C 2 to 10 16% 6more than 20 [7]A 2 to 10 U 2 to 10 100% 37 Total Responses [8]B 2 to 10 T less than 2 [9]A less than 2 C 2 to 10 100% [10]H 2 to 10 V 10 to 20 [11]I 2 to 10 W 10 to 20 [12]J 10 to 20 A 10 to 20 [13]K 2 to 10 X 2 to 10 [14]L less than 2 B 2 to 10 [15]M 10 to 20 [16]L 10 to 20 # of Responses Response [17]C 10 to 20 13% 3less than 2 [18]N 2 to 10 35% 82 to 10 [19]O 10 to 20 26% 610 to 20 [20]P more than 20 26% 6more than 20 [21]Q 2 to 10 100% 23 Total Responses [22]R 2 to 10 [23]B more than 20 100% # of Responses Response 21% 3less than 2 57% 82 to 10 21% 310 to 20 0% 0more than 20 100% 14 Total Responses 100% Yrs with Company (ALL) Yrs with Company (EXEC) Yrs with Company (PROJ)

PAGE 159

YEARS WORKING IN THE INDUSTRY# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E more than 20 S 10 to 20 [2]B more than 20 T less than 2 # of Responses Response [3]F more than 20 A 10 to 20 8% 3less than 2 [4]G more than 20 D 2 to 10 8% 32 to 10 [5]C more than 20 B more than 20 38% 1410 to 20 [6]D more than 20 C more than 20 46% 17more than 20 [7]A more than 20 U 10 to 20 100% 37 Total Responses [8]B 10 to 20 T less than 2 [9]A 10 to 20 C more than 20 100% [10]H 2 to 10 V 10 to 20 [11]I 10 to 20 W 10 to 20 [12]J 10 to 20 A more than 20 [13]K more than 20 X 2 to 10 [14]L less than 2 B more than 20 [15]M 10 to 20 [16]L 10 to 20 # of Responses Response [17]C 10 to 20 4% 1less than 2 [18]N more than 20 4% 12 to 10 [19]O more than 20 39% 910 to 20 [20]P more than 20 52% 12more than 20 [21]Q 10 to 20 100% 23 Total Responses [22]R 10 to 20 [23]B more than 20 100% # of Responses Response 14% 2less than 2 14% 22 to 10 36% 510 to 20 36% 5more than 20 100% 14 Total Responses 100% Yrs Working in the Industry (ALL) Yrs Working in the Industry (EXEC) Yrs Working in the Industry (PROJ)

PAGE 160

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 1) The company training programs are effective.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S n/a [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree # of Responses Response [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 5% 2Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 5%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [6]D Agree C Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Somewhat Agree 46% 17Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 86%19% 7Strongly Agree [9]A n/a C Agree 8% 3N/A [10]H Agree V Disagree 100% 37 Total Responses [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree 100% [13]K Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Agree [17]C Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [19]O Disagree 4% 1Disagree [20]P n/a 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 17% 4Somewhat Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 39% 9Agree [23]B Strongly Agree 87%30% 7Strongly Agree 9% 2N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 7%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 86%0% 0Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 1 (ALL) QUESTION 1 (EXEC) QUESTION 1 (PROJ) QUESTION 1 (ALL) Strongly Agree 19% Agree 46% N/A 8% Disagree 5% Somewhat Agree 22% QUESTION 1 (EXEC) Strongly Agree 30% Agree 40% Somewhat Agree 17% Disagree 4% N/A 9% QUESTION 1 (PROJ) N/A 7% Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 29% Agree 57%

PAGE 161

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 2) The company has a well-defined training program in place. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Strongly Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 8% 3Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Agree 11% 4Disagree [4]G Somewhat Disagree D Strongly Agree 27% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Disagree B Disagree 35% 13Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 27% 10Agree [7]A Somewhat Agree U Somewhat Disagree 70% 8% 3Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Strongly Disagree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Disagree [11]I Strongly Disagree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Somewhat Agree X Disagree [14]L Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 9% 2Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Disagree 22%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 39% 9Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 74%4% 1Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 21% 3Disagree 36%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 21% 3Agree 64%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 2 (ALL) QUESTION 2 (EXEC) QUESTION 2 (PROJ) QUESTION 2 (ALL) Agree 27% Strongly Agree 8% N/A 3% Strongly Disagree 8% Disagree 11% Somewhat Disagree 8% Somewhat Agree 35% QUESTION 2 (EXEC) Agree 30% Strongly Agree 4% Somewhat Agree 40% Somewhat Disagree 9% Disagree 4% Strongly Disagree 9% N/A 4% QUESTION 2 (PROJ) N/A 0% Strongly Disagree 7% Disagree 21% Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 30% Strongly Agree 14% Agree 21%

PAGE 162

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 3) The company encourages training.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A n/a 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Strongly Agree 3% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Strongly Agree 27% 10Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 24% 9Agree [7]A Somewhat Agree U Agree 95% 43% 16Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Disagree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Agree 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 35% 8Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 17% 4Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 96%43% 10Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 93%43% 6Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 3 (ALL) QUESTION 3 (EXEC) QUESTION 3 (PROJ) QUESTION 3 (ALL) Agree 24% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 27% Disagree 3% N/A 3% QUESTION 3 (EXEC) Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 35% Strongly Agree 44% Agree 17% QUESTION 3 (PROJ) Agree 36% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 14% N/A 7%

PAGE 163

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 4) The training provided by the company has been beneficial.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 5% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Agree 16% 6Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 86% 30% 11Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 8% 3N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Strongly Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X n/a [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 9%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Disagree 35% 8Agree [22]R Somewhat Disagree 83%39% 9Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 9% 2N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 4 (ALL) QUESTION 4 (EXEC) QUESTION 4 (PROJ) QUESTION 4 (ALL) Agree 41% Strongly Agree 30% Somewhat Agree 16% Somewhat Disagree 5% N/A 8% QUESTION 4 (EXEC) N/A 9% Somewhat Disagree 9% Somewhat Agree 9% Strongly Agree 38% Agree 35% QUESTION 4 (PROJ) Agree 50% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 29% N/A 7%

PAGE 164

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 5) The company has improved my quality performance.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 8% 3Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Agree 16% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Strongly Agree 38% 14Agree [7]A Somewhat Agree U Agree 81% 22% 8Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Disagree 3% 1N/A [9]A Disagree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Disagree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 13% 3Disagree [19]O Disagree 17%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 17% 4Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Disagree 39% 9Agree [22]R Agree 78%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 86%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 5 (ALL) QUESTION 5 (EXEC) QUESTION 5 (PROJ) QUESTION 5 (ALL) Agree 37% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 22% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 8% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 3% QUESTION 5 (EXEC) N/A 4% Disagree 13% Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 17% Strongly Agree 22% Agree 40% QUESTION 5 (PROJ) Agree 36% Strongly Agree 21% Somewhat Agree 29% Somewhat Disagree 7% Disagree 7%

PAGE 165

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 6) Employees regard company-sponsored training as important. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Disagree D Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Somewhat Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 51% 19Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 95% 22% 8Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Disagree 0% 0N/A [9]A Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 4%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 26% 6Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 96%26% 6Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 7%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 64% 9Agree 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 6 (ALL) QUESTION 6 (EXEC) QUESTION 6 (PROJ) QUESTION 6 (ALL) Agree 50% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 22% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 3% QUESTION 6 (EXEC) Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 26% Strongly Agree 26% Agree 44% QUESTION 6 (PROJ) Agree 65% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 14% Disagree 7%

PAGE 166

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 7) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S n/a # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Somewhat Agree 24% 9Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 95% 22% 8Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 5% 2N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 26% 6Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Agree 96%26% 6Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 7 (ALL) QUESTION 7 (EXEC) QUESTION 7 (PROJ) QUESTION 7 (ALL) Agree 49% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 24% N/A 5% QUESTION 7 (EXEC) N/A 4% Somewhat Agree 26% Strongly Agree 26% Agree 44% QUESTION 7 (PROJ) Agree 58% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 21% N/A 7%

PAGE 167

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 8) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Disagree D Disagree 8% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Strongly Agree 38% 14Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 78% 19% 7Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 14% 5N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I n/a W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O n/a 9%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 35% 8Agree [22]R Somewhat Disagree 70%13% 3Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 22% 5N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 7%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 43% 6Agree 93%29% 4Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 8 (ALL) QUESTION 8 (EXEC) QUESTION 8 (PROJ) QUESTION 8 (ALL) Agree 37% Strongly Agree 19% Somewhat Agree 22% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 3% N/A 14% QUESTION 8 (EXEC) N/A 22% Somewhat Disagree 9% Somewhat Agree 22% Strongly Agree 13% Agree 34% QUESTION 8 (PROJ) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 29% Somewhat Agree 21% Disagree 7%

PAGE 168

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 9) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Agree 5% 2Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 5% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 38% 14Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 78% 19% 7Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Disagree 16% 6N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Agree [11]I n/a W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J n/a A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O n/a 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 17% 4Somewhat Agree [21]Q Disagree 30% 7Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 70%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 26% 6N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 7%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 9 (ALL) QUESTION 9 (EXEC) QUESTION 9 (PROJ) QUESTION 9 (ALL) Agree 38% Strongly Agree 19% Somewhat Agree 22% Disagree 5% N/A 16% QUESTION 9 (EXEC) N/A 26% Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 17% Strongly Agree 22% Agree 31% QUESTION 9 (PROJ) Agree 50% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 29% Disagree 7% N/A 0%

PAGE 169

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 10) Training has increased my commitment to producing quality work.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Somewhat Agree 16% 6Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 43% 16Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 78% 19% 7Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 16% 6N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I n/a W Agree 100% [12]J n/a A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O n/a 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Disagree 39% 9Agree [22]R Agree 70%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 26% 6N/A 100% 23 Total Responses (EXEC) 100% 70%Agreement (Exec) 4%Disagreement (Exec) 26%Not Applicable (Exec) (PROJ) 93%Agreement (Proj) # of Responses Response 7%Disagreement (Proj) 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0%Not Applicable (Proj) 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 62% 23 EXEC 29% 4Somewhat Agree 38% 14 PROJ 50% 7Agree 100% 37ALL 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 10 (ALL) QUESTION 10 (EXEC) QUESTION 10 (PROJ) QUESTION 10 (ALL) N/A 16% Disagree 3% Somewhat Disagree 3% Somewhat Agree 16% Strongly Agree 19% Agree 43% QUESTION 10 (EXEC) N/A 26% Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 9% Strongly Agree 22% Agree 39% QUESTION 10 (PROJ) Agree 50% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 29% Somewhat Disagree 7%

PAGE 170

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 11) More company sponsored training opportunities are needed.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Disagree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Disagree A Somewhat Agree 11% 4Disagree [4]G Disagree D Agree 22% 11% 4Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Disagree 19% 7Somewhat Agree [6]D Somewhat Disagree C Strongly Agree 24% 9Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 76% 32% 12Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Disagree T Disagree 3% 1N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Disagree 100% [12]J Strongly Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 9% 2Disagree [19]O Agree 22%13% 3Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 17% 4Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 26% 6Agree [22]R Agree 74%30% 7Strongly Agree [23]B Strongly Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 14% 2Disagree 21%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 21% 3Agree 79%36% 5Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 11 (ALL) QUESTION 11 (EXEC) QUESTION 11 (PROJ) QUESTION 11 (ALL) Agree 24% Strongly Agree 32% Somewhat Agree 19% Somewhat Disagree 11% Disagree 11% N/A 3% QUESTION 11 (EXEC) N/A 4% Disagree 9% Somewhat Disagree 13% Somewhat Agree 17% Strongly Agree 31% Agree 26% QUESTION 11 (PROJ) Agree 21% Strongly Agree 37% Somewhat Agree 21% Somewhat Disagree 7% Disagree 14%

PAGE 171

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 12) Since introducing quality training, the number of punch-list items has been reduced.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Disagree T n/a 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 11% 4Disagree [4]G Disagree D Somewhat Agree 16% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Somewhat Agree 38% 14Somewhat Agree [6]D Somewhat Agree C Agree 14% 5Agree [7]A Agree U n/a 57% 5% 2Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Disagree 27% 10N/A [9]A n/a C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Disagree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A n/a [13]K Somewhat Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L n/a B Somewhat Agree [15]M Disagree [16]L n/a # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 9% 2Disagree [19]O n/a 13%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 39% 9Somewhat Agree [21]Q n/a 9% 2Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 57%9% 2Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 30% 7N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 14% 2Disagree 21%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 36% 5Somewhat Agree 21% 3Agree 57%0% 0Strongly Agree 21% 3N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 12 (ALL) QUESTION 12 (EXEC) QUESTION 12 (PROJ) QUESTION 12 (ALL) Agree 14% Strongly Agree 5% Somewhat Agree 38% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 11% N/A 27% QUESTION 12 (EXEC) N/A 30% Disagree 9% Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 39% Strongly Agree 9% Agree 9% QUESTION 12 (PROJ) Agree 21% Somewhat Agree 37% Somewhat Disagree 7% Disagree 14% N/A 21%

PAGE 172

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 13 ) Trainin g p ro g rams have im p roved teamwork. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree 38% 14Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 27% 10Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 86% 22% 8Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 8% 3N/A [9]A n/a C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Somewhat Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L n/a # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O n/a 4%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 30% 7Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Disagree 26% 6Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 83%26% 6Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 13% 3N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 7%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 50% 7Somewhat Agree 29% 4Agree 93%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 13 (ALL) QUESTION 13 (EXEC) QUESTION 13 (PROJ) QUESTION 13 (ALL) Agree 27% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 37% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 3% N/A 8% QUESTION 13 (EXEC) N/A 13% Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 31% Strongly Agree 26% Agree 26% QUESTION 13 (PROJ) Agree 29% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 50% Disagree 7%

PAGE 173

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 14) The company feels that training is an important part of employee development.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Strongly Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 11% 4Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 95% 49% 18Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Disagree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 13% 3Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 100%48% 11Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 29% 4Agree 86%50% 7Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 14 (ALL) QUESTION 14 (EXEC) QUESTION 14 (PROJ) QUESTION 14 (ALL) Agree 35% Strongly Agree 48% Somewhat Agree 11% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 3% QUESTION 14 (EXEC) Somewhat Agree 13% Strongly Agree 48% Agree 39% QUESTION 14 (PROJ) Agree 29% Strongly Agree 50% Somewhat Agree 7% Somewhat Disagree 7% Disagree 7%

PAGE 174

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 15) The company thinks that training employees is beneficial to company quality performance. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 8% 3Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 97% 49% 18Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O n/a 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Agree 96%52% 12Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 43% 6Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 15 (ALL) QUESTION 15 (EXEC) QUESTION 15 (PROJ) QUESTION 15 (ALL) N/A 3% Somewhat Agree 8% Strongly Agree 48% Agree 41% QUESTION 15 (EXEC) N/A 4% Somewhat Agree 4% Strongly Agree 53% Agree 39% QUESTION 15 (PROJ) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 14%

PAGE 175

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 16) The company values the benefits of training.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 14% 5Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 32% 12Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 97% 51% 19Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A n/a C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 96%57% 13Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 16 (ALL) QUESTION 16 (EXEC) QUESTION 16 (PROJ) QUESTION 16 (ALL) Agree 32% Strongly Agree 51% Somewhat Agree 14% N/A 3% QUESTION 16 (EXEC) N/A 4% Somewhat Agree 9% Strongly Agree 57% Agree 30% QUESTION 16 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 21% Strongly Agree 43% Agree 36%

PAGE 176

QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 17) The company's investment in training leads to increased time and money savings. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Agree 24% 9Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 46% 17Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 100% 30% 11Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A n/a C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 26% 6Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 100%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 100%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 17 (ALL) QUESTION 17 (EXEC) QUESTION 17 (PROJ) QUESTION 17 (ALL) Agree 46% Strongly Agree 30% Somewhat Agree 24% QUESTION 17 (EXEC) Somewhat Agree 26% Strongly Agree 35% Agree 39% QUESTION 17 (PROJ) Agree 58% Strongly Agree 21% Somewhat Agree 21%

PAGE 177

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 1) Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Somewhat Agree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Somewhat Agree 8% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree 43% 16Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 32% 12Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 92% 16% 6Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Strongly Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 4%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 39% 9Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Somewhat Disagree 96%17% 4Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 50% 7Somewhat Agree 21% 3Agree 86%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 18 (ALL) QUESTION 18 (EXEC) QUESTION 18 (PROJ) QUESTION 18 (ALL) Agree 32% Strongly Agree 16% Somewhat Agree 43% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% QUESTION 18 (EXEC) Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 40% Strongly Agree 17% Agree 39% QUESTION 18 (PROJ) Agree 21% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 51% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 7%

PAGE 178

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 2) Company motivation is beneficial to job performance. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 5% 2Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 38% 14Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 100% 57% 21Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 26% 6Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%70% 16Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 100%36% 5Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 19 (ALL) QUESTION 19 (EXEC) QUESTION 19 (PROJ) QUESTION 19 (ALL) Agree 38% Strongly Agree 57% Somewhat Agree 5% QUESTION 19 (EXEC) Somewhat Agree 4% Strongly Agree 70% Agree 26% QUESTION 19 (PROJ) Agree 57% Strongly Agree 36% Somewhat Agree 7%

PAGE 179

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 3) Company motivation encourages more productive work.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 5% 2Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 100% 46% 17Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%48% 11Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 20 (ALL) QUESTION 20 (EXEC) QUESTION 20 (PROJ) QUESTION 20 (ALL) Agree 49% Strongly Agree 46% Somewhat Agree 5% QUESTION 20 (EXEC) Somewhat Agree 9% Strongly Agree 48% Agree 43% QUESTION 20 (PROJ) Agree 57% Strongly Agree 43%

PAGE 180

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 4) Motivation affects task efficiency. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Agree 5% 2Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 100% 54% 20Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 35% 8Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%61% 14Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 21 (ALL) QUESTION 21 (EXEC) QUESTION 21 (PROJ) QUESTION 21 (ALL) Agree 41% Strongly Agree 54% Somewhat Agree 5% QUESTION 21 (EXEC) Somewhat Agree 4% Strongly Agree 61% Agree 35% QUESTION 21 (PROJ) Agree 50% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 7%

PAGE 181

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 5) Maximum productivity potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 3% 1Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 43% 16Agree [7]A Agree U n/a 97% 51% 19Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 35% 8Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%65% 15Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 93%29% 4Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 22 (ALL) QUESTION 22 (EXEC) QUESTION 22 (PROJ) QUESTION 22 (ALL) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 51% Somewhat Agree 3% N/A 3% QUESTION 22 (EXEC) Strongly Agree 65% Agree 35% QUESTION 22 (PROJ) Agree 57% Strongly Agree 29% Somewhat Agree 7% N/A 7%

PAGE 182

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 6) I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Somewhat Disagree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Somewhat Agree 11% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Agree 14% 5Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Strongly Agree 51% 19Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 84% 19% 7Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Disagree 5% 2N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Disagree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 13% 3Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 61% 14Agree [22]R Agree 91%17% 4Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 9% 2N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 29%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 71%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 23 (ALL) QUESTION 23 (EXEC) QUESTION 23 (PROJ) QUESTION 23 (ALL) Agree 51% Strongly Agree 19% Somewhat Agree 14% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 23 (EXEC) N/A 9% Somewhat Agree 13% Strongly Agree 17% Agree 61% QUESTION 23 (PROJ) Agree 37% Strongly Agree 21% Somewhat Agree 14% Somewhat Disagree 14% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 7%

PAGE 183

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 7 ) The com p an y reco g nizes m y p erformance a pp ro p riatel y # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E n/a S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Disagree T Somewhat Disagree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Somewhat Agree 16% 11% 4Somewhat Disagree [5]C n/a B Somewhat Agree 16% 6Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 43% 16Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 73% 14% 5Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 11% 4N/A [9]A n/a C Somewhat Disagree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Disagree 13%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Disagree 48% 11Agree [22]R Agree 70%13% 3Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 17% 4N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 21%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 79%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 24 (ALL) QUESTION 24 (EXEC) QUESTION 24 (PROJ) QUESTION 24 (ALL) Agree 42% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 16% Somewhat Disagree 11% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 11% QUESTION 24 (EXEC) N/A 17% Disagree 4% Somewhat Disagree 9% Somewhat Agree 9% Strongly Agree 13% Agree 48% QUESTION 24 (PROJ) Strongly Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 14% Somewhat Agree 29% Strongly Agree 14% Agree 36%

PAGE 184

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 8) People are more productive at or around the time of performance/salary reviews. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 19% 7Disagree [4]G Disagree D Disagree 32% 14% 5Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Disagree B Somewhat Disagree 41% 15Somewhat Agree [6]D Somewhat Agree C Somewhat Disagree 11% 4Agree [7]A Agree U Disagree 62% 11% 4Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Agree T Disagree 5% 2N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C n/a 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W n/a 100% [12]J Disagree A Disagree [13]K Somewhat Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Disagree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 13% 3Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 17%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 48% 11Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 17% 4Agree [22]R Agree 83%17% 4Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 29% 4Disagree 57%29% 4Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 0% 0Agree 29%0% 0Strongly Agree 14% 2N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 25 (ALL) QUESTION 25 (EXEC) QUESTION 25 (PROJ) QUESTION 25 (ALL) Agree 11% Strongly Agree 11% Somewhat Agree 40% Somewhat Disagree 14% Disagree 19% N/A 5% QUESTION 25 (EXEC) Disagree 13% Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 49% Strongly Agree 17% Agree 17% QUESTION 25 (PROJ) N/A 14% Disagree 28% Somewhat Disagree 29% Somewhat Agree 29%

