ML20080G365

Final Rept,Survey of Mgt Practices Affecting Organizational Responsiveness for South Tx Project Electric Generating Station

ML20080G365
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/27/1994
From:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20080G360	List: ML20080G365
References
NUDOCS 9502070211
Download: ML20080G365 (270)

Text

--.

FINAL REPORT SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIV2 NESS i

(SECOND ANNUAL) ,

For Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Genertiting Station  ;

i i

May 27,1994 Presented By:

Wanda Myers, Executive Director Terry E. McSween, Ph.D.

Behavioral Lonsultant Services, Inc.

Beaumont, TX 9502070211 950203 409-866-6900 DR ADOCK 0500 9 l

i i

l l

TABLE OF CONTENTS l

introduction and Methodology 1-1 Leadership and Planning 2-1 Raw score means - overall 2-8 1

Measurement and Feedback 3-1 Teamwork and Communications 4-1 Consequences 5-1 i Training and Development 6-1 i

Tables of Survey Data Appendix  ;

b t

i

1 Introduction and Methodology i

The management of South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) of Houston Lighting and Power requested that Behavioral Consultant Services, Inc. (BCS) adtr_inister the same survey as conducted one year ago. The Survey of Management Practices Affecting Organizaticaal Responses was a key component in a comprehensive, site-wide assessment conducted by BCS in the Spring of 1993.

The customized survey that inquires about leadership practices is the vehicle for l tapping into the organization's most important source ofinformation, namely the knowledge, experience, and perceptions of the employees. This survey asks the employee's opinion of the management's practices regarding information, training, r

involvement, feedback and measurement, as well as, items specific to nuclear safety and quality-related concerns. In addition to a presentation of standardized means, a cluster analysis was performed on the raw survey data to form uncorrelated groups ofindividuals based on their responses to this survey. Cluster analysis is a mathematical procedure of creating separate groups, by weighting item responses such that respondents are assigned to one, and only one, independent group. The analysis, thus, identified groups that were outside of the norm based on the prevailing response patterns within each organizaticm unit.

1-1

a i

f It was agreed that the 1993 survey would ftmetion as a baseline of management ,

practices known to enhance or impede performance and communications at the site and ,

I that the present survey would indicate any changes since then. For scoring and analysis  ;

I purposes the related practices have been grouped into the following categories:

{

• Measurement and Feedback

. Teamwork and Communication

. Goal setting

. Participation -Intragroup i

. Participation-Intergroup t

• Consequences

. Recognition

. Conpnsation I

. Correction e Training and Development 1

All STP personnel were encouraged to participate; a total of 2112 employees and l

contractors actually took the survey. BCS conducted all activities of the survey including  !

l administration, scoring, analysis, and preparing the final report. Wanda Myers, Executive I Director and Terry McSween, Ph.D., Project Manager. were assisted by Ms. Rita Hurt i and Charles Hawkins, Ph.D.

STP requested that BCS deliver the following products to the site on, or before, May 31,1994:

• Statistical data tables in the same format and language as the 1993 l

survey so that comparisons could be made between and within groups; I-2 i

?

• A comprehensive repon which would allow the customer to j i

determine if the site's initiatives had made a difference; and  :

• A presentation to the Vice-President and other leaders at the site. [

The findings and recommendations contained in the repon are based on the  ;

statistical data from the survey and BCS' reliance on empirical information from the field i of Applied Behavior Analysis and consultative experiences in a wide variety of businesses ,

e and industries.

i l

1 1-3

Leadership and Planning Since his arrival at the site one year ago, William T. Cottle, Group Vice-President Nuclear, has been committed to achoving continuous improvements in processes, programs, and performance through teamwork. Mr. Cottle's personal leadership style and his selection of others on his staff demonstrate an appreciation for the kind of management practices necessary to achieve successful performance from the organization.

There is much evidence to indicate that extensive efforts have been initiated to produce a positive culture at the site. Leadership training in the quality process; an emphasis on recognition; the numerous publications to improve communications; the 199'i 1998 Business Plan; the " initiative teams" and their efforts toward improvement; and this current effort in self-assessment are signs of management's support for continuous improvement. Our own impression, while administering the survey at the site, was one of l higher morale and greater enthusiasm than we had observed during our previous assessment.

Leaders hold the keys to the organization's success through the ways they plan, empower, and provide the resources with which people create accomplishments. Each

• item on the survey questions the extent to which employees believe the necessary leadership factors exist in their work environment. I l

2-1 l

1 l

l l

Strengths

)

1. The survey scores suggest STP has made improvement in most survey categories.

1 Category 1994 1993 Change Measurement 3.14 2.98 .16 Feedback 3.26 3.15 .11 Teamwork & Communication - Goal setting 3.50 3.15 .35 Teamwork & Communication - Participation 3.66 3,40 .26 Teamwork & Communication - Communication 3.41 3.24 .17 with other groups Consequences - Recognition 3.11 2.93 .18  :

Consequences - Compensation 2.92 2.95 .03 Consequences - Correction 3.44 3.20 .24 . ,

Training and Development 3.84 3.72 .12 G l Overall 3.38 3.26 .12

2. The following groups were above average on the survey: ,

Raw Std Group Score Mean ,

Other Tech Services 4.11 0.61 Executive 3.94 0.46 Plant Srves - Admin 3.83 0.37 IS & H 3.82 0.36 i

Plant Sivcs - Pint proj & Prog 3.81 0.35 Other 3.73 0.29 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.72 0.28 Unit 1 - Other 3.71 0.28 i

2-2 l

Opportunities

1. The greatest opportunities for improvement' are in the survey categories of compensation, goal setting, correction, and feedback. The following chart shows the opportunity for improvement for each category of management practices.

Differences Between Average and Top Scores 1:!:b 3Em 1- /

0.9-/ " --

0.8- /

0.7 / M 0.6- / ~ "

0.5- / M 0.4-/ E Comp Goal Corrct Abk Meas Recgn Partcp WI Trng Othrs j

2. The following groups were below average on the survey:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Wackenhut 3.05 -0.28 Unit 2 - I & C Maint 3.04 -0.28 Unit 1 -I & C Maint 3.03 -0.29 Chemistry 3.01 -0.30 Nucl Info Sys 3.00 -0.31 Warehouse 2.92 -0.38 The opportunity for improvement is determined by subtracting the site's average from the group that got the best scores in that category or on an individual item. The standard of comparison is the exemplary group which ensures that the standard is achievable.

2-3

., ~ . .-. . - - - --

i i

l

3. - The cluster analysis identified the following groups as having pockets oflow scores indicating subgroups that need attention. i i

Nuclear Training Nuclear Training - Other Unit 1 - Mechanical Maintenance Warehouse e

l i

i I

i I

i l

2-4

Recommendations:

1. Encourage managers to develcp action plans for their area's improvements based on the data presented in thi;, report. Each manager should: i a) Review the survey data and identify the areas that have the greatest room for improvement. l b) Identify the survey categories that are most important to the performance of that area.

c) Consult with their employees in developing action plans that address the priorities established on the basis of the preceding analysis.