PAGE 185

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 9) I feel the company values my opinion.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E n/a S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Disagree T Somewhat Agree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Agree 14% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 8% 3Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 81% 38% 14Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Disagree 5% 2N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Disagree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 4%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 87%52% 12Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 9% 2N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 28%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 44% 6Agree 73%15% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 26 (ALL) QUESTION 26 (EXEC) QUESTION 26 (PROJ) QUESTION 26 (ALL) Agree 35% Strongly Agree 38% Somewhat Agree 8% Somewhat Disagree 8% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 26 (EXEC) N/A 9% Somewhat Disagree 4% Somewhat Agree 4% Strongly Agree 53% Agree 30% QUESTION 26 (PROJ) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 15% Somewhat Agree 14% Somewhat Disagree 14% Disagree 7% Strongly Disagree 7%

PAGE 186

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 10) Feeling valued and appreciated by the company motivates me.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E n/a S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 3% 1Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 38% 14Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 95% 54% 20Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 5% 2N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 91%61% 14Strongly Agree [23]B Strongly Agree 9% 2N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 27 (ALL) QUESTION 27 (EXEC) QUESTION 27 (PROJ) QUESTION 27 (ALL) Agree 38% Strongly Agree 54% Somewhat Agree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 27 (EXEC) N/A 9% Strongly Agree 61% Agree 30% QUESTION 27 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 7% Strongly Agree 43% Agree 50%

PAGE 187

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 11) Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Strongly Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Disagree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D Somewhat Disagree 11% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 32% 12Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 81% 14% 5Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Agree T Somewhat Agree 8% 3N/A [9]A n/a C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Disagree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Somewhat Agree B Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 30% 7Somewhat Agree [21]Q n/a 39% 9Agree [22]R Agree 87%17% 4Strongly Agree [23]B Strongly Agree 13% 3N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 29%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 36% 5Somewhat Agree 29% 4Agree 71%7% 1Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 28 (ALL) QUESTION 28 (EXEC) QUESTION 28 (PROJ) QUESTION 28 (ALL) Agree 35% Strongly Agree 14% Somewhat Agree 32% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 8% QUESTION 28 (EXEC) N/A 13% Somewhat Agree 30% Strongly Agree 17% Agree 40% QUESTION 28 (PROJ) Strongly Disagree 7% Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 14% Somewhat Agree 36% Stron g l y Agree 8% Agree 29%

PAGE 188

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 12) Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Somewhat Agree S Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Disagree 5% 2Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 8% 3Disagree [4]G Agree D Somewhat Agree 19% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Somewhat Agree 38% 14Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 81% 8% 3Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Disagree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 4% 1Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Disagree 17%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 30% 7Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Disagree 39% 9Agree [22]R Somewhat Disagree 83%13% 3Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 14% 2Disagree 21%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 50% 7Somewhat Agree 29% 4Agree 79%0% 0Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 29 (ALL) QUESTION 29 (EXEC) QUESTION 29 (PROJ) QUESTION 29 (ALL) Agree 35% Strongly Agree 8% Somewhat Agree 39% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 8% Strongly Disagree 5% QUESTION 29 (EXEC) Strongly Disagree 4% Disagree 4% Somewhat Disagree 9% Somewhat Agree 30% Strongly Agree 13% Agree 40% QUESTION 29 (PROJ) Agree 29% Somewhat Agree 50% Disagree 14% Strongly Disagree 7%

PAGE 189

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 13) A motivated workforce significantly influences the success of a project. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 16% 6Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 100% 84% 31Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Strongly Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 17% 4Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%83% 19Strongly Agree [23]B Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Somewhat Agree 14% 2Agree 100%86% 12Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 30 (ALL) QUESTION 30 (EXEC) QUESTION 30 (PROJ) QUESTION 30 (ALL) Agree 16% Strongly Agree 84% QUESTION 30 (EXEC) Strongly Agree 83% Agree 17% QUESTION 30 (PROJ) Agree 14% Stron g l y Agree 85%

PAGE 190

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 14) Our company provides appropriate working conditions.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Agree 3% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 8% 3Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Strongly Agree 51% 19Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 97% 38% 14Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 61% 14Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%39% 9Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 93%36% 5Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 31 (ALL) QUESTION 31 (EXEC) QUESTION 31 (PROJ) QUESTION 31 (ALL) Agree 51% Strongly Agree 38% Somewhat Agree 8% Somewhat Disagree 3% QUESTION 31 (EXEC) Strongly Agree 39% Agree 61% QUESTION 31 (PROJ) Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 21% Stron g l y Agree 31% Agree 36%

PAGE 191

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 15) The company sponsors social activities that increase the morale among workers. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F n/a A Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Disagree D Agree 14% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Disagree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 84% 22% 8Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Agree T Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Strongly Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Disagree A Agree [13]K Somewhat Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 9%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 35% 8Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Agree 87%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 21%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 79%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 32 (ALL) QUESTION 32 (EXEC) QUESTION 32 (PROJ) QUESTION 32 (ALL) Agree 40% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 21% Somewhat Disagree 8% Disagree 3% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 3% QUESTION 32 (PROJ) Strongly Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 14% Strongly Agree 23% Agree 58% QUESTION 32 (EXEC) Agree 30% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 36% Somewhat Disagree 4% Disagree 4% N/A 4%

PAGE 192

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 16) The company offers valuable incentives. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Somewhat Agree 8% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree 32% 12Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 86% 19% 7Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 5% 2N/A [9]A n/a C n/a 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Somewhat Disagree [11]I Strongly Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Disagree 48% 11Agree [22]R Agree 91%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 14%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 50% 7Somewhat Agree 14% 2Agree 79%14% 2Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 33 (ALL) QUESTION 33 (EXEC) QUESTION 33 (PROJ) QUESTION 33 (ALL) Agree 36% Strongly Agree 19% Somewhat Agree 32% Somewhat Disagree 5% Disagree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 33 (PROJ) N/A 7% Somewhat Disagree 14% Somewhat Agree 51% Stron g l y Agree 15% Agree 14% QUESTION 33 (EXEC) Agree 48% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 22% Disagree 4% N/A 4%

PAGE 193

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 17) The company offers competitive benefits. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 8% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Agree U Agree 92% 43% 16Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Disagree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Strongly Agree [13]K Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 9%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Disagree 43% 10Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 91%48% 11Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 93%36% 5Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 34 (ALL) QUESTION 34 (EXEC) QUESTION 34 (PROJ) QUESTION 34 (ALL) Agree 49% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Disagree 8% QUESTION 34 (PROJ) Somewhat Disagree 7% Stron g l y Agree 31% Agree 57% QUESTION 34 (EXEC) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 48% Somewhat Disagree 9%

PAGE 194

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 18) The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 3% 1Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D n/a 8% 5% 2Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 8% 3Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Agree U n/a 86% 30% 11Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Disagree 5% 2N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Disagree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 52% 12Agree [22]R Agree 100%39% 9Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 7% 1Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 21%14% 2Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 43% 6Agree 64%14% 2Strongly Agree 14% 2N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 35 (ALL) QUESTION 35 (EXEC) QUESTION 35 (PROJ) QUESTION 35 (ALL) Agree 49% Strongly Agree 30% Somewhat Agree 8% Somewhat Disagree 5% Strongly Disagree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 35 (PROJ) N/A 14% Strongly Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 14% Somewhat Agree 7% Strongly Agree 15% Agree 44% QUESTION 35 (EXEC) Agree 52% Strongly Agree 39% Somewhat Agree 9%

PAGE 195

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 19) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E n/a S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Agree D n/a 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 11% 4Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 46% 17Agree [7]A Agree U Strongly Agree 89% 32% 12Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 5% 2N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Disagree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 52% 12Agree [22]R Agree 96%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 14% 2Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 79%29% 4Strongly Agree 7% 1N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 36 (ALL) QUESTION 36 (EXEC) QUESTION 36 (PROJ) QUESTION 36 (ALL) Agree 46% Strongly Agree 32% Somewhat Agree 11% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 3% N/A 5% QUESTION 36 (PROJ) N/A 7% Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 14% Strongly Agree 31% Agree 36% QUESTION 36 (EXEC) Agree 52% Strongly Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 9% N/A 4%

PAGE 196

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 1) Effective training minimizes employee turnover.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Disagree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 5% 2Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Agree 14% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree 38% 14Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 32% 12Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 86% 16% 6Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Agree [11]I Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Disagree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Somewhat Disagree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Disagree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 13%9% 2Somewhat Disagree [20]P Somewhat Agree 35% 8Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Somewhat Disagree 87%22% 5Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 43% 6Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 86%7% 1Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 37 (ALL) QUESTION 37 (EXEC) QUESTION 37 (PROJ) QUESTION 37 (ALL) Agree 32% Strongly Agree 16% Somewhat Agree 39% Somewhat Disagree 8% Disagree 5% QUESTION 37 (PROJ) Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 43% Stron g l y Agree 8% Agree 36% QUESTION 37 (EXEC) Agree 30% Strongly Agree 22% Somewhat Agree 35% Somewhat Disagree 9% Disagree 4%

PAGE 197

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 2) Employees are less likely to leave a company that invests in their career. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 5% 2Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Strongly Agree 8% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Disagree 24% 9Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 92% 27% 10Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Disagree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Disagree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Somewhat Agree 96%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 7% 1Disagree 14%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 43% 6Agree 86%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 38 (ALL) QUESTION 38 (EXEC) QUESTION 38 (PROJ) QUESTION 38 (ALL) Agree 41% Strongly Agree 27% Somewhat Agree 24% Somewhat Disagree 3% Disagree 5% QUESTION 38 (PROJ) Disagree 7% Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 29% Stron g l y Agree 15% Agree 43% QUESTION 38 (EXEC) Agree 39% Strongly Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 22% Disagree 4%

PAGE 198

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 3) Availability of training programs attracts more qualified candidates. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Somewhat Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Somewhat Disagree D Somewhat Agree 3% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree 59% 22Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 32% 12Agree [7]A Agree U Somewhat Agree 97% 5% 2Strongly Agree [8]B Somewhat Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Somewhat Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 4%4% 1Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 57% 13Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 30% 7Agree [22]R Agree 96%9% 2Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 64% 9Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 100%0% 0Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 39 (ALL) QUESTION 39 (EXEC) QUESTION 39 (PROJ) QUESTION 39 (ALL) Agree 32% Strongly Agree 5% Somewhat Agree 60% Somewhat Disagree 3% QUESTION 39 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 64% Agree 36% QUESTION 39 (EXEC) Agree 30% Strongly Agree 9% Somewhat Agree 57% Somewhat Disagree 4%

PAGE 199

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 4) Employee turnover declines with the length of employment. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree 24% 9Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 100% 27% 10Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Somewhat Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Agree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Somewhat Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Somewhat Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Agree 100%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 100%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 40 (ALL) QUESTION 40 (EXEC) QUESTION 40 (PROJ) QUESTION 40 (ALL) Agree 49% Strongly Agree 27% Somewhat Agree 24% QUESTION 40 (EXEC) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 22% QUESTION 40 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 29% Strongly Agree 14% Agree 57%

PAGE 200

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 5) Effective motivation minimizes employee turnover. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Disagree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Somewhat Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Somewhat Agree B Somewhat Agree 30% 11Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 41% 15Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 95% 24% 9Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Somewhat Agree [14]L Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Somewhat Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Disagree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Agree 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 48% 11Agree [22]R Agree 96%26% 6Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 43% 6Somewhat Agree 29% 4Agree 93%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 41 (ALL) QUESTION 41 (EXEC) QUESTION 41 (PROJ) QUESTION 41 (ALL) Agree 40% Strongly Agree 24% Disagree 3% Somewhat Disagree 3% Somewhat Agree 30% QUESTION 41 (EXEC) Agree 48% Strongly Agree 26% Somewhat Agree 22% Disagree 4% QUESTION 41 (PROJ) Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 43% Strongly Agree 21% Agree 29%

PAGE 201

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 6) Worker turnover and absenteeism can have a major impact on total project productivity.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Strongly Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 3% 1Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 16% 6Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 100% 81% 30Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Strongly Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Strongly Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 0% 0Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 13% 3Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%87% 20Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 21% 3Agree 100%71% 10Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 42 (ALL) QUESTION 42 (EXEC) QUESTION 42 (PROJ) QUESTION 42 (ALL) Agree 16% Strongly Agree 81% Somewhat Agree 3% QUESTION 42 (EXEC) Strongly Agree 87% Agree 13% QUESTION 42 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 7% Strongly Agree 72% Agree 21%

PAGE 202

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Training & Motivation 7) Workers are likely to leave a company in which they are not motivated to work. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Strongly Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Agree A Somewhat Agree 3% 1Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Somewhat Agree 5% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Somewhat Agree 19% 7Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 30% 11Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 95% 46% 17Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Strongly Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Somewhat Agree A Agree [13]K Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Somewhat Disagree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Disagree 4% 1Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 4%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Strongly Agree 13% 3Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 26% 6Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 96%57% 13Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 36% 5Agree 93%29% 4Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 43 (ALL) QUESTION 43 (EXEC) QUESTION 43 (PROJ) QUESTION 43 (ALL) Agree 30% Strongly Agree 45% Disagree 3% Somewhat Disagree 3% Somewhat Agree 19% QUESTION 43 (EXEC) Agree 26% Strongly Agree 57% Somewhat Agree 13% Disagree 4% QUESTION 43 (PROJ) Somewhat Disagree 7% Somewhat Agree 29% Strongly Agree 29% Agree 35%

PAGE 203

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 1) Training sponsored by the company increases my potential and helps my career. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 5% 2Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 35% 13Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 97% 57% 21Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 3% 1N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Strongly Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Strongly Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Strongly Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P n/a 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 26% 6Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 96%65% 15Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 4% 1N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 100%43% 6Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 44 (ALL) QUESTION 44 (EXEC) QUESTION 44 (PROJ) QUESTION 44 (ALL) Agree 35% Strongly Agree 57% N/A 3% Somewhat Agree 5% QUESTION 44 (EXEC) Agree 26% Strongly Agree 66% Somewhat Agree 4% N/A 4% QUESTION 44 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 7% Strongly Agree 43% Agree 50%

PAGE 204

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 2 ) Com p an y trainin g p romotes j ob satisfaction.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Somewhat Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Agree 100% 30% 11Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Somewhat Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 13% 3Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%43% 10Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 36% 5Somewhat Agree 57% 8Agree 100%7% 1Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 45 (ALL) QUESTION 45 (EXEC) QUESTION 45 (PROJ) QUESTION 45 (ALL) Agree 48% Strongly Agree 30% Somewhat Agree 22% QUESTION 45 (EXEC) Agree 44% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 13% QUESTION 45 (PROJ) Agree 57% Stron g l y Agree 7% Somewhat Agree 36%

PAGE 205

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 3) Training encourages new hires to quickly develop into informed, contributing employees.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Agree D Strongly Agree 3% 3% 1Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 11% 4Somewhat Agree [6]D Strongly Agree C Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 97% 38% 14Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Disagree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Strongly Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 52% 12Agree [22]R Agree 100%43% 10Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 7%7% 1Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 43% 6Agree 93%29% 4Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 46 (ALL) QUESTION 46 (EXEC) QUESTION 46 (PROJ) QUESTION 46 (ALL) Agree 48% Stron g l y Agree 38% Somewhat Disagree 3% Somewhat Agree 11% QUESTION 46 (EXEC) Agree 53% Stron g l y Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 4% QUESTION 45 (PROJ) Agree 43% Stron g l y Agree 29% Somewhat Agree 21% Somewhat Disagree 7%

PAGE 206

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 4) Training fosters a sense of belonging to the company, increases employee satisfaction and accelerates performance. # Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 16% 6Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 54% 20Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 100% 30% 11Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Somewhat Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 9% 2Somewhat Agree [21]Q Strongly Agree 57% 13Agree [22]R Agree 100%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 29% 4Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 100%21% 3Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 47 (ALL) QUESTION 47 (EXEC) QUESTION 47 (PROJ) QUESTION 47 (ALL) Agree 54% Stron g l y Agree 30% Somewhat Agree 16% QUESTION 47 (EXEC) Agree 56% Stron g l y Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 9% QUESTION 47 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 29% Stron g l y Agree 21% Agree 50%

PAGE 207

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 5) Effective company organization increases morale among workers.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Somewhat Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Somewhat Agree 22% 8Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 43% 16Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 100% 35% 13Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Somewhat Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 22% 5Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%39% 9Strongly Agree [23]B Somewhat Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 50% 7Agree 100%29% 4Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 48 (ALL) QUESTION 48 (EXEC) QUESTION 48 (PROJ) QUESTION 48 (ALL) Agree 43% Stron g l y Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 22% QUESTION 48 (EXEC) Agree 39% Stron g l y Agree 39% Somewhat Agree 22% QUESTION 48 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 21% Stron g l y Agree 29% Agree 50%

PAGE 208

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 6) Social activities among employees increase morale among workers.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Somewhat Disagree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Somewhat Disagree D Agree 8% 8% 3Somewhat Disagree [5]C Strongly Agree B Agree 16% 6Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Somewhat Agree 49% 18Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 92% 27% 10Strongly Agree [8]B Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Somewhat Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Strongly Agree W Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Somewhat Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Somewhat Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Somewhat Disagree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Agree 13%13% 3Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 13% 3Somewhat Agree [21]Q Somewhat Agree 39% 9Agree [22]R Agree 87%35% 8Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 21% 3Somewhat Agree 64% 9Agree 100%14% 2Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 49 (ALL) QUESTION 49 (EXEC) QUESTION 49 (PROJ) QUESTION 49 (ALL) Agree 49% Stron g l y Agree 27% Somewhat Disagree 8% Somewhat Agree 16% QUESTION 49 (EXEC) Agree 39% Stron g l y Agree 35% Somewhat Agree 13% Somewhat Disagree 13% QUESTION 49 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 21% Stron g l y Agree 14% Agree 65%

PAGE 209

SATISFACTION Training & Motivation 7) A motivating working environment is conducive of employee satisfaction.# Co. (EXEC) Co. (PROJ) [1]E Agree S Agree # of Responses Response [2]B Somewhat Agree T Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [3]F Strongly Agree A Somewhat Agree 0% 0Disagree [4]G Strongly Agree D Agree 0% 0% 0Somewhat Disagree [5]C Agree B Agree 5% 2Somewhat Agree [6]D Agree C Agree 51% 19Agree [7]A Strongly Agree U Strongly Agree 100% 43% 16Strongly Agree [8]B Strongly Agree T Agree 0% 0N/A [9]A Strongly Agree C Agree 100% 37 Total Responses [10]H Agree V Strongly Agree [11]I Agree W Strongly Agree 100% [12]J Agree A Agree [13]K Strongly Agree X Agree [14]L Strongly Agree B Agree [15]M Strongly Agree [16]L Strongly Agree # of Responses Response [17]C Strongly Agree 0% 0Strongly Disagree [18]N Agree 0% 0Disagree [19]O Strongly Agree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree [20]P Agree 4% 1Somewhat Agree [21]Q Agree 43% 10Agree [22]R Strongly Agree 100%52% 12Strongly Agree [23]B Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 23 Total Responses 100% # of Responses Response 0% 0Strongly Disagree 0% 0Disagree 0%0% 0Somewhat Disagree 7% 1Somewhat Agree 64% 9Agree 100%29% 4Strongly Agree 0% 0N/A 100% 14 Total Responses 100% QUESTION 50 (ALL) QUESTION 50 (EXEC) QUESTION 50 (PROJ) QUESTION 50 (ALL) Agree 52% Strongly Agree 43% Somewhat Agree 5% QUESTION 50 (EXEC) Agree 43% Strongly Agree 53% Somewhat Agree 4% QUESTION 50 (PROJ) Somewhat Agree 7% Strongly Agree 29% Agree 64%

PAGE 210

103 APPENDIX F SURVEY RESULTS SPREADSHEETS

PAGE 211

(EXEC) # ID S1 ID S2CompanyPosition YearsCompanyYearsIndustry [1] 711 E Presidentmore than 20more than 20 [2] 915 B Presidentmore than 20more than 20 [3] 1017 F CEOmore than 20more than 20 [4] 1218 G V.P. Operations10 to 20 more than 20 [5] 1419 C Presidentmore than 20more than 20 [6] 1522 D VPless than 2 more than 20 [7] 1626 A Exec. VP/Co-Owner2 to 10 more than 20 [8] 1727 B Director of Operations2 to 10 10 to 20 [9] 1830 A Vice President Business Developmentless than 2 10 to 20 [10] 1932 H HR Manager, Division Manager2 to 10 2 to 10 [11] 2034 I CFO2 to 10 10 to 20 [12] 2235 J Vice President10 to 20 10 to 20 [13] 2336 K Vice President, Design Build2 to 10 more than 20 [14] 2437 L Human Resources Managerless than 2 less than 2 [15] 2538 M Vice President10 to 20 10 to 20 [16] 2639 L Vice President/ Director of Business Development10 to 20 10 to 20 [17] 2941 C Vice President/Owner10 to 20 10 to 20 [18] 3042 N Chief Estimator2 to 10 more than 20 [19] 3143 O Vice-President10 to 20 more than 20 [20] 3346 P Presidentmore than 20more than 20 [21] 3447 Q Vice President2 to 10 10 to 20 [22] 3549 R Marketing Director2 to 10 10 to 20 [23] 3650 B CEOmore than 20more than 20

PAGE 212

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] AnnualVolumeProjectSizeEmployeesYearsInBusiness1 $10 $100 million$1 $10 million100 to 1,000more than 80No $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10020 to 40Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 100more than 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 100more than 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 100more than 80Yes $100 $500 million$10 $50 million100 to 1,000more than 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 100more than 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10020 to 40Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 100more than 80No $10 $100 millionless than $1 millionless than 10020 to 40Yes $100 $500 million$10 $50 million100 to 1,00010 to 20No $100 $500 million$10 $50 million100 to 1,000more than 80Yes $100 $500 million$1 $10 million100 to 1,00040 to 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10010 to 20Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10020 to 40Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 million100 to 1,000more than 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10040 to 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10010 to 20Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10010 to 20No $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10020 to 40No $100 $500 million$1 $10 million100 to 1,00020 to 40Yes $10 $100 millionless than $1 millionless than 10040 to 80Yes $10 $100 million$1 $10 millionless than 10020 to 40Yes

PAGE 213

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 1a1b1c1d2 n/an/an/an/a$1000 to $2000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideAll$1000 to $2000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)All$500 to $1000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)Someless than $500 less than 2All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSomeless than $500 more than 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideMostmore than $2000 more than 10All Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)Someless than $500 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideMost$500 to $1000 n/an/an/an/aless than $500 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideAllmore than $2000 n/an/an/an/aless than $500 2 to 10Entry Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)Noneless than $500 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSomemore than $2000 more than 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSomeless than $500 2 to 10Entry Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)Somemore than $2000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSome$500 to $1000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSomemore than $2000 2 to 10All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideAll$1000 to $2000 n/an/an/an/aless than $500 n/an/an/an/aless than $500 more than 10Entry Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsideSomeless than $500 more than 10Entry Level PersonnelThe Company (In-house)Some$500 to $1000 less than 2All Level PersonnelBoth In-house and outsiden/a$500 to $1000

PAGE 214

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 3456788a 3-4less than 12less than 25%sometimesalwaysalwaysvaries 3-412-2450%-75%sometimesgenerally yesgenerally yesvaries 3-4less than 1225%-50%generally yesalwaysalwaysannually 1less than 12less than 25%generally yesgenerally yesalwaysannually 3-4less than 12less than 25%sometimesgenerally yesalwayssemi-annually more than 424-4850%-75%generally yesalwaysalwayssemi-annually 212-2450%-75%sometimessometimesalwaysannually 212-2425%-50%generally yessometimesalwayssemi-annually 2less than 12less than 25%generally notneveralwayssemi-annually 1less than 12less than 25%generally yesgenerally notalwaysvaries noneless than 12less than 25%sometimesalwayssometimessemi-annually 212-24less than 25%sometimesalwaysalwayssemi-annually 224-4850%-75%generally yesgenerally notgenerally yesannually more than 4less than 12more than 75%generally notgenerally yesalwaysannually 2less than 12less than 25%sometimesalwaysalwaysannually 224-4850%-75%generally notgenerally yesalwayssemi-annually 3-412-24more than 75%generally yesgenerally yesalwayssemi-annually 3-4less than 12more than 75%alwaysgenerally notalwayssemi-annually 2less than 1250%-75%generally yessometimesalwaysnever 3-4less than 12less than 25%generally yesalwaysgenerally yessemi-annually 3-424-48less than 25%sometimesgenerally yesalwaysannually 1less than 12less than 25%generally notsometimesgenerally yessemi-annually 3-412-2450%-75%generally notgenerally yessometimessemi-annually

PAGE 215

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 8b99a10 annuallyYes2-4awards annuallyYes2-4financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other annuallyNon/afinancial, awards, other annuallyNon/afinancial, promotion, awards semi-annuallyYes 2-4none annuallyYes2-4financial, paid time off, promotion, awards annuallyYes2-4financial, paid time off, promotion, awards annuallyNon/afinancial, paid time off, promotion, awards semi-annuallyYes2-4financial, paid time off, promotion, awards variesNon/afinancial, paid time off annuallyYes1financial, promotion, awards annuallyNon/afinancial, promotion variesYes1financial, paid time off, promotion, awards annuallyYes2-4financial, promotion, awards, other annuallyYes1financial, promotion, awards annuallyYesmore than 4financial, paid time off, promotion, awards, other semi-annuallyYes2-4financial, promotion, awards semi-annuallyYes1financial, paid time off, promotion, awards annuallyYes1financial, promotion annuallyYes1financial, paid time off annuallyYesmore than 4financial, awards annuallyYes1financial variesYesmore than 4awards

PAGE 216

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 11 1213date Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Other0Exceeds Industry10/20/02 Newsletters, Othermore than 4Comparable to Industry10/21/02 Newsletters0Exceeds Industry10/21/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters0Comparable to Industry10/21/02 n/a more than 4Exceeds Industry10/21/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boardsmore than 4Exceeds Industry10/21/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards2-4Comparable to Industry10/22/02 Newsletters, Other2-4Comparable to Industry10/22/02 Suggestion Boxes, Bulletin Boards, Othermore than 4Comparable to Industry10/23/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other1Exceeds Industry10/24/02 Other2-4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Newsletters2-4Exceeds Industry10/24/02 Newsletters, Bulletin Boards2-4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Newsletters, Othermore than 4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Newsletters2-4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters2-4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters2-4Exceeds Industry10/24/02 Suggestion Boxes, Newsletters, Bulletin Boards, Other2-4Exceeds Industry10/24/02 n/a 2-4Comparable to Industry10/24/02 Bulletin Boards1Comparable to Industry10/25/02 n/a 2-4Comparable to Industry10/25/02 n/a 1Exceeds Industry10/28/02 n/a 1Comparable to Industry10/28/02

PAGE 217

(PROJ) # ID S2CompanyPosition YearsCompanyYearsIndustry1 [1] 12 S Administrative Assistant2 to 10 10 to 20 n/a [2] 14 T Project Engineerless than 2 less than 2 Agree [3] 16 A Estimator Project Managerless than 2 10 to 20 Somewhat Agree [4] 20 D Engineer2 to 10 2 to 10 Agree [5] 21 B Project Manager2 to 10 more than 20Agree [6] 23 C Superintendent2 to 10 more than 20Agree [7] 24 U Senior Preconstruction Manager2 to 10 10 to 20 Somewhat Agree [8] 25 T Project Engineerless than 2 less than 2 Somewhat Agree [9] 31 C Senior Estimator2 to 10 more than 20Agree [10] 33 V Project Manager10 to 20 10 to 20 Disagree [11] 40 W Operations Manager10 to 20 10 to 20 Agree [12] 44 A Estimator10 to 20 more than 20Somewhat Agree [13] 45 X Project Manager2 to 10 2 to 10 Agree [14] 51 B Project Manager2 to 10 more than 20Agree

PAGE 218

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 23456 Strongly DisagreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeDisagreeSomewhat Agree AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Somewhat Agreen/aAgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Disagree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat DisagreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeDisagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree DisagreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree DisagreeSomewhat Agreen/a Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree

PAGE 219

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 7891011 n/aSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Disagree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree AgreeDisagreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Disagree Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeDisagreeSomewhat AgreeDisagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree

PAGE 220

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 1213141516 DisagreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeAgreeSomewhat Agree n/aSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree n/aSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree DisagreeSomewhat AgreeDisagreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree n/aAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree

PAGE 221

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 171819202122 Somewhat AgreeDisagreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreen/a Somewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree

PAGE 222

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 2324252627 Somewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeDisagreeAgree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeDisagreeAgreeAgree DisagreeSomewhat AgreeDisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat Disagreen/aDisagree Strongly Agree Strongly DisagreeStrongly DisagreeSomewhat AgreeStrongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgreen/a Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeDisagreeAgreeAgree Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgree AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgree

PAGE 223

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 2829303132 Strongly DisagreeDisagree Strongly AgreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Somewhat DisagreeDisagree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Disagree Somewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree DisagreeStrongly Disagree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeStrongly Disagree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeStrongly AgreeAgreeAgree

PAGE 224

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 3334353637 Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agreen/an/aAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreen/a Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat DisagreeAgreeSomewhat Agree n/aAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat Agree Somewhat DisagreeAgreeStrongly DisagreeDisagreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeDisagree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree

PAGE 225

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 3839404142 Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat DisagreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree DisagreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree AgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree

PAGE 226

# [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 4344454647 Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Somewhat AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat DisagreeSomewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat AgreeSomewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly AgreeAgree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree AgreeAgreeAgreeAgreeSomewhat Agree Agree Strongly AgreeAgreeAgreeAgree Somewhat DisagreeAgreeAgreeAgreeAgree

PAGE 227

104 APPENDIX G RECOMMENDED SURVEY FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

PAGE 228

[Use "Forms" toolbar in Microsoft Word to unlock check boxes and drop-down lists. View > Toolbars >Forms] Company: Position: Years with the Company: < 2 2 10 10 20 > 20 Years of Working in the Industry: < 2 2 10 10 20 > 20 Estimated Annual Volume: $1 $50 Million $50 Million $100 Million > $100 Million Average Project Size: $1 $10 Million $10 Million $50 Million > $50 Million Estimated # of Employees: < 20 20 50 50 100 > 100 Years in Business: < 5 5 10 10 20 20 40 >40 Is there a formal training program being implemented in the company? Yes No a. For how long has the program been in place? < 2 2 10 > 10 b. Who receives the training? Entry-level personnel only High-level personnel only All levels personnel Please indicate your level of agreement to the statements on the 7-point Likert Scale provided [Drop-down list]. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Disagree N/A QUALITY PERFORMANCE Training 1) The company training programs are effective. PLEASE SELECT 2) The training provided by the company has been beneficial. PLEASE SELECT 3) The company has a well-defined training program in place. PLEASE SELECT 4) The company has improved my quality performance. PLEASE SELECT 5) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. PLEASE SELECT 6) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations. PLEASE SELECT 7) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks. PLEASE SELECT 8) Training programs have improved teamwork. PLEASE SELECT PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE Motivation 7) Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment. PLEASE SELECT 8) I am currently motivated to perform at my maximum potential. PLEASE SELECT 9) Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. PLEASE SELECT 10) The company recognizes my performance appropriately. PLEASE SELECT 11) I feel the company values my opinion. PLEASE SELECT 12) The company offers valuable incentives. PLEASE SELECT 13) The company offers competitive benefits. PLEASE SELECT 15) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance. PLEASE SELECT 16) Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive. PLEASE SELECT ** THANK YOU END OF SURVEY **

PAGE 229

LIST OF REFERENCES Achor, J.R., Achor D. Developing Effective Teams. Journal of Construction Education 2000; 5(3): p. 219-226. Alter, K., Koontz, J.R. Curriculum Development and Continuing Education in Project Management for the Specialty Subcontracting Industry. Journal of Construction Education 1996; 1(2): p. 63-75. Boyett, J.H, J.T. The Guru Guide; The Best Ideas of the Top Management Thinkers. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1998. p. 284-290. Business Roundtable. Measuring Productivity in Construction. A Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project Report. The Business Roundtable Report A-1; September 1982a; Reprinted October 1991. Business Roundtable. Construction Labor Motivation. A Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project Report. The Business Roundtable Report A-2; August 1982b; Reprinted March 1992. p. 6-8, 19-24. Center for Construction Productivity and Quality Management. http://www.bcn.ufl.edu/e_menu/Product/product.shtml August 2001. Churcher, D.W., Johnson, S.J. The Control of Quality on Construction Sites. London (UK): CIRA; 1996. p. 22-29. Corbett, Deanna I. Quantifying Quality in Industrial Construction [thesis]. Ann Arbor (MI): The Pennsylvania State Univ.; UMI; 1997. p. 21-26. Cox, R.F. Project Manager Skills College. High Performance Management Techniques. Section 10. Raleigh (NC): FMI; 2000. p. 7, 31. Cox R., Issa R. ROI Studies. Gainesville (FL): The National Center for Construction Education and Research; UF; 2000. p. 4-7. Deming, W.E. Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1982. p. 23. Floyd, Kevin J. Effectiveness of Total Quality Management Principles on Company Performance Among the Largest United States Contractors [thesis]. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida; 1996. 105

PAGE 230

106 Glover, I. Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis of Education and Training in the Construction Industry. Center for Construction Industry Studies Report No. 6. Ann Arbor (MI) The Pennsylvania State Univ.: UMI; 1999. p. 35. Hall, M.I. Motivation: Dispelling Some Management Myths, An Analytical Critique. Journal of Construction Education 1997; 2(2): p. 91-98. Heap, Alan. Improving Site Productivity in the Construction Industry. Geneva (Switzerland): International Labour Organization; 1987. p. 91-94. Hiam, A. Does Quality Work? A Review of Relevant Studies. Report No. 1043. New York (NY): Conference Board; 1993. Jackson, I.J. III. Financial Management for Contractors. Raleigh (NC): FMI Corp; 1999. p. 55-77 Nunnally, S.W. Construction Methods and Management. 5 th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2001. p. 1-2, 517-525. Park, W. R., and Chapin, W.B. Construction Bidding Strategy; Strategic Pricing for Profit. 2 nd ed. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1992. p. 42, 64. Paul L., Wilson I. The 1999 US Construction Industry Training Report. Raleigh (NC) FMI Corp.; 1999. Sanders T., Thompson J. Project-Specific Employee Incentives. Clemson University: Construction Industry Institute; Dec. 1999. Saraph, V.J., Benson, P.G., and Schroeder, G.R. An Instrument for Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management. Decision Sciences, Vol.20, No.4; 1989. p.810-829. Stewart, R. Open Mind. Getting to the Bottom Line on Construction Craft Training; It Pays to Invest. Merit Contractors Association, Vol. 8; 2000. p. 52-61. Warren, Robert H. Motivation and Productivity in the Construction Industry. New York (NY): Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1989. p. 2-4. Whyte, B.L. Job Attitude, Absence from Work and Labor Turnover. Personnel Practice Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 4; 1960. Wolfe, Andria K. Construction Industry Training Survey. Raleigh (NC): FMI; 1997.

PAGE 231

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Luis M. Caicedo was born in Cali, Colombia on August 4, 1979. He was a student at the Colombo-Britanico School in Cali until his departure to the United States in 1994. He attended Cardinal Gibbons High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from 1993 through 1997. In 2001, he was awarded a Bachelor of Design degree in architecture with a minor in business administration (from the University of Florida). He then accepted an internship with James A. Cummings General Contractors Inc., a prominent South-Florida-based general construction contracting company. After his internship he enrolled in the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction graduate program at the University of Florida. He is currently a Project Engineer with Centex Rooney Construction Company Inc. (a nationally recognized construction company) as he completes his thesis studies for the degree of Master of Science in Building Construction at the University of Florida. 107


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000656/00001

Material Information

Title: Training and motivation : key to a quality and productivity-driven company culture
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Caicedo, Luis M. ( Dissertant )
Cox, Robert F. ( Thesis advisor )
Issa, R. Raymond ( Thesis advisor )
Stroh, Robert ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Building Construction

Notes

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to identify the key factors to achieving a quality and productivity-driven company culture; and to conduct a pilot evaluation of the industry's effectiveness in implementing them. The two factors key to a quality and productivity-driven company culture were training and motivation, as revealed in the literature review and supported by the survey results. Effective training is key to quality performance as much as motivation is to productivity performance. Training and motivation thrive most effectively where an endless and growing commitment from management exists at all levels of implementation. Quality and productivity-driven company cultures have characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates; and higher levels of employee satisfaction. Such a company culture thus benefits from the capability of achieving maximum quality and productivity performance. The industry's implementation of training, although relatively effective, still has room for improvement. Training programs sponsored by the companies in the industry are currently not well defined. But, considering that most of them are still in their first decade of existence (based on the survey responses), they are moving on the right track. In comparison to the current effectiveness in implementation of training, the same cannot be said for the implementation of motivation. The construction industry's effectiveness in implementing motivation at the project personnel level is mediocre and needs special attention with all areas and issues pertaining to workforce motivation. It appears that the over focus on executive-level personnel motivation has blinded the industry to motivating its project-level personnel (who are directly responsible for delivering quality and productivity); and also the bottom line. The construction industry needs more effective implementation of motivation at all levels (in the way of employee recognition when accomplishments in quality and productivity performance are achieved). Effects and interaction of the above factors resulting from this initial study may be used by the construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in an effort to achieve a company s quality and productivity potential.
Subject: construction, employee, motivation, performance, productivity, quality, retention, training, workforce
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2003.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000656:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000656/00001

Material Information

Title: Training and motivation : key to a quality and productivity-driven company culture
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Caicedo, Luis M. ( Dissertant )
Cox, Robert F. ( Thesis advisor )
Issa, R. Raymond ( Thesis advisor )
Stroh, Robert ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Building Construction

Notes

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to identify the key factors to achieving a quality and productivity-driven company culture; and to conduct a pilot evaluation of the industry's effectiveness in implementing them. The two factors key to a quality and productivity-driven company culture were training and motivation, as revealed in the literature review and supported by the survey results. Effective training is key to quality performance as much as motivation is to productivity performance. Training and motivation thrive most effectively where an endless and growing commitment from management exists at all levels of implementation. Quality and productivity-driven company cultures have characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates; and higher levels of employee satisfaction. Such a company culture thus benefits from the capability of achieving maximum quality and productivity performance. The industry's implementation of training, although relatively effective, still has room for improvement. Training programs sponsored by the companies in the industry are currently not well defined. But, considering that most of them are still in their first decade of existence (based on the survey responses), they are moving on the right track. In comparison to the current effectiveness in implementation of training, the same cannot be said for the implementation of motivation. The construction industry's effectiveness in implementing motivation at the project personnel level is mediocre and needs special attention with all areas and issues pertaining to workforce motivation. It appears that the over focus on executive-level personnel motivation has blinded the industry to motivating its project-level personnel (who are directly responsible for delivering quality and productivity); and also the bottom line. The construction industry needs more effective implementation of motivation at all levels (in the way of employee recognition when accomplishments in quality and productivity performance are achieved). Effects and interaction of the above factors resulting from this initial study may be used by the construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in an effort to achieve a company s quality and productivity potential.
Subject: construction, employee, motivation, performance, productivity, quality, retention, training, workforce
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2003.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000656:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











TRAINING AND MOTIVATION:
KEY TO A QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY-DRIVEN COMPANY CULTURE













By

LUIS M. CAICEDO


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003
























Copyright 2003

By

Luis M. Caicedo















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my family, friends, and all of those professors who made my

years at the University of Florida so enriching. Sincere thanks go to my mother for

always being there for me every step of the way. I thank you Nauro, Inc. for technical

help with the web-survey. I also thank my committee (Drs. Robert Cox, Raymond Issa,

and Robert Stroh) for their support with my thesis.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................... iii

L IST O F TA B L E S ......... ............................. ......... ... ....... ....... vi

L IST O F F IG U R E S .... ...... ................................................ .. .. ..... .............. vii

1 IN TR OD U CTION .................. ............................ ............. .............. .

Problem Statem ent ..................................... .................. .............. .... ..... 1
O objectives of Study ......................................................... ......... .... ...... ........ .. 2
Scope and Lim itations........................................................................ ........ 2
M methodology O overview .......................................................................................... 3
Thesis O overview ...................................................................... ......... 4

2 LITER A TU R E R EV IEW ................................................................ ....................... 5

Introdu action ................. ........................................................... .............. 5
Training Factors Involving Quality ........................... ....... ................................. 6
Implementing Training into Company Culture................................. .................... 12
M otivation Factor in Productivity............................................... .......................... 13
Implementing Motivation into Company Culture............................................. 17
Sum m ary of L literature R eview .......................................................................... ..... 20

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ......................23

R research M eth o d ology ................................................................................................. 2 3
Survey Overview ......... .......................... .... .. .. .... .......... 25
W eb site Survey ..................................................... 27

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS............................ ......................29

Summary of Literature Review Results.................................................................... 29
Survey D ata A naly sis... .............................................. ...................... .. ................ 29
Survey R response B reakdow n ............................................... ............................ 30
G roup/C category A nalysis........................................................... .......................... 31
Participant D em graphics ........................................................... ... .............. 32
Personal Profile .................. ......................................... .............. 32
Com pany Profile ......... .................... ...................... .......... 37









Company Training Implementation Profile .............. ........................................... 39
Company Motivation Implementation Profile.......................................................... 44
Quality Perform ance through Training................................... ................................... 50
Productivity Performance through Motivation.......................................................... 55
Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Turnover ...................................... 62
Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Satisfaction .................................. 66
Characteristics of Effective Training Implementation............................................... 69
Characteristics of Effective Motivation Implementation............................................ 78
Improvement Areas to Effective Training and Motivation..................................... 87
Sum m ary of Survey R results ................................................ ............................. 92