2. Groups with below average survey scores and groups that were low on the cluster analysis should:

a) Review their survey scores identify the survey categories that are most important to the performance and which have the greatest room for improvement.

b) Work with their employees to develop action plans for addressing the items in those survey categories.

c) Establish numerical targets for the appropriate survey categories that they expect to achieve as a result of those action plans.

d) Review those improvement targets and action plans with site management.

i i

2-5 I

3. Set sitewide improvement targets for specific improvements in the survey categories that reflect the improvements targeted by the below average groups.

To establish a single sitewide improvement target:

a) Establish improvement targets for the below average groups as suggested in #2.

b) Calculate an overall imptrovement target for compensation, goal setting, correction, and feedback. For each of these three survey categories, take the average of the 1994 arithmetic means for all average and above average groups, plus the targets established by the below average groups in the previous step. (BCS can assist with these calculations.)

c) Calculate an overall improvement target by calculating an average of these four improvement targets and the actual 1994 scores for the other survey categories. ,

l l

4. While the four areas indicated above will be a primary focus, continue to encourage improvement efforts in all categories.

l S. Upper level leaders should continue the development of site-wide trust and openness between all levels of management and employees. This process can be enhanced by identifying the leadership values along with pinpoint behaviors that demonstrate those values. Take the following steps to enhance the probability that the expected interactions will become "second nature."

a) Publicize the values and behavioral expectations.

2-6

^

b) Train all levels of management and, if possible, all employees 1

in the skills oflistening, responding, and avoiding negative i l

i responses, as well as, the basic concepts of behavior management. ]

c) Empower area work teams to deal with employee concerns .

in their group. Provide the necessary skills in prioritizing, j evaluating, and problem-solving. Provide guidelines for.

?

getting assistance in resolving issues that go beyond " local level" authority.

i d) Provide applause and recognition for group resolutions of i

area concerns and problems prevented by such.  !

e) Allow employees to recognize supervisors, at any level, I

who exhibit " good management practices.  ;

f) Assure that all recognition is based on specific practices or  ;

i accomplishments. l t

6. Continue departmental communication meetings. Require upper and mid level managers to do " walk-abouts" and communicate with employees. These " walk .

abouts" should be for listening and making positive statements.  !

B I

2-7 1

)

i Raw score means for survey items for STP overall- 1994 versus 1993.

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.30 3.19 +11

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.26 3.19 +.07

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.18 3.09 + 09

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.07 2.96 + 11

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.58 3.45 + 13

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.19 2.81 +.3 8

43. We review graphs of performance 2.77 2.52 +.25

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.79 2.67 +.12 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good wor 3.04 2.91 +.13

6. Last talked about quality ofmy work 3.23 3.14 + 09

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.12 2.86 +.26

17. Supv is specific 3.36 3.M 0

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.48 3.38 +.10

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.49 3.43 +.06

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.12 3.01 +.1 1 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.73 3.62 +.I1

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.17 4.11 +.06

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.34 3.24 +.10

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.74 2.41 +.3 3 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.66 3.59 +.07

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.47 3.37 +.10

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.10 4.01 +.09

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.18 2.93 + 25

46. Changes are made based on input 2.85 2.67 +.18 l

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.98 3.91 +.07

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.72 3.63 +.09

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.31 4.30 +.01 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) 3.88 3.74 +.14

21. We have effective relations with others 3.53 3.41 +.12

27. I meet with other groups 2.44 2.11 + 33

32. Meet with other grps to discuss sersice 2.76 2.50 + 26

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.60 3.51 +.09

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.16 3.02 +.14 I

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 4.00 3.88 +.12 l

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.87 3.76 + 11

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 2-8

Raw score means for survey items for STP overall - 1994 versus 1993.

Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.03 2.88 +.15

13. RecoBr.stion is given for support to other grp 2.87 2.71 +.16

47. Lau :ime I was told I was doing a good job 3.55 3.36 +.19

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good jo 3.02 2.82 +.20

56. Informed ofco-worker's performance 3.09 2.88 +.21 Consequecces (compensatier.)

25. Person who makes salary decision has info 3.13 3.17 .04

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.87 2.94 .07

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.76 2.74 +.02 Cocsequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.98 2.96 + 02

23. First action is to help rather than punish 3.21 3.19 +.02

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.80 3.74 + 06

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.51 3.50 + 01 51 Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.67 2.63 1.04 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.64 3.61 +.03

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.86 3.81 + 05

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.21 4.04 +.17

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.32 3.14 +.18 ;

19. I know how to get info I need 4.38 4.23 + 15 l

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.68 3.66 +.02

52. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.76 3.36 +.20 Miscellaneous l

1. I see apportunities to improve my perf 3.49 3.45 + 04 l

2. I make plans to improve my perf 3.89 3.84 +.05 l

53. I feel 1 work at an efficient prod level 4.13 4.03 +.10 ,

I

57. Sutvardinates provide timely input 3.31

61. I make suggestions on relatns with others 3.21 3.13 +.08 j

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.57 j l

2-9

a l

Measurement and Feedback I Measurement is the key to improvement. Employees must measure their processes and performance in order to know what to continue and what to stop. Measures not only provide feedback that guides future behavior, but appropriate measures of performance tell us when to celebrate and set new targets.

1 Managing effectively requires the use of performance data in givit g feedback. Such feedback is more credible and reduces the liklihood of an emotional response. Without data,  ;

decisions are made on opinion or feelings; such decisions in a business can be dangerous in terms l

of personnel or a process.

i Feedback is communicated information that acts as a guide fc *ecision-making.

l l Measures without cler.r timely sources of communication can be useless; the two are critically linked. Visual data such as graphs or meters, audio feedback, and verbal feedback all communicate infornation. Employees use the communicated information to know where they are relative to their measures, as well as, what to do to improve.

The survey items in this category question the mechanisms for collecting and reporting performance data; the quality and frequency ofinformation given to employees; the application of those data for planning and problem-sohing; and how the data are used to strengthen performance.

3-1 l

\

l i - _ _______ -d

Strengths

1. The survey scores suggest STP has made substantial improvements in the use of performance measures. In particular, the site improved on its use of data feedback (item 38) and its use of graphs (item 43).

Measurement Survey items 1994 1993 Change

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.30 3.19 +11

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.26 3.19 +.07

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.18 3.09 +.09

26. Data use to improve quality ofwork 3.07 2.96 +.1 1

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.58 3.45 +.13

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.19 2.81 +.3 8

43. We review graphs af performance 2.77 2.52 +.25

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.79 2.67 +.12

2. Groups that were above average in their use of performance measures:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Other Tech Services 3.99 0.71 IS&H 3.77 0.52 Executive 3.75 0.51 Unit 1 - Other 3.58 0.38 Met Lab 3.57 0.36 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.52 0.32 Sys. Eng - Reliability Eng 3.47 0.28 Puchasing, Contracts & Inventory 3.46 0.27 Unit 2 - Elect Maint 3.45 0.26 Efiluent Waste Mgmt 3.44 0.26 3-2

f

' 3, STP also made gains in its use of feedback. In particular, the site has improved in conducting ,

discussions about support of other groups and providing feedback on current performance.