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................94

In tro d u ctio n ......................................................... ............... 9 4
C conclusions .......................................... .............. .... .... ...... ...... 95
Recommendations for Future Research.................................................................... 96

APPENDIX

A EXECUTIVE-LEVEL SURVEY (S) ................................ .......................... 98

B PROJECT-LEVEL SURVEY (S2) ................................... ............................. ....... 102

C SURVEY-PARTICIPANT INVITATION LETTER ................................................109

D SU R V E Y W E B P A G E S ......... ..... ............ ................. ..........................................111

E SURVEY ROUGH DATA ANALYSIS ..... .................... ...............116

F SURVEY RESULTS SPREADSHEETS.....................................................199

G RECOMMENDED SURVEY FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................ 216

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ................. ..............................................2 18

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ........................................ ............................................220
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 O overview of surveys........................................................................... 25

4-1 Categorized survey responses ........................................... .......................... 30

4-2 Maximum performance potential through motivation .........................................57

4-3 Identifying statements to effective training implementation...............................71

4-4 W ell-defined training program ..................................................... ...... ......... 73

4-5 Quality performance through training ...........................................................74

4-6 Quality aw areness through training................................... .......................... 74

4-7 New methods and innovations through training..........................................75

4-8 Task efficiency through training ........................................ ......................... 76

4-9 Team w ork through training......................................................... ............... 76

4-10 Personnel training coverage.......................................................... ............... 77

4-11 Identifying statements to effective motivation implementation.............................80

4-12 Employee performance recognition ............................................. ............... 82

4-13 Valuing employee-opinion ........... .. ......... ....... ............... 83

4-14 V valuable incentives ...................................................... .. ...... .... ...... ...... 83

4-15 Competitive company benefits................................................... .. ................. 84

4-16 Motivation's significance to productivity ............................................ ..........85

4-17 Driving performance with employee motivation ......................................... 85

4-18 Company incentives on employee productivity ............................................... 86









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Quality and productivity roadm ap............................................... ........ ....... 22

3-1 M ethodology flow chart .......................................................... ............... 24

3-2 Closed loop surveying ..........................................................................27

4-1 Executive level participants...................... ...... ............................. 32

4-2 P project level participants ........................................................................... .... ... 33

4-3 Years with company (ALL) .................................. ........................... 34

4-4 Y ears w ith com pany (EX E C)...................................................................... ...... 34

4-5 Y ears w ith com pany (PR O J).............................................................................. ...35

4-6 Years working in the industry (ALL)........................................................ 35

4-7 Years working in the industry (EXEC) ....................................... ............... 36

4-8 Y ears w working in the industry (PR O J) ........................................ .....................36

4-9 E stim ated annual volum e ............................................... ............................. 37

4-10 A average project size ...................................... ................. .... ..... .. 38

4-11 Y ears in business ................................... .......................... ........ ... 38

4-12 E stim ate # of em ployees............................................................................ .... ... 39

4-13 Companies implementing training programs .................................. ...............39

4-14 Personnel receiving training........................................................ ............. 40

4-15 Length of establishment of training program ......... ................... ................40

4-16 Source of training .................. .................................... .. ........ .... 41

4-17 Investm ent on training ......................................................................... 41

4-18 M mandatory com pany training ............................................................................ 42

4-19 Training/educational seminars offered......................... ........................43

4-20 Minimum hours of training per project-level employee ...................................43









4-21 W orkforce taking advantage of training..... .......... ....................................... 44

4-22 M entor program ............... ........................ .................... ........... 45

4-23 Employee performance reviews (newly hired) ................................................. 45

4-24 Employee performance reviews (not newly hired) ...........................................46

4-25 Continuing-education program benefits.................. ..... .......... ...............46

4-26 Companies offering formal employee-recognition events....................................47

4-27 Formal employee-recognition events held annually ............................................47

4-28 Company-sponsored social activities held annually ............................................48

4-29 P perform ance incentives ........................................ .............................................48

4-30 O pen com m unication tools........................................................... ............... 49

4-31 Companies offering competitive employee benefits.............................................49

4-32 Training's influence on quality work .................................... ......... ............... 50

4-33 Quality training and punch-list item s ....................................... ............... 51

4-34 Training and employee development ........................................... ............... 52

4-35 Training's influence on task efficiency ............... .............................................53

4-36 W ell-defined training program ..................................................... ...... ......... 54

4-37 N eed for training ......................... ........ .. .. ..... ............... 54

4-38 M otivation for a productivity-driven company .................................................... 55

4-39 Company motivating environment....... ................ ...............56

4-40 Maximum performance potential through motivation .........................................57

4-41 Companies on employee recognition ........................................ ............... 58

4-42 Employee productivity and performance/salary reviews .....................................59

4-43 Feeling valued and appreciated effect on motivation..............................60

4-44 V aluing em ployee opinion ............................................. ............................. 61

4-45 Company incentives and m otivation ............................................ ............... 61









4-46 Turnover and absenteeism on productivity .................................. ............... 62

4-47 Training on em ployee turnover ....................................................................... ..63

4-48 M otivation on employee turnover ................................. ................. ........ ....... 63

4-49 Career development investment and employee turnover .....................................64

4-50 Attracting qualified candidates through training............... ..................64

4-51 M otivating workplace and employee turnover............................................ 65

4-52 Employee turnover and length of employment........... .......................................66

4-53 Company training on job satisfaction................................. ...............66

4-54 M motivation on employee satisfaction ........................................... ............... 67

4-55 Training on belonging, satisfaction, and performance .......................... .........67

4-56 Training on employee development.............................. ...............68

4-57 Company-training on employees' career and potential ........................... ........69

4-58 Social activities on m orale and satisfaction .................................... ............... 69

4-59 Effectively implementing training and motivation.................... ...............91
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

TRAINING AND MOTIVATION:
KEY TO A QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY-DRIVEN COMPANY CULTURE

By

Luis M. Caicedo

May 2003

Chair: Robert Cox
Co chair: Raymond Issa
Department: Building Construction

The objectives of this study were to identify the key factors to achieving a quality and

productivity-driven company culture; and to conduct a pilot evaluation of the industry's

effectiveness in implementing them. The two factors key to a quality and productivity-

driven company culture were training and motivation, as revealed in the literature review

and supported by the survey results. Effective training is key to quality performance as

much as motivation is to productivity performance. Training and motivation thrive most

effectively where an endless and growing commitment from management exists at all

levels of implementation. Quality and productivity-driven company cultures have

characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates; and higher levels of employee

satisfaction. Such a company culture thus benefits from the capability of achieving

maximum quality and productivity performance.









The industry's implementation of training, although relatively effective, still has room

for improvement. Training programs sponsored by the companies in the industry are

currently not well defined. But, considering that most of them are still in their first

decade of existence (based on the survey responses), they are moving on the right track.

In comparison to the current effectiveness in implementation of training, the same cannot

be said for the implementation of motivation. The construction industry's effectiveness

in implementing motivation at the project personnel level is mediocre and needs special

attention with all areas and issues pertaining to workforce motivation. It appears that the

over focus on executive-level personnel motivation has blinded the industry to motivating

its project-level personnel (who are directly responsible for delivering quality and

productivity); and also the bottom line. The construction industry needs more effective

implementation of motivation at all levels (in the way of employee recognition when

accomplishments in quality and productivity performance are achieved). Effects and

interaction of the above factors resulting from this initial study may be used by the

construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in

an effort to achieve a company's quality and productivity potential.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

"The chief obstacle confronting the contractor in his quest for a profit is having to

operate in a competitive environment" (Park and Chapin 1992, p.64). Characterized by

its very competitive nature and high bankruptcy rates, the U.S. construction contracting

business is faced with various problems remaining competitive both at home and in the

international construction market (Nunnally 2000).

The decline in productivity and cost effectiveness in recent years evidently served to

reduce construction's share of the U.S. gross national product (Nunnally 2001).

Increasingly the construction industry faces fierce competition and high-risk, and low-

margin returns compared with other industries (Jackson 1999). The increased

competition in the construction industry places firm on a constant push to improve capital

productivity to remain in business and make a profit (Sanders and Thompson 1999).

The construction process, as for other industries, it is important to remember that

people are the essential element to improving productivity and cost effectiveness

(Nunnally 2001). Perhaps the greatest challenge currently facing the construction

industry, and over the next decade, is attracting and retaining qualified workers (Sanders

and Thompson, 1999). The Construction Industry Training Report (Paul and Wilson

1999) confirms the continued struggle facing construction companies in finding qualified

people at both the craft and management levels (at the cost of performance in terms of

productivity and profitability). This is causing companies to re-examine employee









relations and the ways in which they are attracting, retaining, and developing their

workforce. It is management's responsibility to provide its employees with an

environment in which they can thrive and perform at their maximum potential in an effort

to establish a quality and productivity-driven company culture. After all, the work of

these talented individuals directly brings about the high quality and productivity that

reinforces a company's competitive edge.

The Center for Construction Productivity and Quality Management at the University

of Florida emphasizes low productivity and inadequate quality management (currently

evidenced by costly time, budget overruns, and expensive and lengthy claims), as the

direct threat facing the construction business (CCPQM 2001). In an industry where

clients are increasingly demanding more for less, effective implementation of quality and

productivity have become key for construction companies to make a profit and stay in

business. Thus, it is necessary to define and analyze those critical factors affecting

quality and productivity performance a talented workforce is out to promote.

Objectives of Study

The objective of this study is to define the key factors, as defined by industry

advocates, to achieving a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture; and to

evaluate the industry's effectiveness in implementing them. The findings on the effects

and interaction of the above factors resulting from this study may be used by the

construction industry to better manage its workforce and influence its company culture in

an effort to achieve a company's quality and productivity potential.

Scope and Limitations

This scope of the thesis results if limited to general contracting companies in the State

of Florida, members of the of the AGC (The Associated General Contractors) and the









ABC (Associates Builders and Contractors). Since only those companies appearing in

the AGC and ABC membership directories that have a working website or email address

were contacted, the results are further limited to this. Furthermore, only professionals

within the company personnel at the Executive Level and Project Level were invited to

participate. Executive-Level personnel include the CEO, CFO, President, VP, and HR

Director. Project-Level personnel include Project Managers, Project Engineer,

Superintendents, and other jobsite or project-based professionals. The research covers

strictly those professional individuals, as the aim of the thesis is to study quality and

productivity performance strictly at the professional level. Consequently, non-

professional-level personnel and laborers were not asked to participate.

A total of 386 individuals from 116 different companies were invited to participate.

Of these 37 individuals from 10 different companies actually participated in the study. In

other words, approximately a 10% response was attained within a total of 3 weeks. As a

result of the relatively small sample-size available to work with, the study may more

accurately apply to those company-demographics characteristic to the participants in this

study. The sample demographics include those companies with an estimated annual

volume of $10 to $100 million, with less than 100 employees, and average project sizes

of $1 to $10 million.

Methodology Overview

A literature review was made to define the key quality and productivity (Q&P) factors

most referenced by industry advocates, which encourage the attraction, retention, and

development of a workforce, in an effort to attain a company's performance potential.

Surveys were then prepared to evaluate the accuracy, perception, and correlation of the

defined key factors to workforce quality and productivity performance, employee









turnover, and employee satisfaction. The effectiveness and the actual level of

implementation of these critical Q&P factors on the company culture were then assessed,

and recommendations were made on the findings.

Thesis Overview

This introductory chapter is followed by a literature review in Chapter 2 that defines

those key factors to a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture. All key factors

are identified and discussed separately in the way they affect quality and productivity

according to established studies and theories by industry advocates. The industry

advocates' recommendation for each key factor to quality and productivity is also

discussed in this chapter, along with those secondary issues that affects them.

Chapter 3 narrates the methodology used in this study. The process used to acquire

and analyze the data is presented in this chapter. The information is acquired from two

main sources, the literature review and surveys, respectively. The population sampled in

the survey is that of general contracting companies in the state of Florida. These surveys

were used to verify the validity and effectiveness in implementation of the key factors

defined in the literature review.

An analysis on the findings of the data acquired from the surveys is presented in

Chapter 4. Each key factor herein is addressed in the way it affects quality, productivity,

employee turnover and satisfaction. Rough data and additional charts from the analysis

narrative made in this chapter can be found in Appendices D and E.

Chapter 5 is the last chapter where a summary of the study along with the conclusions

established is presented. Recommendations for future research are also provided in this

final chapter denoting those items in need of special attention when conducting similar

studies.

















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

After reviewing quality and productivity studies, journals, books, and other literature,

two critical factors kept resurfacing. One of them, directly related to quality, is training.

"Changing technology, industry consolidation, population shifts, and the shrinking labor

pool ... have led contractors to recognize the need to boost the training and development

efforts of their people" (Cox and Issa, 2000, p.6). Finding qualified people at the

supervisory and management level is one of the top ranked challenges facing an already

highly competitive construction industry (Wolfe 1997). While the importance of training

seems relatively low by construction firms, given the challenge of finding quality

management, the importance of training and education is repeatedly mentioned on every

study as a necessity in achieving quality. According to Matthews and Burati (1989), a

Construction Industry Institute (CII) study indicated that training performed by

contractors resulted in increased quality awareness. The second factor, crucial to

productivity, is motivation. Once again, worker motivation became the center topic in

achieving workforce productivity on several studies. The Construction Industry Cost

Effectiveness (CICE) Study, probably the most comprehensive study ever made of the

U.S. construction industry, confirms that inadequate performance in the areas of training

and motivation have significantly led to the problems facing the U.S. construction

industry in remaining competitive (BR 1982a, Nunally 2001). As a result of these









findings, both training and motivation factors will be analyzed in detail to find the way in

which they individually affect quality and productivity, respectively. These factors will

be scrutinized and broken down to their influential elements to discover the effective

ways to address them. After all, an environment where these quality and productivity

stimulating factors are implemented allows for a talented workforce to perform at their

maximum potential. Without the awareness and management of these stimulating

factors, a contractor is at risk of losing its talented workforce and consequently producing

poor quality work at a low productivity level. In turn, these issues and suggestions

provide the industry an understanding of areas in need of attention, and on solution

proposals that it should apply to excel in the highly competitive construction industry.

The individual factors that are critical to quality and to productivity also interact to

affect one another, as it will be noted in this study. This interaction is why it is important

to consider both quality and productivity issues together when seeking to improve a

company's competitive standing.

Training Factors Involving Quality

Training is found in this study to be the factor with most effect on quality by industry

advocates. In an industry where quality awareness is growing, as owners demand more

for less, improving company quality-performance through the implementation of training

provides that additional edge over the competition to get the job. As respected industry

advocate Ariel de Geus puts it, "the ability to learn faster [through training] than your

competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage." (Park and Chapin,

1992, p.42) So why have the benefits of training on quality performance been

undermined in the construction industry? Recent studies conducted by the M.E. Rinker

School of Building Construction at the University of Florida report that potential reasons









are "the cyclical nature of employment, the extreme high volume and growth of the

current market, the fear of training and then not retaining the employee, and the lack of

evidence that training improves the profitability of the firm" (Cox and Issa, 2000, p.4).

For quality training to occur and be successful there must first be a desire, be it from

the individual or from the person in need of training, to want to get trained or to want to

seek training from the employer or elsewhere. Before one can capitalize on the benefits

of training, strong management involvement and good employee relations are needed to

establish an environment where this desire and the need to get trained can naturally exist

and be sustained. A company cannot expect training of others, such as subcontractors

and laborers, without first expecting training of itself starting with its construction

professionals with the largest authority and power to affect the company's direction.

Consequently, the focus of this study is placed on management, at both the executive and

project levels, where construction professionals are the responsible party for establishing

the expected level of quality and making sure that it is reached.

The current necessity for management's role in quality and training is made clear in an

exhaustive study of quality related literature undertaken by Saraph, Benson, and

Schroeder (1989). In their study of critical factors that are used to achieve quality

management in an organization are narrowed to eight critical areas:

* Role of divisional top management and quality policy
* Role of quality department
* Quality-related training
* Product/service design
* Supplier quality management
* Process management and operating procedures
* Quality data and reporting
* Employee relations









The third point highlights the acknowledged need for quality-related training being

discussed which can only be achieved with the success of the first and second points that

represent management's essential role and determination to the quality effort. The

control of quality will not improve unless management acts upon it to change work

procedure, and to communicate this information effectively to the workforce. Ensuring

that the flow of information regarding the quality criteria extends right through to the

workforce can change this situation (Churcher and Johnson 1996). This can be further

achieved by implementing the hierarchy of quality documents originally introduced in the

book titled The Control of Quality on Construction Sites (Churcher and Johnson 1996).

These quality documents promote training at all levels, which in turn encourage quality

awareness. The quality document levels are:

* Level 0, specification: From client/design team to contractor

* Level 1, contractor's site quality plan: From contractor head office to staff. May
be approved by client's representative.

* Level 2, inspection and test plan: From contractor site managers or senior
engineers to engineers and supervisors.

* Level 3, method statement: Originates with contractor or subcontractor; for internal
use but may be approved by client's representative.

* Level 4, operation plan: From contractor's site engineers to site foremen

* Level 5, operational feedback

Training managers on these and other tools available is essential to improving quality

performance in the currently fast-paced information age. After all, without the proper

transfer of information or education on the best and current methods available, a

company's performance cannot operate at it maximum potential. Many training

programs have become stagnant out-dated because they fail to view training as a highly









dynamic process that must evolve along with the rapid changes in technology,

information, and resources (Alter and Koontz 1996).

A well-respected quality expert named K. Ishikawa influenced greatly the quality

movement with his six quality-related characteristics. These included company-wide

quality control; education and training in quality control; quality control circles; and

quality control audits, among others. Company-wide quality control relates to

managements role in promoting quality; education and training in quality control is just

as critical in the automobile industry as in construction; quality control circles represent a

quality culture where training can subsist; and audits provide a form of employee

feedback and involvement (positive employee relations). Corbett (1997) said that

maximum staff involvement and feedback (as achieved in training sessions) is crucial to

insuring that quality factors are given appropriate consideration. It is worth noting how

employee relations are another critical element of a successful quality oriented

management team in the effectiveness of establishing and maintaining a desire and need

for training.

Churcher and Johnson (1996) said quality depends just as much on human interaction

between the workforce and management as on the appropriate skills needed to complete

the job (p. 29). Management's efforts in maintaining strong employee relations, to

achieve a quality-eager culture that is attentive to training, are further supported by Total

Quality Management (TQM) principles. In his thesis on the effectiveness of TQM

principles, Floyd (1996) confirms through statistical data that better employee relations

are commonly achieved when total quality management practices are applied.









Total quality management identifies the existence of both internal and external

customers. The external customer defined as the end customer, owner, or client who

receives the final product or service and is responsible for the revenue. On the other

hand, the internal customers are the contractor's employees and are responsible for the

profit. A contractor most often deals with a much larger amount of internal customers

(employees) than external customers (owner/client). Therefore, a considerable amount of

management training focus should be placed on employee relations (internal customers),

which in turn lead to the successful implementation of quality. A quality system,

according to Kolarik, constitutes a culture of people who functions as a unit or team

(Corbett 1997). Training's emphasis on teamwork and team development is critical in

the maintenance of an atmosphere capable of sustaining continuous improvement.

Deming (1982) developed fourteen points that are essential to improving and reaching

Total Quality Management. Corbett describes Deming's principles as a "range from the

institution of education, self-improvement and leadership training among workers to the

elimination of slogans, numerical quotas and financial merit systems, which encourage

performance, but may inhibit team spirit and organization growth. His [Deming's]

principles place the responsibility on management to create a work environment that is

conducive to quality improvement through pride in workmanship, commitment and

cooperation." (Corbett, 1997, p. 21)

After all, management role in learning and developing each individual team member's

assets and pooling all resources available is critical to accomplish the task result

maximize profits (Achor 2000). Deming's fourteen points [see: Implementation of

Training into Company Culture] complement management's critical role in creating a









pleasant and satisfying environment for its employees where pride, education, self-

improvement, leadership, and teamwork coexist. Deming's points are to this date

validated by industry advocates. It is all of these elements that contribute to an

atmosphere in which quality can flourish where people are encouraged and eager to seek

training.

The incentives for contractors to implement training are clearly there. Contrary to the

common misconception that training is costly for contractors, research indicates that

training improves employee attitudes and morale and leads to reduced absenteeism and

staff turnover (Stewart 2000). A survey by the FMI Corporation, management

consultants for the construction industry, found that 86% of the construction companies

utilize "on-going skills training" while 71% reported the use of "internal career

development" as mechanisms to attract and retain good workers. The incentives for

training don't stop here. Recent studies support that implementing training effectively

provides an evident source of return on investment at the bottom-line of a company.