Feedback Survey Items 1994 1993 Change

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.04 2.91 +.13

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.23 3.14 + 09 .

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.12 2.86 +.26

17. Supv is specific 3.36 3.36 0

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.48 3.38 + 20 .

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.49 3.43 +.06

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.12 3.01 +.1 1

)

4. Groups that were above average in their use of feedback: l Raw Std Group Score Mean Other Tech Services 4.02 0.63 Unit 1 - Other 3.86 0.49 Plant Srves - Admin 3.82 0.46 Plant Srves - Pint proj & Prog 3.73 0.39 )

Other Contractors 3.69 0.35 l Effluent Waste Mgmt 3.69 0.35 i IS & H 3.67 0.34 I Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.65 0.32 l Sun Services 3.65 0.32 l Executive 3.64 0.32 )

Quality Control 3.64 0.32 l StafTTraining 3.62 0.30 Planning. Ass, and Controls 3.58 0.27 3-3 l

l Opportunities 2

1 The greatest opportunities for improvement in measurement practices were in the use of graphs, use of data for quality improvement and the use of customer requirements as the standard for evaluating performance. The average score for measurement items was 3.14 and was below the average for other survey items.

Difference Between Site Average and Top Scores 1.2 1

3 0.8 0.6

1 0.4 0.2 0

43 26 5 7 45 24 38 30 1

Item

43. We review graphs of performance

26. Data used to improve quality of work

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts

7. Quality of work objectively measured

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful

24. Collect data to anticipate problems

38. My group reviewed data on perf i 30. Work tracked against schedule 1

2 As in the last section, the opportunity for improvement is determined by subtracting the site's average on

each item from the score achieved by the group scoring the highest average score in this category. Tech Services -

Other had the highest scores in this category. The opportur.ity for improvement was calculated by subtracting the site's average score on cach item from the score achieved by Tech Services - Other.

l

! l 3-4  !

l r-- m -

1

2. The following groups were below average on their use of performance measures:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Sys. Eng - Elect /I & C 2.82 -0.26 Wackenhut 2.81 -0.26 Quality Assurance 2.79 -0.28 Design Eng - Elect /I & C 2.78 -0.29 Industry Relations 2.78 -0.29 Nuc Trng - Other 2.76 -0.31 NuclInfo Sys 2.68 -0.38

3. The greatest opportunity for improvement in feedback practices was in the frequency of discussions about support for other groups. Three feedback practices had an equal opponunity for improvement: the frequency of discussions about the quality of work, specificity of feedback and discussions of current performance.

Difference Between Site Average and Top Scores 1.2 ip 1

0.8 't ! ,

0.6 g 0.4 O.2 ,

0 14 6 17 18 20 35 3 ltem

14. Last talked about suppod for other grps

6. Last talked about quality of my work

17. Supvis specific

18. Supv discusses current performance

20. Fdbk on events I control

35. Employees coached to help improve

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3-5

l l

4. The following gro.ips were below average on their use of feedback:

i l

l Raw Std j Group Score Mean Sys. Eng - Elect /I & C 2.87 -0.32 Warehouse 2.85 -0.34 i Ops Support 2.78 -0.40  ;

NuclInfo Sys 2.78 -0.40 i

l l

1 l

3-6

Recommendations

l. Continue or initiate any recommendatioris from the same section in BCS's 1993  :

P assessment report (Section 3, pages 10 12).

2. Avoid using data as a wey of placing blame; use data for preventing problems and improving performance and processes.  !

I I

i t

3-7

Teamwork and Communication The success of any company is determined by its most valuable resource -the people who produce the product or service. A company demonstrates their value for their human assets when employees and management function as a team to achieve a consistent purpose.

Management, like a good coach, prepares an overall game plan but enables and empowers the work force to act and react to achieve daily goals. Management enables the workforce through education, developmental opportunities, and tools; they empower with opportunities to think, create, and make improvements. Such management is rewarded with employees who are committed to achievement of the mutual purpose.

Employees, who have a sense of commitment to their group, generally identify problems and concerns within their group. Positive relationships between e.nployees and their managers are a must for employees to feel such a commitment and to willingly express their safety, nuclear, or personal concerns. Positive relationships rely on good communication; friction between levels or departments is a barrier to good communication and a productive work environment. For employees to exhibit high levels of performance and commitment, they must also be aware of how their personal actions impact performance of the entire system. Employees must be involved in decisions that affect their work in order to see how their united performance is connected to the business success. Such involvement, however, requires a work environment which provides training in teamwork, opportunities to discuss ideas, and reinforcement for contributions.

4-1

Employees are more likely to feel committed to communicate openly when they are a part of a team. .

l The survey items in the category of Teamwork and Communication que:; tion the extent to which employees are encouraged to establish their own short term improvement targets; make suggestions and improvements; as well as, how various groups within the organization plan P

together, communicate, and function to achieve common goals.

k I

4-2 1

, . _r . .m-.

h Strengths

1. The average score for all three categories of teamwork and communication (in goal setting, panicipation and communication between groups) were above the average for other survey items. )

2. The survey scores suggest STP has made substantial improvements in goal setting. In 1

particular, the site improved on the involvement of employees in setting Depanment and Division goals (item 40). In addition, employees reported that their goals reflected the needs l

of others (item 16) and that their members were encouraged to perform at high levels (item l l

28). Both of these survey items were well above the average of 3.38.

Teamwork & Communication (Roal setting) 1994 1993 Change

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.73 3.62 +.11  !

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.17 4.11 +.06

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.34 3.24 +.10 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.74 2.41 +.33

3. Groups that were above average in goal setting:  ;

Raw Std

Group Score Mean ,

Other Tech Services 4.41 0.78 .

Executive 4.06 0.48 i Plant Srves - Pint proj & Prog 4.00 0.43 1-Other - Nuclear Assurance 3.99 0.41 Plant Srves- Admin 3.95 0.39 i Effluent Waste Mgmt 3.89 0.34 IS & H 3.86 0.31 l

f 4-3 ,

t

1

4. STP also made gains in employee participation. In particular, the site has improved on asking employees for their input (item 44) and on their responsiveness to such input (item 46),

though both items were below the average of 3.38. With the exception of these two items, all other survey scores in this category were all well above the average. j l

Teamwork & Communication (Participation) 1994 1993 Change l

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.66 3.59 +.07

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.47 3.37 +.10 I

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.10 4.01 +.09

44. Employees are asked for their input 3.18 2.93 +.25

46. Changes are made based on input 2.85 2.67 +.18

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.98 3.91 +.07

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.72 3.63 +.09

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.31 4.30 +.01 L

5. Grcops that were above average in employee participation:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Other Tech Services 4.27 0.57 Other - Nuclear Assurance 4.16 0.47 Executive 4.10 0.41 Industry Relations 4.09 0.40 Plant Srvcs - Pint proj & Prog 4.00 0.32 IS & H 3.96 0.28 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.95 0.27 i

4-4 i

. =. - .

6. In addition, STP made gains in communication between groups. In particular, groups at the site have improved in discussing the service they provide to others (item 32) and on the frequency of such meetings with other groups (item 34). Most of the other survey scores in this category were all well above the average of 3.38.

Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) 1994 1993 Change

21. We have effective relations with others 3.88 3.74 +.14

27. I meet with other groups 3.53 3.41 +.12

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.44 2.11 +.3 3

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.76 2.50 +.26

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.60 3.51 +.09

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.16 3.02 +.14

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.00 3.88 +.12

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.87 3.76 +.1 1

7. Groups that were above average on items related to communication with other groups:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Plant Srves- Admin 4.02 0.48 Other Tech Services 4.00 0.46 MSSD 3.98 0.44 Executive 3.94 0.41 Outage 3.89 0.37  ;

Other-Nuclear Assurance 3.88 0.37 Plant Srves - Pint proj & Prog 3.87 0.36 IS&H 3.82 0.32 Unit 2 - Work Control 3.80 0.31 Nuclear Security 3.79 0.30 Ebasco 3.77 0.28 Efiluent Waste Mgmt 3.75 0.26 4-5

i l

i l

Opportunities l

1. STP's second highest opportunity for improvement is in goal setting. The greatest opportunity to improve goal setting is to further increase involvement of employees in establishing Department and Division Goals (item 40) and to ensure that goals set in each area are challenging, yet realistic (item 39). While the site made substantial improvement in the involvement of employees in setting Department and Division goals (item 40), the scores for  ;

this item were still well below the average of 3.38. The improvement opportunities for

specific items are illustrated below

Differences Between Average and Top Scores 1.2 l l

I 1

p o.8 I

ie l

o.s f l o.4 i o.2 1 l

4 o

i 40 39 18 23 1

Item ,

I I

1 j 40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals i

16. Goals reflect needs of others  !

28. Members encouraged to high perf l

,i I l

.! l

'! l 1 l I l

. \

4-6 i

i l

2. The following groups were below average in goal setting:

I Raw Std Group Score Mean Ops Support 3.19 -0.26 Sys. Eng - Elect /l & C 3.12 -0.32

_Nucl Info Sys 3.12 -0.32 Chemistry 3.09 -0.35 l Design Eng - Elect /I & C 3.06 -0.38 l Unit 2 - I & C Maint 3.05 -0.38 Unit 1 - I & C Maint 2.97 -0.45

4. STP's greatest opportunities for improvement in the participation category are in asking employees for their input (item 44) and on responsiveness to such input (item 46). While the site made substantial improvement on these items, both remain well below the survey average of 3.38.

Differences Between Average and Top Scores s.8 < >  :.. W - . ..

1A. n

,> .c

,,2 ,

a

. .i i 1 .

0.8 8.8 -

e.4- 1 c.2 I D

44 48 54 22 81 8 9 38 Item

44. Employees are asked for their input

46. Changes are made based on input

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt

36. My co-wcrkers and I work as a team l

4-7

5. The following groups were below average on employee participation:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Unit 1 - I & C Maint 3.39 -0.26 Wn.:kenhut 3.38 -0.26 Nuc Trng - Other 3.38 -0.26 Nuct Training 3.36 -0.28 Unit 2 - I & C Maint 3.30 -0.33 Chemistry 3.18 -0.45

6. Items related to communication with other groups were fairly stable across groups and did -

show as much room for improvement as other categories. The greatest opportunities for STP to improve communication between groups is to increase the frequency of meetings to discuss the level of service being provided (item 32) and increase face-to-face interactions between individual group members and the groups they support (item 27). Such discussions should also help improve relationships with other groups (item 21).  !

I 1

l i

i 4-8

1 Differences Between Average and Top Scores 0.7 uh ,

0.8 L g3 e , =

QA 4 1

0.3 y te 0.2 i 0.1 u.a 6

32 27 21 34 82 37 58 88 l Item

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service i

27. I meet with other groups

21. We have effective relations with others

34. The last time I met with other groups l

52. I ask other grps for suggestions

37. When I ask for support from other grps l

58. We maintain working relations w other gps

55. Members of my group work as a team i

7. The following groups were below average on communication with other groups:

l

, Raw Std

! Group Score Mean

! Met Lab 3.06 -0.27

! Warehouse 2.87 -0.42

} Wackenhut 2.78 -0.49 l

4 n

4-9 l

1

i i

, Recommendations  ;

i

1. Continue or initiate any recommendations from the section titled " Employee t Involvement and Communication"(Section 4, pp.10-13)in BCS's 1993 Assessment i

Report. i i

soort gi oups, including maintenance, engineering, human resources and training, I

..ould create a communication process to ensure that they receive systematic feedback  ;

from the orgrnizations they support. Managers and supervisors should regularly I

. contr.ct their internal customers and discuss satisfaction with the quality and timeliness j i

of services. The data can be collected informally or by using a simple rating scale. l I

Managers should share the customer feedback with their employees during weekly  !

meetings. .

.i

3. During " walk abouts" managers should: [:

• Mention positive observations but hold critical remarks for private discussions with  ;

, responsible supervision.

i e Ask questions about the development and implementation of action plans to j address the survey categories (i.e. "What survey categories is your group working -

i on?", "What are you doing to improve the services you provide to other groups?",

etc.). j e Select and attend meetings in different areas of the plant, especially newly ,

implemented data review meetings involving employees.

, 4 - 10 t

t t

4. The site executive management and area management teams should establish a simple, i one page guideline that clarifies decision-making authority. These guidelines should provide general suggestions as to when their direct reports should:

Act on their own i Act on their own, but advise at once l Recommend, then take resulting action ,

sk what to do .l l

t Parameters affecting the appropriate action might include nuclear safety risk, risk of shut down,. total cost or budget impact, and impact on groups outside the direct [

report's area of responsibility. When possible, allow decisions to be made at the l lowest level where capability exists or can be developed. Increase involvement of  !

those affected by decisions to improve their ownership of those decisions. As the i

teams gain experience, begin identifying other decisions that can be transferred from l

{

management to the teams: work schedules, outage planning, scheduling of vacations, l

overtime, etc.

l i

1 l

i i

i

~

4 - 11

Consequences i i

I Consequences are the single most effective tool a manager has for improving employee ,

performance and morale. Potential consequences (events, recognition, feedback, compensation, [

etc.) must be understood and managed carefully for their effects to be predictable and productive.