Findings by Card and Kruger in 1992 reinforce this relationship between training and

earning power first made in Denison's 1967 studies. Furthermore, studies by Glover

support that an increase in the level of training is associated with an increase in

productivity (Glover 1999).

The individual factors that are critical to both quality and productivity will

consequently indirectly affect one another as well. This is why it is important to consider

both quality and productivity issues together when seeking to improve a company's

competitive standing.









Implementing Training into Company Culture

In 1993, a group of industry advocates on Total Quality Management (TQM)

published a report that gathered six common traits from twenty different studies selected

for their flawless methodology and focus on TQM practices of organizations. This

report, titled Does Quality Work? A Review of Relevant Studies (Hiam 1993) became

known as the Conference Board's Report Number 1043. Two out of the six traits

identified that played a pivotal role in quality management's success included those

companies where:

* Employees were asked and empowered to continuously improve all key business
practices.
* Management nurtured a flexible and responsive corporate culture.

High employee interaction and feedback, along with an accommodating company culture,

as seen in the above traits, are the first steps to a company's self-sufficient training

program where employees are proactive in the desire for maintaining and achieving

greater quality.

The continuous improvement through employee involvement that training provides is a

critical element to the success of total quality management.

Deming (1982) proposed the following issues to consider when implementing a

training program (and worth applying to any quality-driven company culture)

Institute training on the job.
Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people, machines,
and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul,
as well as supervision of production of workers.
Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.
Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and
production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that
may be encountered with the product or service.
Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for workforce asking for zero defects
and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial









relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong
to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce.
Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers,
numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship.
The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right
to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or
merit rating and of management by objective.
Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
Put everybody to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is
everybody's job. (Deming, 1986, p.23; Hall, 1997, 91-98)

Management as well as all employees should be educated and trained on these or any

principles the company culture seeks to embrace as part of their culture. The

implementation of training is most effective when it reflects not only its company goals

but also the principles and quality standards established as part of its culture. Training

programs that focus on improving those skills that will reinforce the strategic goals and

objectives of the firm experience greater effectiveness in impacting the bottom-line

results of the firm (Cox and Issa 2000).

Motivation Factor in Productivity

Motivation can be defined as a "combination of influences that causes the individual

to want to do the job as quickly and/or as good as possible consistent with safety and

quality goals while cooperating, on a larger scale, with his team in execution of the

project as a whole" (Warren, 1989 p. 2). Evidently, motivation drives the employee to

perform the task at hand in a timely and efficient manner in unison for a common purpose

while preserving quality standards.

A motivated team can exert a major influence on the success of a project (Anchor

2000). Conversely, a lack of motivation resulting from low job satisfaction leads to high









employee turnover rates and consequently to a demise of a company's talented and

valuable workforce (Whyte 1960). Some of the worker demotivators identified in a study

by industry advocates Borcherding and Garnee include: (Nunnally 2001, p.524-5)

* Disrespectful treatment of workers
* Lack of sense of accomplishment
* Non-availability of materials and tools
* Necessity to redo work
* Lack of recognition for accomplishments
* Failure to utilize worker skills
* Incompetent personnel
* Inadequate communication between project elements
* Workers not involved in decision making

The Department of Energy indicates in a study that worker turnover and absenteeism

can have a major impact on total project productivity (BR 1982b). Efforts to minimize

employee turnover and absenteeism on the job must be made through the injection of

motivation into the working environment and the employees themselves to help

maximize productivity.

Studies suggest that increased employee motivation results in increased productivity,

and vice-versa, since a motivated employee will seek efficiency solely from the personal

satisfaction of being able to perform his job without delays and other interference

(Warren 1989). People further attain job satisfaction when their efforts are reflected on

the permanent structures they placed their efforts in to produce. Thus, work facilitation is

a strong motivator for individuals, and is easily achieved by management through the

implementation of construction motivation programs.

When it comes to productivity, motivation is of the essence. Motivation is affected by

recognition, working environment, responsibility, communication, and rewards among









others. Job conditions, management actions, and rewards can increase or decrease

individual effort and its incentives.

Motivation driven by financial incentives can be advantageous in that it can lead

employees to improve the efficiency of construction methods, and to encourage other

more inexperienced or less hard-working co-workers to excel. On the other hand, in

striving for higher output and efficiency, quality and safety may be neglected. Likewise,

the differences in earnings between employees resulting form incentives or inaccurate

bonus rates, may give rise to bad feeling and employee problems onsite. (Heap 1987)

It is important to understand that different incentive implementation strategies may be

required for different organizations or even different employee groups within the same

organization (Boyett 1998). While no single incentive pay strategy is right for everyone,

" ... skill-based pay plans that tie an individuals compensation to his or her ability to learn

and to perform specific tasks of value to the organization is a good idea" (Boyett 1998,

p.284). However, incentive programs should be approached with great caution,

considering difficulty of measuring employee performance and the variability in the

construction environment, which can lead to competition conflicts that tend to harm the

team setting in a working environment (BR 1982b).

Other literature suggests that high performance can still be realized without the need

for conflict-threatening incentives or rewards if upper management gives proper direction

with constraints removed, and the employee has adequate knowledge and skills. A

workforce will be motivated to attain higher skills that will lead to higher morale and

performance when management provides the tools for necessary training, proper

recognition, and appropriate communication. (BR 1982b)









Observations of work performance by various industry advocates, including

Connellan, Epstein, Johnson, Knapp, Hopper, and Bell, show that while money is not

enough to motivate people to perform, rewards do. Rewarding and sincere appreciation

for good performance does motivate people to perform better. (Hall 1997)

Communication across all levels makes employees feel valued and part of a team,

which in turn increases their motivation that leads to higher performance. The Business

Round Table Report A-2 Construction Labor Motivation, (BR 1982b) affirms how a

construction employee will often be highly motivated if there is a sufficient supply of

information, equipment, materials, energy and space for the needs of every team.

Furthermore, participatory decision making through quality circles greatly improve

employee motivation beyond what would normally be accomplished on a well-managed

project (BR 1982b). Along with the above issues and methods, a satisfying work

environment is essential to the enhancement of motivation on the job.

Managers should also show concern for all level employees. Concern for employees'

capacity for work as it is affected by their age, nutrition, climate, health, and adaptation.

Age affects the capacity at which physical labor is performed, but at the same time it is

counterbalanced by the experience and efficiency gained from it. Adequate nutrition

from balanced meals that provide high calorie and protein content should be encouraged

on the site, as it gives workers more energy to perform tasks efficiently. Heat and

humidity can lead to decreased work capacity and heat stroke. As a result, management

should consider starting work at first light and avoid the heat for the day. Good health at

the construction site should be encouraged through the enforcement of good hygiene and

sanitation practices. New and unpracticed employees characterized for their initially









low productivity need time to adapt and get instructed to the work before productivity

can be improved. In a few words, as Heap puts it, "if the employees observe that

management is poor, unfair or corrupt, their morale, motivation, and consequently

productivity will be reduced". (Heap 1987, p. 91-93)

Implementing Motivation into Company Culture

The importance of motivation to construction productivity is clear, and is best

achieved in a company by implementing the following motivators: (Nunnally 2001, p.

525)

* Good employee relations, good safety programs, and enjoyable work
* Good worker orientation programs
* Well-defined goals, and well-planned projects
* Good pay, and recognition for accomplishments

The implementation of good relations, good safety programs and enjoyable work

positively affect job satisfaction and a satisfying work environment. Motivating

employees through job satisfaction has proven very effective. A satisfying work

environment is one that provides and maintains good working conditions through the

implementation of everything from adequate safety standards to even social activities,

which will also increase morale among workers. A strong management concern for their

employees' well being when expressed can be a significant motivator for any

workforce. (BR 1982b)

Implementing Heap's critical elements that comprise job satisfaction motivation

provide a clear guideline for companies seeking to maximize employee-performance.

The basic principle a firm should establish to attain is good working conditions, good

worker-employee relations, and good terms of employment. The company should then

encourage a work environment where employees have a sense of belonging by making









each employee's usefulness apparent. At the same time companies should be

encouraging employees' sense of achievement when performance goals are met, through

the use of recognition and acknowledgement to further promote job satisfaction. Finally,

pride in skill and a sense of responsibility are also to be encouraged; these should be

rewarded with opportunities for advancement and promotion. (Heap 1987)

Rewarding employees does not have to be costly. An acknowledgement and an honest

show of appreciation can greatly enhance performance at little or no cost at all (Hall

1997).

The implementation of good worker orientation programs more closely addresses the

importance training and education has in motivating employees to perform. Just-in-time

training targeted to each employee's specific needs is key to a program's effectiveness.

Each employee should be oriented on the specific tools, techniques, methods and

technology available to perform their specific task best. (Boyett 1998)

A firm can effectively motivate its workforce to perform as a team through the

establishment of well-defined goals and well-planned projects, supported by open

communication and readily available information to its workforce. Better, timelier, and

more complete information about the organization's strategies, goals, and current

performance motivates employees to strive for improved human performance (Boyett

1998).

As for communication, it must be open and effective. Project orientations, suggestion

boxes, newsletters, and bulleting boards have proved to be effective methods of

communication other than oral that should be employed. (BR 1982b)









A company seeking to improve the quality and timeliness of the information people

receive can boost performance as much as 20 to 50% by providing employees the

following two types of information: (Boyett, 1998, p.288)

* First, they need information to give them direction. They must understand the

mission of their company, its business strategy, and what constitutes as performance.

* Second, they need information for confirmation. They need measures, goals, and

objectives they can use to monitor and get feedback on their day-to-day performance.


Appreciation in form of recognition by management must be shown to those

individuals that engage in efficient practices as a way of stimulating motivation. Proper

recognition should offer suitable publicity, or other public show of appreciation.

Companies are encouraged to implement strong financial and non-financial incentives

that are directly contingent upon superior performance and/or performance improvement

(Boyett 1998). These can come in several forms such as awards, paid time-off,

promotion, and financial incentives.

Company incentives are most effective when employees participate in the

development of the incentive system with efforts focused on what is important to the

project at hand (Cox, 2000). In this manner it is a win-win situation for the company and

its employees since the incentives will motivate individuals to maximize performance for

the common benefit of the project.

Incentive systems that compensate employees at both the individual and group level

have proven most effective. The success of such compensation systems rests on base pay

reflecting individual's skills and skill acquisition, while keeping incentive pay tied to

group and/or company rather than individual performance. This model is ideal since it









allows for corporate-wide profit sharing and stock ownership, coupled with gain sharing

in major operating units. Nevertheless, before this or any such incentive plan is put into

action, companies should first train employees to understand the method used to measure

and monitor their performance and that of the business, and should hold regular meetings

to keep all employees informed about the status of the business (Boyett 1998).

A performance appraisal system should seek to measure "job specific" key

performance indicators developed through a collaborative effort with the employee on an

individual basis without being too generic. Companies should be reminded that when

monitoring employee performance the idea is to "measure to improve not to punish," the

evaluation must conclude with an agreed upon strategy to improve (Cox 2000, p.31).

Summary of Literature Review

A strong correlation exists between training to quality, and between motivation to

productivity. The literature review further reveals (Figure 2-1) how those implementing

training and motivation into their company culture are more effective at attracting,

retaining, and developing its workforce. Consequently, these company cultures are

characteristic of having lower employee turnover rates and a higher level of employee

satisfaction. These benefits of training and motivation, as evidenced from industry

advocates in the literature review, provide those companies that implement them

effectively into their company culture a higher quality and productivity performance

potential. Training and motivation thrive most effectively where an endless and growing

commitment from management exists at all levels of implementation. Such company

culture will consequently benefit from the capability of achieving maximum quality and

productivity performance. Attaining this quality-and-productivity-driven company

culture results in a significantly higher competitive edge that serves to balance out the









inequities between the high-risk to low-marginal-returns (profits) characteristic of the

current construction environment.

Figure 2-1 shows how training and motivation ultimately lead to quality and

productivity performance. The dark exterior arrows show this primary relationship while

emphasizing the more direct connections found between training to quality and

motivation to productivity. The other two types of arrows within the figure display

secondary relationships and connections between the issues affected, which serve to

reinforce the primary relationship. Notice how a talented workforce, supported by the

exterior dark arrows at the center of the figure, plays a crucial role in the way quality and

productivity is reached through training and motivation. For the implementation of

training and motivation to be effective and sustainable it must be infused into the

company culture. The figure encloses company culture in a shaded ellipse to illustrate

how it entails time to evolve and grow to embrace the key factors to quality and

productivity referenced herein.

The sequence the figure follows can be interpreted as follows. Implementation of

training and motivation into a company culture provide for a working environment

characteristic of high satisfaction where the attraction, retention, and development of a

talented workforce are stimulated. This consequently minimizes employee turnover and

improves a company's competitive edge through high quality-and-productivity

performance.









TRAINING
I I


QUALITY


MOTIVATION


Company Culture


Sligh
Satisfaction


TALENTED WORKFORCE
Attraction
Retention
Development


PRODUCTIVITY


Figure 2-1. Quality and productivity roadmap














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology

Figure 3-1 illustrates the methodology used for this research. As the methodology

shows, this thesis will first define and measure those key critical factors that lead to a

quality-and-productivity-driven (Q&P) company culture, which encourages the

attraction, retention, and development of a talented workforce, in an effort to attain a

company's performance potential. Moreover, once these Q&P factors are analyzed, this

study will then determine the current effectiveness of their implementation by the

construction industry.

The thesis will follow the following structure and sequence. Information will be

gathered at the "Input" stage from literature review and surveys, respectively. The

literature review will focus on defining the key quality and productivity factors as

referenced by industry advocates. Before the surveys are prepared, all the factors

collected from the literature review will be analyzed, weighted, and narrowed-down, as

shown in the "Processing" stage, to obtain only those critical factors that have the most

profound effect on workforce quality and productivity. Only the most critical factors,

once defined, will be considered.

Surveys will then be prepared to evaluate the accuracy, perception, and correlation of

the defined critical factors to workforce quality and productivity, employee turnover, and

satisfaction, as illustrated in the "Processing" stage in Figure 1-2. It will also be










interesting to note the effectiveness and the actual level of implementation of these

critical Q&P factors into the company culture of the surveyed entity or individual.

The final stage in the methodology is the "Output" stage where all the individual

results previously evaluated have been sorted to obtain more accurate overall results. The

categories in which the results will be sorted are designed to characterize a quality-and-

productivity-driven company culture. The categories selected are a company's

competitive edge, productivity and quality, employee turnover, and employee

satisfaction. Consequently, the final "Output" will be a set of measured effects of the

critical Q&P factors, earlier determined in the literature review and analyzed, on a

quality-and-productivity driven company culture where a performance potential is met

and maintained.

INPUT PROCESSING OUTPUT


Literature Review -
Industry Advocates
(Books, Studies, Joumals...)



Surveys )
General Contractors
(ABC &AGC Fla. Members)
Executive Level
Project Level


*Critical Q&P Factors

SMethod of Implementalion
for common Cril Factors

Lt'
Test Factors
1 Im l m entatl :n Ii : '" ult..

,' L-'e en..'*.e r*:e." : .elat .n i.:.


( I.i. iiJi', Ji.,al
E r-r-: ti : [,i ,:,t" .elW"
e F t :erl tIi: 1i ,:t" C ,:


II T'.i.tn:-' t

III Sa tl. i .:t[.:,.,


I L; I' 1 : 1. :' i ; n I ]. i t -
effectiveness in implementing
these Critical Q&P Factors
1. j .u1 -.l Effe :r .: F C l. Ial
Factors on a Q&P Driven
Company Culture

TTTT
S Competitive Edge
+ -

4 Quality & Productivity
+/-


Turnover
+/-
Satisfaction
+/-


Figure 3-1. Methodology flow chart










Survey Overview

Two different surveys were prepared and presented to each general contracting

company. As Table 3-1 shows, the first survey [Sl] contains questions that are designed

to obtain basic company-specific information and facts. This survey is to be completed

only by someone with authority within the Executive Level of the company. The second

survey [S2] is a more personalized one that focuses on an individual's perceptions and

experiences. This later survey is to be completed by both Executive Level and Project

Level personnel, where they are asked for their level of agreement to a series of

statements on a Likert scale. The participants may choose with each statement to:

"strongly disagree", "disagree", "somewhat disagree", "somewhat agree", "agree",

"strongly agree", or may choose the statement is "not applicable" to them. A copy of the

executive-level survey (S1) and project-level survey (S2) can be found in Appendix A

and Appendix B, respectively.

Table 3-1. Overview of surveys

SURVEY 1 (S1) SURVEY 2 (S2)
I. Company specific information and I. Individual's perceptions and
facts, experiences.

II. Executive Level (nly) II. Executive Level, and
Macro-Level Macro-Level
Administrative Personnel Administrative Personnel
CEO, CFO, President, VP... CEO, CFO, President, VP...

Project Level
Micro-Level
Operational Personnel
Project Manager,
Superintendent, Project
Engineer, Estimator,
Secretary/Accountant...

III. Twenty-eight (28) multiple choice III. Fifty-four (54) statements
questions participants provide their level of
agreement to on a 7-point Likert
Scale









The Executive Level, as mentioned above, is composed of those individuals high up in

the company structure with authority that administer the company in a macro-level.

Whereas, the Project Level is composed of those individuals directly employed by the

general contractor that are most commonly found on a job-site performing daily

management and supervisory activities for a specific project, thus in a micro-level. These

individuals include: Project Managers, Superintendents, Project/Field Engineers,

Estimators, and Secretaries/Accountants. This type of closed loop surveying, illustrated

in Figure 3-2, gives a more accurate overall company condition by considering the

perception of individual's at both the macro and micro levels within a typical

construction company. The Closed Loop Surveying figure further illustrates that

information gathered to be used as test factors [I, II] and that used as input sorting

information [II, IV]. The test factors refer to the perception of individuals on their own

and their company's Q&P performance, and the way in which their companies implement

or act on them. The input sorting is composed of company data and individual's data.

Company and individual specific information (such as number of employees, work

volume, work experience, years employed, etc.) is used for input sorting when evaluating

the test factors.












MACRO (COMPANY) MICRO (PROJECT)

EXECUTIVE LEVEL
I, II, III, IV

PROJECT LEVEL PROJECT MANAGER f
I, II, IV ; SUPERINTENDENT
SPROJ/FLD ENGINEER
Q-r ESTIMATOR
SECRETARY/ -
ACCOUNTANT

I. PERCEPTION
Io (a). Overall Company
S,(b). Individual
SE- Perception of Self
Perception of Company
II. ACTION
Factor implementation n/acti on

r III. COMPANY DATA
0 -1 Company specific information (# empl., yrs in business, wk volume...)
Z i IV. INDIVIDUAL DATA
c- 1 Individual specific information (wk experience, yrs employed, title...)



Figure 3-2. Closed loop surveying

Website Survey

General contracting companies appearing in the AGC (The Associated General

Contractors) and the ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors) membership directories

for the years 2000 and 2002, respectively, that have working website or email address

were invited to participate in the survey. A letter of invitation to participate in the study

was sent via email to executive and project level personnel with addresses made public

by either their company's website or by the ABC and AGC directories. This invitation






28


letter contained a link that automatically directed the individual to the survey website. A

copy of the survey invitation letter emailed to participants can be found in Appendix C.

Once on the website the participant selects and completes the survey that best fits its job

title or position. When the survey is completed the participant is asked to click on a link

titled "End Survey" which automatically generates an output file of the responses.

Additional information presented on the website can be found in Appendix D.














CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Summary of Literature Review Results

The key factors to a quality-and-productivity-driven company culture, according to an

extensive literature review of related material, were determined to be training and

motivation. Although both factors are inter-related and can both affect quality and

productivity performance in some way, overall, it was evident that training was most

critical to quality performance while motivation was found to be most critical to

productivity performance. In addition, the literature review suggests that quality-and-

productivity-driven company cultures are characteristic of having lower employee

turnover rates and higher levels of satisfaction.

Survey Data Analysis

Surveys prepared and distributed to contractors are designed to confirm the validity of

the identified key factors, and to evaluate the effectiveness in their implementation by the

industry. As explained in the Survey Overview section of this thesis, the first survey [Sl]

contains questions designed to obtain basic company-specific information, completed by

personnel in the Executive Level (i.e. CEO, President, VP, etc.) of the company. The

second survey [S2] is a more personalized one that focuses on an individual's perceptions

and experiences, completed by both Executive Level and Project Level (i.e. PM,

Superintendent, PE, etc.) personnel, where they are asked for their level of agreement on

a Likert scale to a series of statements. Refer to Appendices A and B for both surveys as









presented on the website. The rough data results from both surveys are found in

Appendix E, while Appendix F contains the responses in spreadsheet form.

Survey Response Breakdown

A total of 116 companies were contacted via email and invited to participate in the

survey. In its entirety, 389 emails were sent out directly to the individuals' email when

available and/or to the general-information email address provided by the company. Out

of the gross number of emails sent, 50 were deemed undeliverable for several reasons,

including but not limited to: outdated email address, unable to contact server, etc.