Management can use consequences effectively to create an environment that builds pride and cooperation, or they can use consequences ineffectively to create an environment of frustration l 5

and antagonism. Consequences are the activities or events that follow behavior that have an ,

impact on the future probability of that behavior. They include, but are not limited to, recognition ,

i and awards that strengthen desired performance. Consequences also include those corrective i action taken to change undesired performance. Consequences are the factors in the work environment that impact employee actions. To effectively manage performance, managers must  ;

l establish standards for performance that are clear, fair and include input from employees, then i

they must be consistent in providing follow-up and appropriate consequences. l Some forms of socialinteractions seriously detract from employee motivation. Among the ,

primary culprits are ignoring input and/or making embarrassing or critical remarks about an  !

employee. In order to cultivate a positive and productive work environment, managers need to stop or severely limit such counter-productive responses. Negative consequences tend to  !

generate emotional responses that damage relationships, destroy teamwork, and generate many l l

unwanted forms of behavior, including making negative remarks or claims to outside agencies. l i

s I

i 5-1 I

The survey items in this category question the timeliness, frequency and nature of the !

elationship between performances and management's response to performance; how and when employees are recognized for appropriate performance and corrected for poor performance; and  !

_ specific management responses to performance such as promotion, compensation, training opportunities, recognition, corrective actions, and informal, verbal feedback.

i i

p i

i i

I I

h i

i l

l 4

4 5-2

Strengths i

1. The survey scores suggest STP has made improvements in its use of recognition, as indicated by all survey items in this category. A particular strength was the frequency of recognition :

(item 47) which was well above the average of all survey items of 3.38.

Consequences (recognition) 1994 1993 Change

11. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.03 2.88 +.15

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.87 2.71 +.16

47. L ast time I was told I was doing a good job 3.55 3.36 + 19

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.02 2.82 +.20

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.09 2.88 +.21 P

F

2. Groups that were above average in recognition:

Raw Std Group Score Mean i Other Tech Services 3.83 0.63 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.82 0.63 Executive 3.81 0.62 Unit 2 - Elect Maint 3.68 0.51 Plant Srvcs - Pint proj & Prog 3.62 0.45 Plant Srves- Admin 3.59 0.42 Sys. Eng - Other Systems Engineering 3.55 0.39 Planning, Ass, and Controls 3.50 0.35 Nuclear Security 3.47 0.32 Unit 1 - Other 3.47 0.32 Efiluent Waste Mgmt 3.44 0.29 Other - Nuclear Assurance 3.43 0.29 l

l l

l 5-3

3. Groups that were above average on items related to compensation practices:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Other Tech Services 4.04 0.93 ,

'S&H I 4.00 0.89 Executive 3.87 0.78 Plant Srvcs - Pint proj & Prog 3.71 0.65 Other-Nuclear Assurance 3.71 0.65 Industry Relations 3.67 0.62 Planning, Ass, and Controls 3.58 0.55 Effluent Waste Mgmt 3.45 0.44 Plant Srves - Admin 3.45 0.44  ;

Sys. Eng - Other Systems Enginee-ing 3.33 0.34 Engineering Support 3.29 0.31 HR Nuclear 3.28 0.30 Quality Assurance 3.26 0.28 Engineering Programs 3.25 0.27 Sys. Eng - Reliability Eng 3.24 0.26 Nuclear Security 3.23 0.26

4. STP improved in items related to correcting performance, especially the reduction in the use of humiliation and embarrassment (item 49).

i Consequences (correction) 1994 1993 Change  ;

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.98 2.96 +.02 1

23. First action is to help rather than punish 3.21 3.19 +.02

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.80 3.74 +.06

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.51 3.50 +.01

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.67 2.63 1.04 l

J 5-4 i

5. Groups that were above ave: age in their use of appropriate correction techniques:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Other Tech Services 4.33 0.74 Industry Relations 4.20 0.64 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 3.96 0.44 Plant Srves - Pint proj & Prog 3.91 0.40 Plant Srves- Admin 3.89 0.38 Executive 3.89 0.38 Design Eng - Design Support 3.84 0.34 IS & H 3.83 0.33 Ebasco 3.81 0.32 Other-Nuclear Assurance 3.80 0.31 Planning, Assmt. and Controls 3.76 0.27 Sun Services 3.76 0.27 l

l 1

5-5

l l

l l

l Opportunities

1. STP has the greatest opportunity to improve its recognition practices by providing public recognition of good performance (item 56). The other items in this category are fairly stable and do not provide substantial room for improvement.

Differences Between Average and Top Scores 64 11 48 13 47 Item

56. Informed of co-worker's performance

11. Employees are recognized for a good job

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps

, 47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job

2. The following groups were below average in recognition and have more significant opportunities for improvement in this survey category:

l Raw Std Group Score Mean Unit 1 - Work Control 2.79 -0.29 Nuc Trng - Other 2.61 -0.44 MSSD 2.54 -0.50 Chemistry 2.45 -0.59 Warehouse 2.43 -0.60 i

5-6 l

3. Employees at STP are slightly less satisfied with compensation practices this year versus last j year.

Consequences (compensation) 1994 1993 Change

25. Person who makes salary decision has info 3.13 3.17 .04 )

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.87 2.94 .07 l

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.76 2.74 +.02 l

l I

l

4. STP has significant room for improvement on all items related to compensation. This  !

category had the largest opportunity for improvement of all survey categories. Compensation j l

practices remain the lowest survey category. The figure below shows that the emplary groups exceeded the average by almost one point on all three items in this category.

Differences Between Average and Top Scores 1.4 ...! .:

1.2 1

c.:

0.s 0.4 0.2 0

25 29 42 Item

25. Person who makes salary decision has info

29. Best qualified get promoted

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 4

5-7

i

5. The following groups were below average on compensation items and have more significant opportunities for improvement in this survey category:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Chemistry 2.60 -0.26 Design Eng - Elect /I & C 2.48 -0.36 Nucl Info Sys 2.45 -0.39 Unit 2 - I & C Maint 2.43 -0.40 Unit 1 -I & C Maint 2.39 -0.44 I

Wackenhut 2.36 -0.e6 Nuct Training 2.28 -0.53 Warehouse 2.10 -0.68

6. The greatest opportunities for improvement in feedback practices were in prompt correction of poor performance (item 12) and first taking action to help rather than punish (item 23). The figure below presents the opportunity for improvement on each of the items in this category Differences Between Average and Top Scores 1.s 1.4 1.2 1 ,

0.

0.8 J~

0.4 )

0.2 l

l 0

23 33 49 12 31 Item

23. First action is to help rather than punish )

33. Supv is objective and constructive 1

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 12 Prompt correctn of poor perf

31. Understand what I need to improve 5-8

i

7. The following groups were below average in correction and have more significant opportunities for improvement in this survey category:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Wackenhut 3.10 -0.27 Design Eng - Elect /l & C 3.09 -0.28 Ops Support 3.04 -0.32 Unit 2 - I & C Maint 3.03 -0.33 Unit 2 - Ops 3.02 -0.34 Chemistry 2.94 -0.40 l Warehouse 2.93 -0.42 Nuct Info Sys 2.84 -0.48 Unit 1 - I & C Maint 2.80 -0.52  :

i l

l l

1 j

5-9 i l

l

Recommendations

1. Continue or initiate any recommendations from the same section in BCS's 1993 Assessment Report (Section 5, pp.10-11). l i

2. All groups should be encouraged to develop the " local level" recognition programs

. and identify personnel in other groups that have provided quality service or suppon. .!

l Other suggestions for the site's recognition effons:

l a) Throughout the year, identify recognition candidates based on individual or i

crew performance, as identified by the area team members or nominations from others within the organization. From the menu of recognition options, select recognition events that are meaningful to panicular employees or teams. This might include a "best of the best" award given for pre-established criteria j i

within Operations and Engineering. )

1 b) Consider the use of"Thank-You" cards or rub-off" Safety Wins" cards as part i of recognition efforts. Such cards might be distributed during management j

" walk abouts" or other observations and might also be given to different l

employees each month for distribution to other employees they observe doing l something safe or wonhy of recognition. Cards might incorporate instant winners and a monthly lottery. j

\

5-10

"'f r -T'- -T * '-

- - - ' ' * ' ' ' '* ' " - - =

r

3. The site should work on improving the salary administration process in two ways:

a) Managers and supervisors should be more specific and consistent in clearly  ;

5 communicating the basis for salary decisions to personnel; b) Assure that compensation practices are consistent within groups; and  !

i c) Seek innovative ways to obtain peer input regarding compensation decisions.

i t

i, l

6 t

i i

f 5 - 11  !

r

t 1

I i

Training and Development j

}

i STP has made a tremendous effon to manage the training functions more effectively  !

through the recent re-organization into one depanment. The department has initiated a process of developing STP personnel" ernal consultants and reduced its reliance on external resources. l The training department is a' , m the midst of self-assessment and planning as a way of assuring quality services to all STP employees. l i

The new manager communicated a strong value for assuring that all employees be well equipped technically, as well as, interpersonnally. The organization has demonstrated renewed  !

i commitment to continuous development ofits employees; the data from the survey reflect success i

as a result of the initiatives.

l The survey items in this category question the schedule and system for training, coaching  :

1 and applying the concepts and skills of current technology for positively impacting leadership, l i

interactive communications, technical performance, as well as, individual and group skill of analyzing and solving problems.

I l

J l

l 6-1 l

i l

)

Strengths i l

l

1. The training and development items on the survey continue to be the highest category for STP. The survey scores suggest STP has continued to make improvements in training. In particular, more employees report that they know how to do theirjobs (item 10) and more employees report that training provides them with the skills need all to do their jobs (item 15).

In general, employees indicated that their needs for information and guidance to do theirjobs ,

well were met through supervision and other resources.

Training & Development 1994 1993 Change

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.64 3.61 +.03

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.86 3.81 +.05

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.21 4.04 +.17

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.32 3.14 +.18

19. I know how to get info I need 4.38 4.23 +.15

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.68 3.66 +.03

52. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.76 3.56 +.20

2. The survey scores suggest that the following groups were above average on items related to  !

training:

Raw Std ,

Group Score Mean Executive 4.42 0.55 Unit 1 - Elect Maint 4.35 0.48  ;

Other Tech Services 4.14 0.29 IS&H 4.14 0.28 (

Plant Srves - Pint proj & Prog 4.11 0.26 6-2

Opportunities

1. The training category had the lowest opportunity for improvement of all survey categories.

The largest opportunity for improvement on the items within this category related to employees ability to get the resources necessary to theirjobs (item 50). The data on this item needs careful qualitative analysis within different groups to determine whether the scores on this item result from employees' knowledge about how to get necessary resources or whether the resources are unavailable. The figure below presents the opportunity for improvement for each item.

Differences Between Average and Top Scores 0.:

0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 i 0.2 0.1 0

50 4 16 41 5 19 10 item

50. I can get resources to perform myjob

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs

41. I can discuss develop need with supv

4. Supv ensure skills to do job

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work

19. I know how to get info I need l 10. I know exactly how to do myjob well i

i l

6-3 4

- --- ..e,e - - - . - _ - . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - . _ _ _ . _ . . - -

2. The survey scores suggest that the following grnups were below average on items related to training:

Raw Std Group Score Mean Ops Support 3.57 -0.26 Unit 2 - I & C Maint 3.53 -0.29 Maint Support 3.52 -0.30 Nuc Trng - Other 3.52 -0.30 Unit 1 - I & C Maint 3.51 -0.31 Warehouse 3.49 -0.33 Sys. Eng - Elect /I & C 3.39 -0.42 Nuct Training 3.38 -0.43 NuclInfo Sys 3.35 -0.46 6-4

Recommendations l

1. Continue or initiate any recommendations from the same section in BCS's Assessment .

Report (Section 6, pp. 4 - 8).

2. Create a comprehensive data base with records of training and career development s

plans with the input of each employee.

3. Communicate new organizational plans to employees and obtain feedback as course  :

content and schedules are developed. Select milestones for achieving changes and communicate progress across the site.

i i

+

A s

i 6-5

Appendix Tables i l

l of Survey Data 1

LIST OF TABLES Survey Interpretation Guidelines Tbl 1 Groups with survey distributions that are signliicantly different from the norm at STP Tbl 2a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Executive Group j Tbl 2b Arithmetic means for survey data for Executive Tbl 2c Std. means for survey data for Executive Tbl 3a Std. and Arith, means for survey categories for Plant Services Tbl 3b Arith, means for survey items for Plant Services Tbl 3c Std. means for survey items for Plant Services Tblda Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Human Resources Tbl4b Arithmetic means for survey items for Human Resources Tbl de Std. means for survey items for Human Resources Tbl 5a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Industry Relations Tbl 5b Arithmetic means for survey items for Industry Relations Tbl Sc Std. means for survey items for Industry Relations Tbl 6a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Outage Tbl 6b Arithmetic means for survey items for Outage l Tbl 6c Std. means for survey items for Outage Tbl 7a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Generations Support l Tbl7b Arithmetic means for survey items for Genera tions Support Tbl 7c Std. means for survey items for Generations Support Tbl8a Std. and arithrnetic means for survey categories for Unit 1 Tbl 8b Arithmetic means for survey items for Unit 1 Tbl 8c Std. means for survey items for Unit 1 Tbl 9a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Unit 2 Tbl 9b Arithmetic means for survey items for Unit 2 Tbl 9c Std. means for sun'ey items for Unit 2 Tbl los Std. and arithmetic means for sun'ey categories for Nuclear Security

i i

Tbl 10b Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Security Tbl 10c Std. means for survey items for Nuclear Security Tbl lla Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Tech Servs. l Thi 1:b Arithmetic means for survey items for Tech Servs.

Tbl 11c Std. means for survey items for Tech Servs.

Tbl 12a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Other Nuclear Tbl 12b Arithmetic means for survey items for Other Nuclear Tbl 12c Std. means for survey items for Other Nuclear j Tbl 13a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Assurance l TL uh Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Assurance  :

Tbl 13c Std. means for survey items for Nuclear Assurance Tbl Ida Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Licensing Tbl 14b Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Licensing Tbl 14c Std. means for survey items for Nuclear Licensing Tbl 15m Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Systems Engineering Tbl 15b Arithmetic means for survey items for Systems Engineering Tbl 15c Std. means for survey items for Systems Engineering Tbl 16s Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Design Engineering Tbl 16b Arithmetic means for survey items for Design Engineering )

i Thi 16c Std. means for survey items for Design Engineering l l

Tbl 17a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuc. Fuel & Analysis l Tbl 17b Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Fuel & Analysis Tbl 17c Std. means for survey items for Nuclear Fuel & Analysis Tbl 18a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Engineering Support  !