Survey responses were received for a period of three weeks, during which two extra

survey-participant invitations were distributed via email as a reminder to complete the

survey. Table 4-1 displays the actual amount of responses received. During the three-

week period a total of thirty-seven people from ten different companies participated in

the survey, from which twenty-three are executive level personnel and fourteen are

project level personnel. The higher level of Executive-level participants to Project-level

participants is largely due to the fact that most of the emails publicly available are those

of executives. The executive level participants completed both surveys [S and S2],

while the project level participants were only asked to complete one of the two [S2].

Table 4-1. Categorized survey responses

Survey Participants Total No.
# Description # Description % Questions


[S1] Company-specific Data 23 Executive Level only 100% 28


[S2] Individual Perception 14 Executive Level, and 62%
23 Project Level 38%
37 100% 54









In total there were thirty-seven participants for Survey 2, and twenty-three participants

for Survey 1. Sixty-two percent of the responses to the statement-perception survey [S2]

came from executive level personnel, while the project level personnel makes up the

remaining 38 percent.

Four out of the ten different companies that completed the survey have participants at

both the executive and project levels. The names of the participating companies were not

disclosed for confidentiality reasons. Instead, the companies were labeled alphabetically.

The four companies with participants from both the executive and project levels were

identified as companies A, B, C, and D. The raw data results from these surveys are

found in Appendix E, while Appendix F contains the responses to both surveys in

spreadsheet form.

Group/Category Analysis

The rough data obtained from the two surveys was analyzed in three mayor categories for

clearer interpretation. Each response to a question in the statement perception survey

[S2] was collectively categorized into the executive level personnel responses (EXEC),

the project level personnel responses (PROJ), and the general responses of both executive

and project level personnel all together (ALL). Appendix E includes the rough-data

analysis of the above three categories for this survey. Graphic tools such as pie charts,

bar charts, and line graphs were used as an aid to demonstrate in a more visual manner

the degree of selection for each response, which in turn allows for easier comparison

across the board between data.









Participant Demographics

Personal Profile

All participants, from both the executive and project level, were asked to provide their

job-title, the number of years working for their current company, and the number of years

working in the industry. This information was important to recognize areas where

experience and job title have a significant effect on the individual's response.

A close look at the job-titles of the survey participants revealed how company vice-

presidents largely represented executive level participants, and how project managers

represented the majority of the project level participants. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the

executive and project level participants' job titles, respectively.

Figure 4-1 shows Vice-Presidents making up 48% of the executive-level participants.

Followed by Presidents at 17%, Human-Resources Managers and CEOs at 9% each, and

the remaining executive participants at 4% each.


Position /Title (EXEC)

Chief Estimator 4%

Marketing Director 4%

Director of Operations 4%

CFO 4%

HR Manager 9%

Vice President 48%

President 17%

CEO 9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Figure 4-1. Executive level participants [N=23]









Figure 4-2 shows Project Managers making up 36% of the project-level participants.

Followed by Project Engineers at 21%, Estimators at 14%, and the remaining project-

level participants at 7% each.


Position / Title (PROJ)

Admin. Assistant 7%

Estimator 14%

Preconstr. Manager 7%

Operations Manager 7%

Project Engineer 21%

Superintendent 7%

Project Manager 36%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 4-2. Project level participants [N=14]

Once the representation of the participants from each level was identified, the work

experience at both the executive and project levels was defined. The executive and

project-level participants' experience in terms of years with their company is illustrated

in Figures 4-3 through 4-5, while their experience in terms of years in the industry is as

seen in Figures 4-6 through 4-8. The figures analyze the responses at all three categories,

as discussed in the Group/Category Analysis section of the Survey Response Breakdown

in this Chapter.

According to the survey results, as Figure 4-3 shows, 43% of both executive and

project-level participants (ALL) have been with their current company for anywhere

between 2 to 10 years. Followed by 24% that have worked with the same company for









10 to 20 years. At last, out of the remaining 32%, half (16%) have worked for more than

20 years while the other half (16%) have for less than 2 years.

Yrs with Company (ALL)

more than 20 I 1%16%

10 to 20 24%

2 to 10 43%

less than 2 ..:.:...:. 16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Figure 4-3. Years with company (ALL) [N=37]

Figure 4-4 shows that 35% of executive-level participants (EXEC) have been with

their current company for anywhere between 2 to 10 years. Followed with 26% each by

that group that has worked with the same company for 10 to 20 years, and that which has

for more than 20 years. The remaining 13% have worked for less than 2 years for their

company.

Yrs with Company (EXEC)

more than 20 26%

10 to 20 26%

2 to 10 35%

less than 2 13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 4-4. Years with company (EXEC) [N=23]

Figure 4-5 shows that 57% of project-level participants (PROJ) have been with their

current company for anywhere between 2 to 10 years. Followed with 21% each by that

group that has worked with the same company for 10 to 20 years, and that which has for









less than 20 years. None of the project-level participants have worked for their current

company for more than 20 years.


Yrs with Company (PROJ)


more than 20

10 to 20

2 to 10

less than 2

01


67%


40% 60%


21%

%O 20%


Figure 4-5. Years with company (PROJ) [N=14]

According to the survey results, as Figure 4-6 shows, 46% of both executive and

project-level participants (ALL) have been working in the construction industry for more

than 20 years. Followed by 38% that have worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years. At

last, out of the remaining 16%, half (8%) have worked for anywhere between 2 to 10

years while the other half (8%) have for less than 2 years.

Yrs Working in the Industry (ALL)


Figure 4-6. Years working in the industry (ALL) [N=37]

Figure 4-7 shows that 52% of executive-level participants (EXEC) have been working

in the industry for anywhere between more than 20 years. Followed by 39% that have


21%


more than 20 1111111111111111111111146%

10 to 20 38%

2to 10 M 8%

less than *I.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%









worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years. Out of the remaining 8% of executives, half

(4%) have worked for anywhere between 2 to 10 years while the other half (4%) has for

less than 2 years.


Yrs Working in the Industry (EXEC)


more than 20

10 to 20

2 to 10

less than 2

0%


439%

14%


20% 40% 0%
20% 40% 60%


Figure 4-7. Years working in the industry (EXEC) [N=23]

Figure 4-8 shows that the group that has worked in the industry for 10 to 20 years, and

that which has for more than 20 years each represents 36% of the project-level

participants. Out of the remaining 28% of project-level participants, half (14%) have

worked for anywhere between 2 to 10 years while the other half (14%) have for less than

2 years.

Yrs Working in the Industry (PROJ)

more than 20 36%

10 to 20 36%

2 to 10 14%

less than 2 14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 4-8. Years working in the industry (PROJ) [N=14]

The previous six figures reveal that the average responded has more than 20 years of

work experience in the industry, out of which at least half of that time has not been by


52%









working under their current employer. It is interesting to note that none of the project

level respondents have been with their current company for more than 20 years, while

twenty-six percent of executive level respondents have. Yet over one-third of the project-

level participants have worked in the industry for more than 20 years, while over one-half

of executive-level participants have worked in the industry for more than 20 years.

Furthermore, out of the 46% of participants (ALL) that have been working in the industry

for more than 20 years, only 16% have spent at least 20 of those years working for their

current company. That is a difference of 30% of both executive and project-level

participants (ALL) that have worked for at least more than one employer up to this point

in their career. The percentage gaps between those years working in the industry and

those working for the current company by both level participants give us an insight into

the employee turnover experienced in the companies of the sample surveyed.

Company Profile

An estimated annual company volume ranging from $10 to $100 million was common

for 78% of the companies participating in the survey, while the remaining 22%

experienced annual volume of $100 to $500 million [Figure 4-9].

Est. Annual Volume (EXEC)
$100-
$500
million
22%



$10-
$100
million
78%


Figure 4-9. Estimated annual volume [N=23]









It was also found that of the companies surveyed 78% had an average construction

project size of $1 to $10 million, while just 13% of the companies maintained an average

project size of $10 million or more. The remaining 9% of the companies had average

project sizes of less than $1 million. [Figure 4-10]

Avg. Project Size (EXEQ

less than
$10- $50 $1 million
million 9%
13%



$1 $10
million
78%

Figure 4-10. Average project size [N=23]

Most (40%) of the companies that participated in the survey have been in business for

more than 80 years. Thirty percent of the companies have been in business for anywhere

between 20 to 40 years, seventeen percent for 40 to 80 years, and thirteen percent for 10

to 20 years. [Figure 4-11]


Figure 4-11. Years in business [N=23]

The number of employees is estimated at less than 100 hundred for 70% of the

companies surveyed, while the remaining 30% estimate anywhere between 100 to 1,000


Yrs in Business (EXEC

more than
80 10 to 20
40% 17%



20 to 40
40 to 80 30%
13%










employees [Figure 4-12]. Although, contractors employing one hundred or more workers

make up less than 1 percent of the nation's construction firms, they still account for about

30 percent of the value of work performed (Nunnally, 2001, p.2).

Est. # of Employees (EXEC)



100 to
1,000



.less than
100
70%


Figure 4-12. Estimate # of employees [N=23]

The later data reveals how the majority of the survey participants work for small to

medium-sized general contracting companies. Consequently, the survey results will more

closely apply to similarly sized companies in the Florida construction industry.

Company Training Implementation Profile

While most (78%) companies, according to executive level participants, implement a

formal training program, there are still 22% of them that don't implement one at all

[Figure 4-13].


Figure 4-13. Companies implementing training programs [N=37]


Is there a formal training program being
implemented in your company? (EXEC)

100% 78%
78%
80% -
60% -
40% : : 22%
20% .
0% --
Yes No










The training is offered to all-level personnel in 61% of those companies surveyed. On

17% of the companies the training is offered to only entry-level personnel, while the

remaining 22% of the companies do not offer training at all. [Figure 4-14]

Who receives the training? (EXEC)

N/A Entry Level
22% Personnel
17%





All Level
Personnel
61%

Figure 4-14. Personnel receiving training [N=23]

Forty-seven percent of all the companies surveyed have their training programs in

place for anywhere between the last 2 to 10 years. Twenty-two percent of the companies

have one established for more than 10 years. Nine percent recently established one in the

past 2 years. Note that the remaining 22% of the companies do not have one established

in the first place. Although most of the companies have been in business for over 80

years seen in Figure 4-11, these formal training programs are still relatively new. Over

70% of only those companies that actually offer a formal training program started

implementing it within the last 10 years. [Figure 4-15]

For how long has the program been in
place? (EXEC)
NIA
22% less than 2
9%



more than 2 to 10
10 / 47%
22%


Figure 4-15. Length of establishment of training program [N=23]










Fifty-two percent of the companies surveyed have training programs where training is

performed by both the company (In-house) and outside individuals/organizations.

Twenty-six percent have training performed solely by the company (In-house), while the

remaining 22% do not offer a formal training program at all. [Figure 4-16]


Figure 4-16. Source of training [N=23]

The estimated dollar amount spent on training for each individual per year is less than

$500 for 43% of the companies surveyed. Twenty-two percent of the companies spend

$500 to $1,000 per year. Another 22% of them spend more than $2,000. The remaining

13% of the companies spend $1,000 to $2,000 per year in training for each individual.

[Figure 4-17]

What is the estimated dollar amount spent
on training for each individual per year?
EXECC)
More than
$2,000
22% less than
S$500
$1 000 to 43%
$2,000
13%
$500 to
$1,000
22%


Figure 4-17. Investment on training [N=23]


Who performs the training? (EXEC)
The
N/A Company (In-
22% house)
26%


Both In-
house and_-
outside
52%


0'WW\WNW'_

909










While in most cases both the company personnel and an outside organization perform

the training provided by the employer, the average company invests less than $500 per

individual annually on training. This is considerably lower than the national average

amount invested in senior level and middle level management personnel of $2000 and

$1000, respectively (Cox and Issa 2000). This translates to an average investment in

ALL training of 2.3% as a percentage of payroll (Cox and Issa 2000).

Of the training offered by the average company, only "some" of it is mandatory.

Forty-four percent of the companies surveyed state that some training is mandatory.

Seventeen percent state that all training is mandatory. Nine percent deem most of the

training mandatory. Four percent do not have mandatory training. The remaining 26%

of all companies surveyed found the question not applicable to them for the most part

because they do not offer a training program in the first place. [Figure 4-18]

How much training is mandatory? (EXEC)

N/A None
26% 4%


Some
All _44%
17% Most
9%


Figure 4-18. Mandatory company training [N=23]

Thirty-nine percent of the companies surveyed offer 3 to 4 training/educational

seminars per year to jobsite-level (project-level) personnel on average. Thirty-five

percent offers 2 of them on average. Thirteen percent offers one per year. Nine percent

offer more than 4 per year, while the remaining 4% of the companies do not offer these

training seminars to jobsite-level (project-level) personnel. [Figure 4-19]







43



On average, how many trainingleducational
seminars per year are offered to job-site-
leuel personnel? (EXEC)
50% 39%
40% 35%
30%
20% 13%
10% 4%
0%
none 1 2 3-4 more than
4



Figure 4-19. Training/educational seminars offered [N=23]

The minimum hours of training per jobsite-level (project-level) employee per year are

less than 12 hours according to 57% of the companies surveyed. Twenty-six percent of

them offered a minimum of 12 to 24 hours of training, while the remaining 17% of the

companies offered 24 to 48 hours minimum. None of the surveyed companies offered

more than 48 hours of training as a minimum to their project-level personnel. [Figure 4-

20]


What are the minimum hours of training per
job-site-leuel employee per year? (EXEC)
60% 57%
50% -
40%
.... 26%
30% 26%
O 17%
20%-
10% -0%
0% .
less than 12 12-24 24-48 more than
48


Figure 4-20. Minimum hours of training per project-Level employee [N=23]

The two previous figures illustrate how average most companies offer three to four

training seminars annually for project-level personnel that all together total less than 12

hours.










Forty-eight percent of executives affirm that less than 14 of their company's workforce

takes advantage of training/educational seminars. Thirty-one percent affirm 12 to 3% of

their company's workforce, thirteen percent affirm more than 3%, and the remaining 9% of

executives felt it was more of /4 to 12 of their company's workforce that takes advantage

of training. [Figure 4-21]


What percent of the workforce takes
advantage of training/educational seminars?
60% 48% (EXEC)
50% -
40% 30%
30%-
20% 13%
0%
less than 25%-50% 50%-75% more than
25% 75%


Figure 4-21. Workforce taking advantage of training [N=23]

Company Motivation Implementation Profile

Motivation can come in many forms as discussed in the literature review. The

statements analyzed on this section deal with those issues that most closely affect

workforce motivation as defined in the literature review. Some of those issues include:

formal recognition events, education programs, incentives, mentor programs.

Mentor programs usually involve the assignation of a company individual to guide and

advice an employee, most commonly a newly hired one, in an effort to assist on his/her

development with the company. Survey results show that thirty-nine percent of the

companies surveyed generally assign a mentor to a newly hired individual. Thirty-five

percent sometimes assign a newly hired individual a mentor, twenty-two percent

generally do not, and four percent of these companies always do. [Figure 4-22]


























Figure 4-22. Mentor program [N=23]

Formal employee performance reviews for new hires are held semi-annually by 53%

of the companies surveyed. Thirty percent hold them annually, 13% of the companies

vary their frequency, while 4% never hold performance reviews for newly hires at all.

[Figure 4-23]

How often does your company hold formal
employee performance reviews for new
hires (less than lyr)? (EXEC)
never
varies 4%
13%

13. semi-
annually
annually 53%
30%


Figure 4-23. Employee performance reviews (newly hired) [N=23]

Survey results show that the majority of all newly hired individuals are assigned a

mentor and are given formal employee performance reviews semi-annually, as Figure 4-

23 revealed. On the other hand, formal employee performance reviews for all other

personnel are used by all the companies, and are usually held on an annual basis. Formal

employee performance reviews for all other hires are held annually by 70% of the

companies surveyed. Seventeen percent hold them semi-annually, and 13% of the


Is a mentor assigned to a newly hired
individual? (EXEC)
always generally
4% not
22%
generally
yes -
39%










companies vary the frequency they hold formal employee performance reviews. [Figure

4-24]

How often does your company hold formal
employee performance reviews for all other
personnel? (EXEC)semi-

varies annually
varies
13% 17%





annually
70%

Figure 4-24. Employee performance reviews (not newly hired) [N=23]

The majority of the companies are also implementing continuing-education program

benefits, such as a tuition reimbursement program. Thirty-six percent of the companies

surveyed generally implement such program, 30% of the companies surveyed always

implement it, and 17% sometimes do. Companies that generally do not implement

continuing-education program benefits make up 13% of those surveyed, and those that

never implement it make up 4%. [Figure 4-25]


Does your company offer employee
continuing-education program benefits
such as a tuition reimbursement program?
EXECC)
generally
never not
always 4% 13%
30%

sometimes
generally 17%
yes
36%

Figure 4-25. Continuing-education program benefits [N=23]







47


Formal events where employees are recognized and rewarded for their contributions

are established in 78% of the companies; the remaining 22% do not have such events

formally established [Figure 4-26].


Figure 4-26. Companies offering formal employee-recognition events [N=23]

Thirty-five percent of the companies surveyed hold 2 to 4 of these formally

established employee-recognition events annually. Thirty percent hold these events once

a year; thirteen percent hold these more than 4 times a year. The remaining 22% of the

companies surveyed do not offer these employee recognition events at all; those

companies responded "not applicable". [Figure 4-27]

If so, approximately how many of these type
of (employee recognition) events are held
annually? (EXEC)
40% 30% 35%
30% 22%
20% 13%
10% 0%
0%
0 1 2-4 more than N/A
4


Figure 4-27. Formal employee-recognition events held annually [N=23]

Social activities sponsored by the company for its employees are offered by 87% of

the companies surveyed; the remaining 13% do not hold any at all. Forty-eight percent of


Does your company have established formal
events were employees are recognized and
rewarded for their contributions? (EXEC)
100%
78%
80% -
60%
40% 22
22%
20%
0%
Yes No










the companies surveyed hold social activities 2 to 4 times per year. Twenty-two percent

of the companies surveyed hold these social activities more than 4 times a year, while

17% of them do it only once a year. [Figure 4-28]


On average, how many social activities does
your company sponsor for its employees
60% per year? (EXEC)
50% -48%
40% -
30% 22%

0%7%
20% 13% 17%


0 1 2-4 more than 4


Figure 4-28. Company-sponsored social activities held annually [N=23]

According to executives the most common performance incentives used by their

companies are financial incentives, awards, promotion, and paid time off, respectively.

Financial incentives are used by 87% of the companies surveyed, awards by 74%,

promotion by 65%, and paid time off by 43% of them. Seventeen percent of the

companies surveyed also implemented other incentives in addition, while 4% did not use

any form of incentives at all. Most companies offer all four of the prior incentives to

motivate its workforce, while the remaining use a combination of them. [Figure 4-29]


Figure 4-29. Performance incentives [N=23]


What types of performance incentives does
your company use? (EXEC)
100%
80% 87% 65 74%
60%
40%- rC3%
\ 17%
0% 4%

pdd #o











In an effort to promote open communication within the company, the preferred


method was reported to be through newsletters. Suggestion boxes are also a popular


means of communication. As for performance incentives, companies used a combination


of these tools to promote open communication. Sixty-five percent of the companies


surveyed provided newsletters, followed by 39% that used suggestion boxes, 35% used


other tools, and 30% used bulletin boards. Twenty-two percent of the companies found


the question "not applicable" to them. [Figure 4-30]


To promote open communication, our
company provides: (EXEC)


70%
60%
50%
40% 9%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 2


(n
(U X


Figure 4-30. Open communication tools [N=23]

According to the surveyed company executives, 61% of the companies offer


competitive employee benefits, while the other 39% affirm they offer employee benefits


that exceed the industry. [Figure 4-31]


Figure 4-31. Companies offering competitive employee benefits [N=23]


.C 1/1
(D '
M n


Does your company offer competitive
employee benefits? (EXEC)


Exceeds
Industry
39% \


Comparable
to Industry
61%









Quality Performance through Training

Survey results show that most executive and project level personnel (80%) agree that

company-training efforts had improved their quality performance. Furthermore, an even

higher percentage (95%) of them agree to some level that the overall quality awareness

was improved through company training. Although company sponsored training leads to

improved quality awareness and performance, it is important to evaluate the direct

influence training has on a company culture in increasing its commitment to producing

quality work, see Figure 4-32. This influence is most perceived by project personnel, as

reflected by their high (93%) level of agreement, in contrast to the lower (70%) level of

agreement by executives. This difference is due in part to 26% of them that found it "not

applicable".


Training has increased my commitment to producing quality work.

0%
Not Applicable 26%


7%o
Disagreement 4%



Agreement


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agreement Disagreement Not Applicable
S(PROJ) 93% 7% 0%
U (EXEC) 70% 4% 26%

Figure 4-32. Training's influence on quality work [N=37]









Conceivably, while company training keeps its workforce up to speed with new

methods and innovations that improve the quality of work, this benefit is most perceived

at the project level rather than at the executive.