Tbl 18b Arithmetic means for survey items for Engineering Support l Tbl 18e Std. means for survey items for Engineering Support Tbl 19a Std. and arithinetic means for survey categories for Engineering Programs Tbl 19b Arithmetic means for survey items for Engineering Programs  ;

Tbl 19c Std. means for survey items for Engineering Programs  !

Tbl 20a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Purchasing );

I i

i J

1 l

l Tbl 20b Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Purchasing Tbl 20c Std. means for survey items for Nuclear Purchasing Tbl 21a Std. and arithmetic means for survey categories for Contractors Tbl 21b Arithmetic means for survey items for Contractors Tbl 21c Std. means for survey items for Contractors Tbl 22 Raw score comparisons for STP Executives Tbl 23 Raw score comparisons for Plant Projects and Programs Tbl 24 Raw score comparisons for Records Management )

1 Tbl25 Raw score comparisons for Plant Services - Administration l

Tbl 26 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Information Services Tbl27 Raw score comparisons for Operations Training Tbl28 Raw score comparisons for Staff Training Tbl29 Raw score comparisons for Planning, Assessment and Controls Tbl 30 Raw score comparisons for Human Resources - Nuclear Tbl 31 Raw score comparisons for Site Facilities Tbl32 Raw score comparisons for Outage Tbl 33 Raw score comparisons for Maintenance Support Tbl 34 Raw score comparisons for Operations Support Tbl 35 Raw score comparisons for MSSD Tbl36 Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Mechanical Maintenance Tbl 37 Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Electrical Maintenance Tbl 38 Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 -I & C Maintenance Tbl39 Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Work Control Tbl 40 Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Operations Tbl 41 Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Mechanical Maintenance 4 Tbl 42 Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Electrical Maintenance Tbl43 Raw score comparisons for Unit.2 -I & C Maintenance Tbl44 Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Work Control Tbl45 Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Operations Tbl46 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Security

Tbl 47 Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemistry Tbl 48 Raw score comparisons for Health Physics Tbl49 Raw score comparisons for Met Lab Tbl50 Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Emuent Waste Mgmt.

Tbl 51 Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Industrial Safety & Hyg.

Tbl52 Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemical Operations Tbl 53 Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Other Tech Services Tbl54 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Control Tbl 55 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Assurance Tbl 56 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Other Tbl57 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Licensing Tbl58 Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering- Mech Fluid Systems Tbl 59 Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Electrical /I & C Tbl 60 Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Reliability Eng.

I Tbl 61 Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Other Tbl 62 Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Mech./ Civil Tbl63 Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Electrical /I & C 1 l

Tbl 64 Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Design Support Tbl65 Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Other Tbl66 Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Fuel and Analysis Tbl 67 Raw score comparisons for Engineering Support Tbl 68 Raw score comparisons for Engineering Programs Tbl69 Raw score comparisons for Purchasing, Contracts and Inventory Tbl 70 Raw score comparisons for Warehouse Tbl71 Raw score comparisons for Ebasco Tbl 72 Raw score comparisons for Wackenhut Tbl 73 Raw score comparisons for Other Contractors Tbl 74 Frequency data for item 60,"IfI had a nuclear or quality related concern, I would first go to."

1

Survey Interpretation Guidelines To interpret the category scores (from the "A" tables):

The data on this table allows you to assess the extent to which you are above or below the rest of the site in each category. Data in these tables is presented in standard scores' and indicates the extent to which each category was above or below the site average. A standard score has an average (or mean) of zero and a standard deviation of one. Standard scores allow you to compare survey scores from different items "on the same ruler" even though those items may have different amounts of variation around the average. A standard score of +.25 is one quarter of a standard deviation above the average. Standardized scores may be interpreted as follows:

Approximate Standard Score Interpretation Percentile Greater than +.50 Well above the norm Top 30%

Greater than +.25 Above the norm Top 40%

Between .25 and +.25 Average range P

Less than .25 Below the norm Lower 40%

Less than .50 Well below the norm Lower 30%

Use this table to identify the categories that you would like to work on. Usually you will want to develop strategies to address your lowest categories, particularly any that fall below .25..

To interpret raw scores (from the "B" tables):

The average score for all items (excluding those in the miscellaneous category) was 3.38. The standard deviation for was 1.21. A difference of.25 or more can be considered to have practical significance. These raw scores are useful for comparison against the site average of 3.38 and one another. While the standardized scores are generally easier to interpret, some people want to know the absolute score for each item.

To interpret standardized scores for individual items (from the "C" tables):

These data are provided to facilitate analysis ofindividual items. After using the "A" table to j identify the categories that need improvement, the data on this table should help you to identify the specific kinds ofmanagement practices that willlead to improvements. Often you will find it useful to have discussions with your team or small groups of employees to develop specific action plans for addressing items in a meaningul way.

' For those who are interested. a standard score is calculated by taking the itern or category score, subtracting the overall average for that item or category, then dividing by the standard deviation of that item or category.

useful to have discussions with your team or small groups of employees to develop specific action plans for addressing items in a meaningful way.

To interpret Tables 22 through 73 The tables in this section present the raw scores for individual survey items for 1994 versus 1993.

These tabic only include data for groups that have a reasonable standard of comparison for this year versus last.

These tables present simple raw scores for individual items for both years and the change from '93  ;

to '94. Use these tables to identify areas where you have improved and areas where you may have slipped. You should express appreciation or provide some other form of recognition to individuals that made a contribution to improved scores.

Not all groups were included in these tables. Several groups, such as Unit 1 - Other were too small to be considered meaningful. Other groups, such as Nuclear Training - Accreditation were new and had no meaningful comparison group last year. If your group is not included, and you want data comparing your group with one of the groups from last year, contact Ken Taplett to make arrangement.

Table 1 - Groups with survey distributions that are significantly different from the nurm at STP.

1 i Groups with a significant distribution of scores in the cluster

• Executive Plant Projects and Programs Plant Services- Administration Nuclear Training *

• Nuclear Training - Accreditation Planning, Assessment and Controls Human Resources Nuclear Unit 1 Electrical hiaintenance ,

Unit 2 Electrical hiaintenance Tech Senices - Effluent Waste hianagement Tech Senices - I. S. & H.

Tech Senices - Other Nuclear Assurance - Other Systems Engineering - Other Engineering Support Ebasco Other contractors Groups with a significant distribution of scores in the lower cluster

• Nuclear Training *

• Nuclear Training - Other Unit 1 - hiechanical hiaintenance Warehouse

• Groups with a small sample size may not have statistica! significance.

• This group has subgroups of employees in both clusters (may be due in part to small sample).

.,N...