In response to the question in Figure 4-33 stating that the number of punch-list or

deficient items had been reduced since the introduction of quality training, 57%

"somewhat agreed", but the statement received a 27% response of being "not applicable"

by both executive and project level participants. This could be interpreted in two ways:

either most participants don't directly deal with punch-list items, or they just do not find a

connection between quality training and punch-list items. Initially the logic and the aim

of the question was that when applying quality training one is made more aware of

potentially deficient items (punch-list items) and can act to prevent them from occurring,

resulting in a reduction of the items. Off course something that was or was not prevented

from happening is hard to measure and track especially when each project can present

new and unique challenges that are not common from project to project, be it a result of

new building issues or new individuals in the construction team.


Since introducing quality training, the number
of punch-list items has been reduced. (ALL)
Disagree
A 11% Somewhat
27% Disagree
5%



Strongly
Agree Agree Somewhat
Agree
5% 14% Agree
38%

Figure 4-33. Quality training and punch-list items [N=23]









Ninety-seven to one hundred percent of all survey participants "strongly agree" their

company thinks that training employees is beneficial to company quality performance,

and that their investment in training leads to increased time and money savings.

It is interesting to note that although there is a 97% agreement from both executives

and project level personnel that their company values the benefits of training, not all

project level participants agree that their company feels this training is as important for

their development. Figure 4-34 illustrates that while 100% of executives believe their

company indeed feels that training is an important part of their development, 14% of

project level personnel disagree (while the remaining 86% agree) with their company's

importance placed in training as part of their development.


The company feels training is an important part
of employee development.


SDisagree


Agree 10
100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Agree Disagree
SPROJ 86% 14%
SEXEC 100% 0%
Percentage of Agreement/Disagreement


Figure 4-34. Training and employee development [N=37]

It is interesting to note that the 14% of the project level personnel seen here also feel

their current company training is ineffective and poorly defined. Nevertheless, they all

strongly agree that company training is important and that more training opportunities are









needed. So far the survey results make known project level personnel's stronger desire

for training and its benefits than the executives themselves. To further confirm this

tendency, Figure 4-35 illustrates how 70% of executives in comparison to 93% of project

level participants are in agreement with the fact that training had made them more

efficient at completing their tasks. Twenty-six percent of the executive-level personnel

found the statement "not applicable" to them, while none of the project-level personnel

responded in the same manner. Perhaps executives do not find training as having as

much of a direct connection with task efficiency as project-level personnel does. Another

reason for this difference could rest in that executives are not involved on as many task-

oriented activities as project-level personnel is exposed to as part of their job.


Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks.

0%
Not Applicable 26%



Disagreement



Agreement


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agreement Disagreement Not Applicable
(PROJ) 93% 7% 0%
M (EXEC) 70% 4% 26%

Figure 4-35. Training's influence on task efficiency [N=37]

Even though 96% "strongly agree" their company encourages training and 86% feel

the training programs are effective, as survey results show, there is still 27% of all










participants that feel the company's training program is not well defined. On the other

hand, there is the 70% of both executive and project-level participants that responded

favorably to their company having a well-defined training program [Figure 4-36].


The co. has a well-defined training program in
place. (ALL)

Strongly N/A Strongly
Agree 3% Disagree Disagree
Agree

27% Somewhat
Disagree
8%
Somewhat
Agree
35%

Figure 4-36. Well-defined training program [N=37]

For executive and project level personnel, company-sponsored training is important

and it has been beneficial to them. Moreover, most "strongly agree" that additional

company sponsored training opportunities are needed. Seventy-five percent of all

respondents responded favorably to the need for more company-sponsored training, while

22% disagree to some level of such need. [Figure 4-37]


Figure 4-37. Need for training [N=37]


More company-sponsored training opportunities are
needed. (ALL)
N/A
3% Disagree
Somewhat
Strongly Disagree
Agree 11%
32%


Agree Agree
24% 19%










Productivity Performance through Motivation

Out of all the survey participants no one objected to the fact that maximum

productivity potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. The survey

results reveal that motivating employees is beneficial to job and productivity

performance. Executive and project level personnel showed a high-level of agreement

with the statement that company motivation encourages more productive work.

Interestingly enough, while all executives surveyed believe management feels that

motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company, 21% of project level

participants are in disagreement [Figure 4-38]. This 21% also believes that company

motivation is indeed beneficial to job performance and strongly agree that a motivated

workforce significantly influences the success of a project. Furthermore, while this group

of project-level personnel agrees that feeling valued and appreciated by their company

motivates them, they all feel the company doesn't value their opinion. Two out of three

from this group of project level personnel believe their company does not promote a

sufficiently motivating environment and are not currently motivated to perform up to

their maximum potential.

The company feels that motivation is The company feels that motivation
a vital part of a productivity-driven is a vital part of a productivity-driven
company. (EXEC) company. (PROJ)
Strongly
Somewhat Disagree Somewhat
Strongly Agree N1A 7% Disagree
3Agree 9% Strongly 14% 14%

AgreeA
Agree Agree
52%
Agree
44%

Figure 4-38. Motivation for a productivity-driven company [N=23; N=14]










Evidence to the possible motivation preference placed on executives versus other

personnel can be seen from the 96% level of agreement by executives in comparison to

the 86% level of agreement by project level personnel to the statement that their company

promotes a sufficiently motivating environment [Figure 4-39]. Overall both executive

and project level personnel "somewhat agreed" with the above statement. Even though

the level of agreement percentages are relatively high, there is still more improvement

needed from the companies to achieve a truly motivating environment with especial

consideration placed on project level personnel motivation. Management needs to do a

better job at keeping its workforce motivated. Twenty percent of the participants do not

feel that management is doing a good job motivating its workforce. Even 17% of the

high level executives themselves are in disagreement with the statement that management

is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated.

Our company promotes a sufficiently Our company promotes a sufficiently
motivating environment. (EXEC) motivating environment. (PROJ)
m t Strongly
Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree Dsagree Agree 7% 7%
17% 4% 14% \ /


~1Th1bm\

ii~


Somewhat
SAgree
4n% Agree


Agree321% Somewhat
39% Agree
51%


Figure 4-39. Company motivating environment [N=23; N=14]

The survey results reveal a difference in the levels of motivation between executive

and project level personnel. Figure 4-40 shows how approximately 30% of the project

participants are in disagreement with the statement that they are currently motivated to

perform up to their maximum potential.


r











I am currently motivated to perform up
to my maximum potential. (EXEC)
N/A Somewhat
9% Agree
13%
Strongly
Agree
17%


I am currently motivated to perform up
to my maximum potential. (PROJ)
Strongly
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Agree 7% 7%
Somewhat
Disagree
14%


Agree
37%


Somewhat
Agree
14%


Figure 4-40. Maximum performance potential through motivation [N=23; N=14]

Conversely, the executives showed no disagreement to the same statement, instead

91% of them were in agreement with being motivated to perform up to their maximum

potential, while the remaining 9% found it "not applicable" [Table 4-2].

Table 4-2. Maximum performance potential through motivation


I AM CURRENTLY MOTIVATED TO PERFORM UP TO MY MAXIMUM POTENTIAL


EXECC)
# Resp Response
0 Slrongly Disagree
0 Disagree
0 Somewhal Disagree
3 Somewhal Agree
14 Agree
4 Slrongly Agree
2 N/A
23 Total Responses


(PROJ)
# Resp Response
1 Slrongly Disagree
1 Disagree
2 Somewhal Disagree
2 Somewhal Agree
5 Agree
3 Slrongly Agree
0 N/A
14 Total Responses


Although 75% of this group of project level personnel agrees that their company

promotes a sufficiently motivating environment, the same respondents also feel their

company does not recognize their performance or value their opinion. This is important

since 3 out of 4 of the individuals in that 29% group also agree that feeling valued by the

company motivates them. Half of that 29% of project level personnel believe

management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated. They all in turn


-



I II










strongly agree a motivated workforce significantly influences the success of a project.

Furthermore, along with the other project level individuals, they all agree company

motivation is beneficial to job performance and acknowledge that maximum productivity

potential is best achieved within a motivating environment. While most people agree that

they are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential, the question now

is whether they feel the company is recognizing their performance appropriately.

As we learned from the literature review in this study, recognition is a very important

part of employee motivation. When management recognizes an employee's performance

and dedication, motivation can be increased and maintained. Survey participants "agree"

their company recognizes their performance appropriately, but a closer look at Figure 4-

41 reveals that 21% of project level and 13% of executive level personnel are actually in

some form of disagreement with this statement. This leads to the conclusion that

companies still have improvements to make in the way they are recognizing their

employees' performance. Companies cannot ignore the need for employee-recognition

since as the survey results reflect it can greatly affect motivation, which in turn affects

task efficiency that leads to maximum performance and high productivity. After all, a

motivated workforce considerably influences the success of a project.


The company recognizes my performance The company recognizes my performance
appropriately. (EXEC) appropriately. (PROJ)
N/A Disagree Somewhat Strongly Strongly
17% 4% Disagree Aree Disagree
17% 9 Agree 7% Somewhat
Somewhat Disagree


Strongly Agree
Agree -N% N.' 9%
13%
Agree/
Agree 36%
48%


Agree -n


Somewhat
Agree
29%


Figure 4-41. Companies on employee recognition [N=23; N=14]


14%

-i









Survey participants were also asked to provide their opinion on whether they felt

people are more productive at or around the time of performance/salary reviews. The

general response was not very affirmative, as Figure 4-42 illustrates most participants

only "somewhat agreed" to the statement. One third of all respondents expressed a level

of disagreement with this statement, largely coming from 57% of the project level

personnel in contrast to 17% of the executive level personnel that also expressed

disagreement. On the other hand, the remaining 83% of executives feel that people are

indeed in some degree more productive at or around the time of performance/salary

reviews. Once again a considerable difference between executives and project level

personnel is seen.

People are more productive at or around the People are more productive at or around the
time of performance/salary reviews. (PROJ) time of performance/salary reviews. (EXEC)

N/A Strongly Disagree
14% Disagree Agree 13% Somewhat
S28% 17% / Disagree
A a 4%


Agree 1 Somewhat Somewhat
29% Disagree Agree
29% 49%

Figure 4-42. Employee productivity and performance/salary reviews [N=23; N=14]

The basic conception behind the statement in question is that one is willing to perform

more productively at or around the time of such review since one's dedication to high

productive performance should ideally result in valuable recognition and/or rewards by

one's company. Even though performance/salary reviews have some effect on employee

productivity performance at or around the time at which they are held as the results

suggest, there are too many mixed feelings by employees overall to validate and much

less generalize this statement.


Somewhat


11 -9










Other important elements affecting motivation are also addressed in the survey to

evaluate how effective companies generally are at implementing them. These elements

include feeling valued and appreciated, company incentives, working conditions, social

activities, and company benefits. Feeling valued and appreciated by the company

motivates both executive and project level participants as seen in Figure 4-43, for most of

them "strongly agree".


Feeling valued and appreciated by the company
motivates me. (ALL)
Somewhat
NiA Agree

.Agree
38%
Strongly
Agree
54%



Figure 4-43. Feeling valued and appreciated effect on motivation [N=37]

It is not a complex relationship to understand that feeling valued and appreciated by

one's employer is motivating. Yet the companies surveyed are having difficulties with

effectively projecting this feeling to their employees across all levels, as Figure 4-44

illustrates. Approximately one third (31%) of project level personnel as compared to

only 4% of executives say they don't feel their respective company values their opinion.

In other words, companies surveyed are more effective at making executive-level

personnel feel valued than they are at making the project-level personnel feel the same

way.











I feel the company values my opinion. (EXEC) I feel the company values my opinion. (PROJ)
Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Strongly Disagree ree
N/A 4% Agree Agree
9% 4% 14% Somewhat
Disagree
Agree 14%
Strongly 30% Agree Somewhat
Agree 44% Agree
53% 14%

Figure 4-44. Valuing employee opinion [N=23; N=14]

Company incentives proved to be another area where inequities between executive

level and project level can be perceived, as Figure 4-45 illustrates. While all executives

feel without any disagreement that their company incentives motivate them to be more

productive, 29% of project level personnel feel otherwise. The reason for this can be

deducted from the 91% agreement from executives to the company currently offering

them valuable incentives, versus the lower 79% agreement to the same statement from

project level personnel.


100%
90%-
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%-
20%-
10%
0%

-\^~


91%
i 79%


1. Our co. incentives motivate me to he more productive.
2. The co. offers valuable incentives
87%
71% IIE::E I
,PRF'-' JI




29%

14%


(PROJ)
(EXEC)


0


I


Figure 4-45. Company incentives and motivation [N=23; N=14]










Most companies, over 92% of them, offer appropriate working conditions and

competitive benefits according to the project and executive personnel. As for social

activities, the majority of all participants (87%) believe their company sponsors social

activities that increase the morale among workers.

Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Turnover

The survey results further confirm employee turnover and absenteeism strongly

influence productivity performance. Executive and project-level personnel are all in

agreement with the statement that worker turnover and absenteeism can have a major

impact on total project productivity. Eighty-one percent of all participants "strongly

agree" with the statement, 16% "agree", and 3% somewhat agree. [Figure 4-46]


Worker turnover and absenteeism can have
a major impact on total project productivity.
(ALL)
Somewhat
Agree Agree



Strongly 1
Agree
81%


Figure 4-46. Turnover and absenteeism on productivity [N=37]

Effective training as well as effective motivation minimizes employee turnover, as

survey results illustrate in Figures 4-21b and 4-21c. A closer look at training shows how

39% percent of all participants "somewhat agree" with the statement that effective

training minimizes employee turnover. In addition, thirty-two percent "agree", 16%

"strongly agree", 8% "somewhat disagree", and 5% "disagree" with the same statement.

Overall, 87% of all participants responded favorably to training's ability in minimizing

employee turnover. [Figure 4-47]


























Figure 4-47. Training on employee turnover [N=37]

Similarly, motivation received a favorable response on its ability to minimize

turnover. When the same participants were asked for their level of agreement to, 40% of

all participants "agree" with the statement that effective motivation minimizes employee

turnover. An additional 30% "somewhat agree", 24% "strongly agree", 3% "somewhat

disagree", and 3% "disagree". In total, 96% of all participants responded favorably to

motivation's ability in minimizing employee turnover. [Figure 4-48]

Effective motivation minimizes employee
turnover. (ALL)
Disagree Somewhat
Strongly 3% Disagree
Agreed I 3%
24%
Somewhat
e 30Agree
30%

Agree
40%


Figure 4-48. Motivation on employee turnover [N=37]

Although both factors were perceived to have a considerable effect on employee

turnover, motivation received a higher overall percentage of responses on its capacity of

minimizing employee turnover than training did. Nevertheless, the survey results show

that a company's investment on their employees, by ways of training for example, are


Effective training minimizes employee
turnover. (ALL)
Strongly Disagree omehat
Agree 5% Somewhat
16% Disagree
8%


Agree

Agree
39%










perceived as beneficial to keeping employee turnover to a minimum. Forty-one percent

of all participants "agree" that employees are less likely to leave a company that invests

in their career. In addition, 27% "strongly agree", 24% "somewhat Agree", 5%

"disagree", and the remaining 3% of participants "somewhat disagree" to the above

statement. [Figure 4-49]

Employees are less likely to leave a
companythat invests in their career. (ALL)
Strongly Disagree Somewhat
Agree Disagree
27% 3%
Somewhat
Agree
24%

Agree
41%

Figure 4-49. Career development Investment and employee turnover [N=37]

The availability of training programs is shown to contribute to the attraction of more

qualified candidates. Only 3% of both the executive and project-level personnel

surveyed "somewhat disagree" with training's ability to attract qualified candidates,

while the remaining 97% responded favorably to it. In total, 60% "somewhat agree",

32% "agree", and 5% "strongly agree" with the statement that the availability of training

programs attracts more qualified candidates. [Figure 4-50]

Availability of training programs attracts
more qualified candidates. (ALL)
Somewhat
Strongly
Disagree
Agree 3%
5% 3%
Agree
32%

Somewhat
Agree
60%



Figure 4-50. Attracting qualified candidates through training [N=37]










It is important that the company establishes a working environment in which its

employees are motivated to work. Ninety-four percent of all participants expressed

agreement to the statement that employees are likely to leave a company in which they

are not motivated to work. While out of the remaining 6%, 3% "disagree" and the other

3% "somewhat disagree" to the statement. The majority (45%) "strongly agree"

employees are likely to leave a company in which here they are not motivated to perform.

This was followed by 30% of participants that "agree" and 19% that "somewhat agree".

[Figure 4-51]

Workers are likely to leave a company in
which they are not motivated to work. (ALL)
Disagree Somewhat
3% Disagree
SSomewhat
Strongly Agree
Agree 19%
45%

Agree
30%


Figure 4-51. Motivating workplace and employee turnover [N=37]

Companies should keep in mind, as survey results show [Figure 4-52], that employee

turnover is also affected by the length of employment of the individual. All survey

participants are in agreement with the statement that employee turnover declines with the

length of employment; Forty-nine percent "agree", 27% "strongly agree", and 24%

"somewhat agree". With this in mind, company efforts to minimizing employee turnover

of talented personnel and thus maximizing their length of employment can be achieved

by decreasing their likeliness of leaving their company. As survey results have shown

[See previous Figures 4-49, 4-51] employees are less likely to leave a company that

invests in their career and one in which they are motivated to work. Consequently, the










effective implementation of training and motivation is not just key to quality and

productivity performance, but also plays an important role in addressing employee

turnover. [Figure 4-52]


Employee turnover declines with the length
of employment. (ALL)
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly 24%
Agree
27%



Agree
49%


Figure 4-52. Employee turnover and length of employment [N=37]

Effects of Training and Motivation on Employee Satisfaction

Survey results show how both company training and a motivating environment are

conducive of employee satisfaction. As Figure 4-53 illustrates, all responses received

were favorable to training's capacity in promoting job satisfaction. Forty-eight percent

"agree" company training promotes job satisfaction, 30% "strongly agree", and the

remaining 22% of the participants "somewhat agree".


Figure 4-53. Company training on job satisfaction [N=37]


Company training promotes job satisfaction.
(ALL)
Somewhat
Strongly Agree
Agree 30% 22%
30% \ --,- ,I











Motivation received a seemingly favorable response as training did on its

conduciveness of employee satisfaction. Fifty-two percent "agree" a motivating working

environment is conducive of employee satisfaction, 43% "strongly agree", and the

remaining 5% of the participants "somewhat agree". [Figure 4-54]


A motivating working environment is
conducive of employee satisfaction. (ALL)
Somewhat
Agree
5%
Strongly
Agree
43%
AWA g re e
52%




Figure 4-54. Motivation on employee satisfaction [N=37]

All survey participants also make evident the importance of training to employee

satisfaction, which in turn affects company performance. Fifty-four percent of the survey

participants "agree" training fosters a sense of belonging to the company, increases

employee satisfaction and accelerates performance. In addition, 30% of them "strongly

agree", while the remaining 16% "somewhat agree" to the same statement. [Figure 4-55]


Figure 4-55. Training on belonging, satisfaction, and performance [N=37]


Training fosters a sense of belonging to the
company, increases employee satisfaction
and accelerates performance. (ALL)
Somewhat
Strongly
T- Agree
Agree 16%
30%


Agree
54%










That sense of belonging to the company is a vital to employee satisfaction and cannot

be fully perceived unless the employee feels as a contributing source to the company.

Survey results show, as seen in Figure 4-56, that 97% of all surveyed are in agreement

with the statement that training encourages new hires to quickly develop into informed,

contributing employees. Forty-eight percent "agree", 38% "strongly agree", 11%

"somewhat agree", and the remaining 3% of the participants "somewhat disagree".


Training encourages new hires to quickly
develop into informed, contributing
employees. (ALL)
Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Strongly 3% Agree
Agree 11%
38%


Agree
48%


Figure 4-56. Training on employee development [N=37]

The advantages of company training on its employees and on the firms itself do not

stop here. The benefit of company-sponsored training in increasing the potential of

employees as it helps their careers is perceived by 97% of all personnel surveyed. Fifty-

seven percent of the participants "strongly agree" to the statement that company

sponsored training increases my potential and helps my career. Thirty-five percent

"agree", and the 5% of the participants "somewhat agree" to this statement. The

remaining 3% of respondents found the statement not applicable to them. [Figure 4-57]


























Figure 4-57. Company-training on employees' career and potential [N=37]

Social activities among employees are viewed as morale boosting activities that

contribute to satisfying environment for 92% of the survey participants. Forty-nine

percent of executives and project-level personnel "agree" social activities among

employees increase morale among workers. Twenty-seven percent "strongly agree",

16% "somewhat agree", and the remaining 8% of he participants "somewhat disagree" to

the benefits of social activities may have on increasing employee morale. [Figure 4-58]


Social activities among employees increase
morale among workers. (ALL)
Somewhat
Strongly Disagree Somewhat
Agree 8% Agree
27% 16%




Agree
49%


Figure 4-58. Social activities on morale and satisfaction [N=37]

Characteristics of Effective Training Implementation

In an effort to identify the common characteristics or qualities to effective training

implementation a more detailed analysis of the survey results was made. A number of

questions from the surveys were selected according to their ability to 'identify' the


Training sponsored by the company
increases my potential and helps my career.
(ALL)
(ALL) Somewhat
N/A Agree
3% 5%

Agree
'YI ^35%
Strongly
Agree
57%









companies among those surveyed whose participants perceived it to implement training

effectively. It is worth noting is that for training implementation to be successful, as

survey results suggest, it must first be formally established and perceived as effective and

beneficial not just to the company itself but most importantly to its employees. Only

those participants that are employed by a company which implements a formal training

program [per S1 survey results] and that responded favorably (in agreement) to the

'identifying' survey statements were analyzed. This group of participants is defined as

the Selected Participants (SP). The two statements selected are as follows:

The company training programs are effective.

The training provided by the company has been beneficial.

The Selected Participants (SP) group thus represents those survey participants that are

employed by a company which implements a formal training program that is perceived as

effective and beneficial to them. For distinction purposes all of the survey participants,

even those not part of the SP group will be referred to as the All Participants (AP) group.

The All Participants (AP) group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in

other words, the general surveyed population.

In total, 70% of the executive-level participants and 43% of project-level responded

favorably to the previous 'identifying' statements. The executive level represents 73% of

the Selected Participants group, while the project level represents the remaining 27%.

Refer to Table 4-3 on the following page for a clearer visual interpretation of the above

information.










Table 4-3. Identifying statements to effective training implementation

EFFECTIVE TRAINING IMPLEMENTATION
'IDENTIFYING' STATEMENTS
(S2: T1) The company training programs are effective. *
(S2: T4) The training provided by the company has been beneficial. *


EXECUTIVE-LEVEL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 23]


YES
70%
16


NO
23%
5


PROJECT-LEVEL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 14]


YES
43%
6


NO
43%
6


ALL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 37]


YES
59%
22


NO
30%
11


CODING: (S2: T1) Survey 2: Training question # 1

The Selected Participants (S.P.) group is composed of 73% executive-level
participants and 27% project-level participants.

SELECTED PARTICIPANTS (S.P.):
70% OF EXEC = 16 Participants = 73% S.P.
43% OF PROJ = 6 Participants = 27% S.P.
TOTAL S.P. = 22 Participants = 100% S.P.


The All Participants (A.P.) group encompasses all the survey participants. This group
includes all of the executive-level participants and all of the project-level participants
that are either in agreement or in disagreement with the statements evaluated herein
(does not include those participants responding 'not applicable' to any one of the
statements, or those that are 'not available').


ALL PARTICIPANTS (A.P.):
59% OF EXEC =
30% OF PROJ =
TOTAL S.P.


22 Participants
11 Participants
33 Participants


* NOTE: Not all percentages may add up to 100% since some participants may
have selected the statement to be "not applicable" instead of agreeing
or disagreeing to it.


100% S.P.
0% S.P.
100% S.P.









These participants were then individually analyzed in their responses to a selected

number of 'qualitative' statements from the survey. These 'qualitative' statements refer

to the qualities characteristic of an effective training program as presented in the

literature review. The following are the seven 'qualitative' statements selected for

analysis:

The company has a well-defined training program in place


The company [training] has improved my quality performance


Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness

Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations


Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks


Training programs have improved teamwork


Who receives training?

The responses of the Selected Participants (SP) to each statement are compared to

those of All Participants (AP) in the survey, as previously defined in Table 4-3. In this

analysis, any favorable or agreeable response to a statement is represented by a YES

answer, while any unfavorable or disagreeable response to a statement is represented by a

NO answer. Each 'qualitative' statement for analysis is discussed and presented in its

own Table.

Refer to Figure 4-59 for a graph that illustrates the performance of those Selected

Participants group in implementing training effectively as compared to that of the All

Participants group.









The analysis of the first statement, as summarized in Table 4-4, shows that 86% of the

Selected Participants, compared to 70% of All Participants, believe their company has a

well-defined training program in place. This percentage difference between both groups

means that 16% more companies have well-defined training programs in the SP group

than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 14% of the Selected Participants,

compared to 27% of All Participants, believe their company does not have a well-defined

training program in place. Evidently, a characteristic of those companies perceived to

effectively implement training, according to its employees, is having a well-defined

training program.

Table 4-4. Well-defined training program

(S2: T2) The company has a well-defined training program in place. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
86% 14% 70% 27% 16% 13%

The second 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-11, shows 100%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants, believe their company

[training] has improved their quality performance. This percentage difference between

both groups means that 19% more companies have improved its employees' quality

performance through training in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand,

0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining 16% of All Participants,

believe the company [training] has not improved their quality performance.

Consequently, successful training is characteristic of addressing and improving quality









performance; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies

effectively implement training.

Table 4-5. Quality performance through training

(S2: T5) The company [training] has improved my quality performance. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 81% 16% 19% 16%

The third 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-6, shows that 100%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 95% of All Participants, believe their company

training improved overall workforce quality awareness. This percentage difference

between both groups means that 5% more companies have improved overall workforce

quality awareness through training in the SP group than in the AP group. The small

difference in percentage between the SP and AP group does not necessarily validate this

characteristic being of as high priority as perhaps the others previously discussed, which

encounter greater percentage gaps. Nevertheless, successful training is characteristic of

improving overall workforce quality awareness, according to the SP group of employees

that perceive their companies effectively implement training.

Table 4-6. Quality awareness through training

(S2: T7) Company training improved overall workforce quality awareness. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 95% 0% 5% 0%









The fourth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-7, shows that 86%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 78% of All Participants, believe their company

training keeps them up to speed with new methods and innovations. This percentage

difference between both groups means that 8% more companies keep their workforce up

to speed with new methods and innovations through training in the SP group than in the

AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 9% of the Selected Participants, compared

to 8% of All Participants, believe their company does not have a well-defined training

program in place. Although the relatively small percentage difference doesn't hold as

much weight as that of a well-defined training program, as previously discussed in Table

4-8, training that keeps personnel up to speed with new methods and innovations is

nevertheless another characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement

training.

Table 4-7. New methods and innovations through training

(S2: T8) Company training keeps me up to speed with new methods and innovations. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
86% 9% 78% 8% 8% 1%

The fifth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-8, shows 91% of the

Selected Participants, compared to 78% of All Participants, believe training has made

them more efficient at completing their tasks. This percentage difference between both

groups means that 13% more companies made their workforce more efficient at

completing their tasks through training in the SP group than in the AP group. On the

other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining 5% of All









Participants, believe training has not made them more efficient at completing their tasks.

Consequently, successful training is characteristic of improving task efficiency;

according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively

implement training.

Table 4-8. Task efficiency through training

(S2: T9) Training has made me more efficient at completing my tasks. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
91% 0% 78% 5% 13% 5%

The sixth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-9, shows 86% of

both the Selected Participants and All Participants group believe training programs have

improved teamwork. This equality between both groups means that the same percentages

of companies have improved teamwork through training in both the SP group and the AP

group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to the remaining

6% of All Participants, believe training has not improved teamwork. The percentage

distributions still suggest that successful training is characteristic of improving teamwork;

according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies effectively

implement training.

Table 4-9. Teamwork through training

(S2: T13) Training programs have improved teamwork. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
86% 0% 86% 6% 0% 6%










The seventh and last 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-10,

shows 95% of the Selected Participants, compared to 61% of All Participants, are

employed by companies that offer training to all-level personnel. This percentage

difference between both groups means that 34% more companies offer training to all-

level personnel in the SP group than in the AP group. In addition, companies that offer

training to just entry-level personnel employ 5% of the Selected Participants, compared

to 17% of All Participants. Furthermore, 22% of the AP group, compared to 0% of the

SP group, found the question not applicable to them; reason being that their companies

do not implement training at all in the first place. Notice that only executive-level

personnel participated in this question since it was part of Survey 1 (S ), which was only

distributed to executives. Consequently, successful training is characteristic of covering

all-level personnel; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies

effectively implement training.

Table 4-10. Personnel training coverage

(S1: Ib) Who receives training?
SELECTED PARTICIPANTS ALL PARTICIPANTS
(Execs only) [N=16] (EXECS ONLY) [N=23]
N/A ENTRY HIGH ALL N/A ENTRY HIGH ALL
LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL
0% 5% 0% 95% 22% 17% 0% 61%

This isolated analysis of the responses from this selected group of participants

revealed the following common characteristics that provide a starting point to the

successful implementation of training. A n effective company-training program:

Is Well-defined
Improves quality performance and awareness









Actualizes employees with new methods and innovations
Maximizes employees' task efficiency
Emphasizes teamwork

Covers all-level employees

Applying these characteristics as a base for the implementation of training, as survey

results show, serves to maximize a company's quality performance.

Characteristics of Effective Motivation Implementation

The same analytical process carried out to find the common characteristics to effective

training implementation was performed here to identify those qualities common to the

effective implementation of motivation. Once again a series of 'identifying' statements

were used to filter-through those participants that perceive their company's

implementation of motivation best. This means that only those participants who

responded favorably (in agreement) to all 'identifying' statements were considered. This

group of participants is defined as the Selected Participants (SP). The three statements

selected are as follows:

Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment.

I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential.

Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated.

The Selected Participants (SP) group thus represents those survey participants that are

employed by a company that promotes a sufficiently motivating environment where they

are currently motivated to perform up to their maximum potential and where management

is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated, as perceived by the employees

themselves. For distinction purposes all of the survey participants, even those not part of

the SP group will be referred to as the All Participants (AP) group. The All Participants






79


(AP) group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in other words, the general

surveyed population.

In total, 74% of the executive-level participants and 64% of project-level responded

favorably to the above identifying statements. The executive level represents 65% of the

Selected Participants group, while the project level represents the remaining 35%. Refer

to Table 4-11 on the following page for a clearer visual interpretation of the above

information.









Table 4-11. Identifying statements to effective motivation implementation

EFFECTIVE MOTIVATION IMPLEMENTATION
'IDENTIFYING' STATEMENTS
(S2: Ml) Our company promotes a sufficiently motivating environment.
(S2: M6) I am currently motivated to perform up to my maximum potential. *
(S2: M12) Management is doing a good job at keeping its workforce motivated.


EXECUTIVE-LEVEL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 23]


YES
74%
17


NO
23%
5


PROJECT-LEVEL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 14]


YES
64%
9


NO
36%
5


ALL
PARTICIPANTS
[N= 37]


YES
70%


NO
27%


CODING: (S2: Ml) Survey 2: Motivation question # 1

The Selected Participants group is composed of 65% executive-level participants and
35% project-level participants.


SELECTED PARTICIPANTS
74% OF EXEC =
64% OF PROJ =
TOTAL S.P.


(S.P.):
17 Participants
9 Participants
26 Participants


The All Participants group encompasses all the survey participants. This group
includes all of the executive-level participants and all of the project-level participants
that are either in agreement or in disagreement with the statements evaluated herein
(does not include those participants responding 'not applicable' to any one of the
statements, or those that are 'not available').


ALL PARTICIPANTS (A.P.):
70% OF ALL
27% OF ALL
TOTAL A.P.


26 Participants
10 Participants
36 Participants


* NOTE: Not all percentages may add up to 100% since some participants may
have selected the statement to be "not applicable" instead of agreeing
or disagreeing to it.


65% S.P.
35% S.P.
100% S.P.


100% S.P.
0% S.P.









These participants were then individually analyzed in their responses to a selected

number of 'qualitative' statements from the survey. These 'qualitative' statements refer

to the qualities characteristic of an effective training program as presented in the

literature review. The following are the eight 'qualitative' statements selected for

analysis:

The company recognizes my performance appropriately

I feel the company values my opinion

The company offers valuable incentives

The company offers competitive benefits

The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven
company

The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity
performance

Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive

The responses of the Selected Participants (SP) to each statement are compared to

those of All Participants (AP) in the survey, as previously defined in Table 4-11. In this

analysis, any favorable or agreeable response to a statement is represented by a YES

answer, while any unfavorable or disagreeable response to a statement is represented by a

NO answer. Each 'qualitative' statement for analysis is discussed and presented in its

own Table.

Refer to Figure 4-56 for a graph that illustrates the performance of those Selected

Participants group in implementing motivation effectively as compared to that of the All

Participants group.









The analysis of the first statement, as summarized in Table 4-12, shows that 92% of

the Selected Participants, compared to 73% of All Participants, believe their company

recognizes their performance appropriately. This percentage difference between both

groups means that 19% more companies recognize their workforce's performance

appropriately in the SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 4%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 16% of All Participants, believe their company

does not recognize their performance appropriately. Evidently, a characteristic of those

companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its employees, is

the appropriate recognition of their workforce's performance.

Table 4-12. Employee performance recognition

(S2: M7) The company recognizes my performance appropriately. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
92% 4% 73% 16% 19% 12%

The second 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-13, shows that

92% of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants, feel their

company values their opinion. This percentage difference between both groups means

that 11% more companies value the opinion of their workforce in the SP group than in

the AP group. On the other hand, the remaining 4% of the Selected Participants,

compared to 14% of All Participants, feel their company does not value their opinion.

Again, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation,

according to its employees, is the way in which their workforce's opinion is valued.









Table 4-13. Valuing employee-opinion


(S2: M9) I feel the company values my opinion. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
92% 4% 81% 14% 11% 10%

The third 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-14, shows that 100%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 86% of All Participants, believe their company

offers valuable incentives. This percentage difference between both groups means that

14% more companies offer valuable incentives to their workforce in the SP group than in

the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 8% of All

Participants, feel their company does not offer valuable incentives. Thus, a characteristic

of those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its

employees, is the valuable incentives offered to its employees.

Table 4-14. Valuable incentives


(S2: M16) The company offers valuable incentives. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 86% 8% 14% 8%

The fourth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-15, shows that

100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 92% of All Participants, feel their

company offers competitive benefits. This percentage difference between both groups

means that 8% more companies offer competitive benefits to their workforce in the SP

group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants,









compared to 8% of All Participants, feel their company does not offer competitive

benefits. Consequently, successful motivation is characteristic of offering competitive

benefits; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their companies

effectively implement motivation.

Table 4-15. Competitive company benefits

(S2: M17) The company offers competitive benefits.
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 92% 8% 8% 8%

The fifth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-16, shows that 100%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 86% of All Participants, believe their company

[management] feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company

values their opinion. This percentage difference between both groups means that 14%

more companies believe motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company in the

SP group than in the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants,

compared to 8% of All Participants, believe their company [management] feels that

motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven company. Again, a characteristic of

those companies perceived to effectively implement motivation, according to its

employees, is the way in which motivation is made a vital part their productivity-driven

company.









Table 4-16. Motivation's significance to company productivity


(S2: M18) The company feels that motivation is a vital part of a productivity-driven
company. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 86% 8% 14% 8%

The sixth 'qualitative' statement analysis, summarized in Table 4-17, shows that 100%

of the Selected Participants, compared to 89% of All Participants, believe their company

[management] feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance.

This percentage difference between both groups mean that 11% more companies believe

motivating employees is beneficial to productivity performance in the SP group than in

the AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 6% of All

Participants, believe their company [management] feels that motivating employees is

beneficial to productivity performance. Therefore, successful motivation is characteristic

of making employees feel its company truly finds motivating them is beneficial to

productivity performance; according to the SP group of employees that perceive their

companies effectively implement motivation.

Table 4-17. Driving performance with employee motivation


(S2: M19) The company feels that motivating employees is beneficial to productivity
performance. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 89% 6% 11% 6%









The seventh and last 'qualitative' statement analysis, as summarized in Table 4-18,

shows that 100% of the Selected Participants, compared to 81% of All Participants,

believe their company incentives motivate them to be more productive. This percentage

difference between both groups means that 19% more companies have company

incentives that motivate its workforce to be more productive in the SP group than in the

AP group. On the other hand, 0% of the Selected Participants, compared to 11% of All

Participants, believe their company incentives don't motivate them to be more

productive. Evidently, a characteristic of those companies perceived to effectively

implement motivation, according to its employees, is offering company incentives that

motivate its workforce to be more productive.

Table 4-18. Company incentives on employee productivity

(S2: M11) Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive. *
SELECTED ALL PARTICIPANTS DIFFERENCE (SP AP)
PARTICIPANTS [N=37]
[N=22]
YES NO YES NO YES NO
100% 0% 81% 11% 19% 11%

The following common characteristics serve as guidelines to an effective

implementation of motivation, as evident from the selected group of participants herein

and their companies. Companies effectively implementing motivation:

Recognize employee performance

Value employees and their opinion

Offer valuable incentives and benefits

Acknowledge motivation as a vital part of productivity performance









These qualities all emphasize the importance for the need of individual attention

employees require from their company. Feeling valued and recognized is the essence

around which employee performance is maximized. Implementation efforts to address

these needs serve to build a strong and determined company culture.

Improvement Areas to Effective Training and Motivation

Once the characteristics to each effective training and motivation implementation were

defined through an analysis of 'qualitative' statements from the survey, their importance

was then prioritized. The idea behind prioritizing these characteristics is to identify those

areas in most need of attention that are key to the effective implementation of training

and motivation.

The graph in Figure 4-59 plots each 'qualitative' statement characteristic of effectively

implemented training and motivation previously analyzed in the series of Tables 4-5 and

4-6. The percentage of companies, according to its respondents, that possessed each one

of these qualities were plotted for the Selected Participants (SP) group and the All

Participants (AP) group.

As previously discussed, the Selected Participants group for the 'qualitative' training

statements represents those survey participants that are employed by a company which

implements a formal training program that is perceived as effective and beneficial to

them. The Selected Participants group for the 'qualitative' motivation statements

represents those survey participants that are employed by a company that promotes a

sufficiently motivating environment where they are currently motivated to perform up to

their maximum potential and where management is doing a good job at keeping its

workforce motivated, as perceived by the employees themselves. Finally, the All









Participants group simply represents all of the survey participants, or in other words, the

general surveyed population.

Comparing between both groups [SP and AP] serves to highlight those characteristics

and qualities of high priority that are most prevalent in an organization that effectively

implements training and motivation. The characteristics of high priority are those where

All Participants (AP) realized the highest percentage-gaps of affirmative responses in the

plotted graph [Figure 4-59] to the Selected Participants (SP), and consequently the ones

in need of more immediate attention. Furthermore, these comparisons give us an idea of

the current state of the general surveyed population (AP) relative to that of those already

effectively implementing these key quality-and-productivity factors (SP).

Figure 4-59 shows a graph with four lines plotted. The top line defined by a dark-blue

diamonds represents the affirmative (YES) responses to the 'qualitative' statements by

the Selected Participants, while the bottom line defined by light-blue squares represents

the negative (NO) responses to the same 'qualitative' statements by the Selected

Participants. Likewise, the top line defined by red triangles represents the affirmative

(YES) responses to the 'qualitative' statements by All Participants, while the bottom line

defined by the orange X represents the negative (NO) responses to the same 'qualitative'

statements by All Participants. The X-margin and Y-margin on the graph represent the

percentage of YES/NO responses and the corresponding 'qualitative' statement,

respectively. The data table for the graph is presented with the figure for intelligibility

along with the actual statement that accompanies it. The plotted data table provides

information acquired from the initial analysis of the 'qualitative' statements undertaken

in the series of Tables 4-5 and 4-6, which includes the percentages for each YES and NO









answer to a statement along with the coding and numbering system that identifies were

each statement came from.

The graph serves as a good visual tool that shows the parallel performance of both the

AP and SP groups on implementing the 'qualitative' statements to both effective training

and motivation. On average, the general surveyed population (AP) is performing 15%

lower relative to those companies perceived to effectively implement training (SP).

It is evident from the graph in Figure 4-59 that the highest percentage-gaps, which

denote those issues of high priority in most need of attention, are encountered with the

following 'qualifying' statements:

The company has a well-defined training program in place [1. (S2: T2)]

The company [training] has improved my quality performance [2. (S2: T5)]

The company recognizes my performance appropriately [7. (S2: M7)]

Our company incentives motivate me to be more productive [13. (S2: M11)]

The coding system displayed in parenthesis after each of these four high-priority

'qualifying' statements tells us that the first two statements are of key importance to the

effective implementation training, while the last two are of key importance to the

effective implementation of motivation. This means that for the general surveyed

population (AP) to reach the level of implementation of the Selected Participants it must

first address these four issues. To remain competitive with the SP, AP should have

better-defined training programs in place that address quality-performance, and improve

employee-recognition along with incentives geared to increase productivity-performance.

In addition, the graph in Figure 4-59 also shows those areas where even those

companies perceived to effectively implement training (SP) still have room to improve.