Table 2n - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey etategories for the Executive Group.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othn Recgn Comp Coreta Trng i

OVER ALL (N = 2!12) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Executive (n=20) .51 .32 .48 .41 .41 .62 .78 .38 .55 (3.75) (3.64) (4.06) (4.10) (3.94) (3.81) (3.87) (3.89) (4.42)

I

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 23r Arithmetic means for survey data for Executive Items Exec Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.70 o

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.75

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.25

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.65

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.65

38. Group reviewed performance data S.94

43. #e review graphs of performance 4.21

45. Graphs s charts are meaningful 3.00 Pee &ack

3. Groups 2 support tell me about my work 3.45

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.75 14 .. supy talked w/me about work with others 3.50

17. supy specific about $ch performance 3,30

18. supy talks w/me about current job 3.95

20. supy talks about jobs I control 3.50

35. Reployees coached to improve performance 3.74 Teaserork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 4.10

28. My group encouraged for high perforiaance 4.60

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.84

40. Esployees involved is setting goals 3.70 Teannrork 5 Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 4.10

22. Tell supy ideas for i g rovement 3.60

36. Co-workers work as effective team 3.95

44. Egloyees asked for input 4.00

46. Changes made after input 3.90

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.55

54. Supv listens to suggestions 4.45

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns 4.70 Tenanrork & Communication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.35

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.85

32. Meet with others to discuss services 3.21

34. 1.ast time est a ce-to-face 3.30

37. Receive support asked for 4.25

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.74

55. Group works as a team 4.00 58.oroup works effectively w/others 4.30 Consequences (mecognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 3.90

13. Recognition for effective support 3.70

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.95

49. Immediate recognition for good work 3.60

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.90 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 4.10

29. Dest qualified get promoted 3.60

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 3.70

I Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.50

23. First help for poor performance 3.00

31. Supy clear in criticism 4.00

33. Supv ejective & constru=tive 4.25

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.90 Training & Develnpment

4. Supy checks skills for job 4.35

8. Supv understands tech aspect of work 4.40

10. Know exactly what to do 4.50

15. Training gives skills 4.00

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.80

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 4.35

50. Can get resources for job 4.55 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.70

2. Make own plans for job 4.15

53. I work at efficient level 3.80

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.75

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.65

62. Proper consideration for concern 4.65 l

i l

1 d

l l

l l

l l

1 l

1

t Table 2c: standardised means for survey data for Executive ,

Items Exec Measureement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .39

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .47

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .06

26. Data used to improve quality of work .55

30. Work tracked against sche & ale .06

38. Group swviewed perforsmanos data .52 '

43. We review graphs of performanos 3.13

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .00 PosWRamot

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .42

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .36

14. supir talked w/me about work with others .20 l

17. Supv specific about job perforiaan* .05

18. supy talks w/me about curtent job .41

20. supy talks about jobs I control .30

35. Seployees coached to improve performance .57 Teamwork & n-nication (ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .40

28. My group encouraged for high performance .45 39, set challenging and realistic goals .47

40. Employees involved is setting goals .78 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .53

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .14 i

36. Co-workers work as effective team .17 )

44, asployees asked for irput .75

46. Changes made af ter 1rput .90

51. Group encouraged to help each other .61 i

54. supy listens to suggestions .72

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns .37 ,

I Teamwork & Coasmunication (Witte other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .53 l

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .22

32. Meet with others to discuss services .54 1

34. Last time met face-to-face .65

37. 9teceive support asked for .70

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .57 j

55. Group works as a team .00 i l

SS. Group weiks effectively w/others .50 Consequences (mecognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs .56

13. Recognition for effective sugport .86 )

47. 1.ast time told about job performance .29 i

48. Isomediate recognition for good work .54 i

56. Inforimod about co-workers good work .74 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .73 i

29. Dest qualified get promoted .56 )

42. Clear relationship promotion & port. .79 i l

l i

1

}

l Consequences (Correction) I

12. Prompt action for poor job .47

23. First help for poor performance .49 )

31. Supv clear in criticism .20

33. Supv cojective & constructive .66

49. S h rrassment & hun.411ation .20 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .69

8. Sups understands tech aspect of work .49

10. Know exactly what to do .36

15. Training gives skills .62

19. Know how to obtain information for job .58

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .54

50. Can get resources for job .83 Misoallarmous

1. See opportunities to improve .25

2. Make own plans for 3ab .34

53. I work at efficient level .48

57. Subordinates provide timely input .42

61. I make suggestions for improvement .49

62. Proper consideration for concern .94 I

Table 3a - Standantized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Plant Services."

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corctn Trag OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Plant Proj & Prog (n=30) .15 .39 .43 .32 .36 .45 .65 .40 .26 (3.32) (3.73) (4.00) (4.00) (3.87) (3.62) (3.71) (3.91) (4.11)

Records Mgmt (n=49) .02 .13 .21 .07 .02 .14 .07 .12 .08 (3 15) (3.10) (3.75) (3.58) (3.44) (2.95) (3.00) (3.58) (3.92)

Admin (n=47) .2') .46 .39 .18 .48 .42 .44 .38 .21 (3.40) (3.82) (3.95) (3.85) (4.02) (3.59) (3.45) (3.89) (4.06)

Nuclear Info Systems (n=35; .38 .40 .32 .15 .01 .22 .39 .48 .46 (2.68) (2.78) (3.12) (3.50) (3.43) (2.86) (2.45) (2.84) (3.35)

Nucl Training (n=6) .04 .08 .18 .28 .12 .22 .53 .I1 .43 (3.08) (3.17) (3.29) (3.36) (3.25) (2.87) (2.28) (3.30) (3.38)

Operations Training (n=44) .12 .05 .04 .07 .09 .16 .10 .10 .00 (2.98) (3.32) (3.55) (3.74) (3.53) (2.93) (2.80) (3.56) (3.84)

Staff Training (n=21) .10 .30 .08 .05 .11 .12 .09 .09 .12 (3.25) (3.62) (3.59) (3.71) (3.55) (3.24) (3.G3) (3.53) (3.71)

Accreditation (n=18) .02 .13 .04 .03 .24 .24 .07 .10 .11 (3.16) (3.10) (3.45) (3.70) (3.71) (2.83) (2.83) (3.31) (3.72)

Other Nuct Trng (n=22) .31 .21 .16 .26 .19 .44 .17 .09 .30 (2.76) (3.01) (3.31) (3.38) (3.17) (2.61) (2.72) (3.32) (3.52)

Planning, Assmt & Controls (n=32) .18 .27 .25 .21 .21 .35 .55 .27 .04 (3.35) (3.58) (3.80) (3.88) (3.69 (3.50) (3.58) (3.76) (3.88)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard desiation equal to one.

I l

)

)

i Table 3B - Arithmette means for survey items for Plant Seavices

)

l atens Plant Record Ada Muc Huc Oper P&P Mgt Sys Train Train bees suremment

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.65 3.19 3.72 2.95 3.12 3.32 I

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.60 3.31 3.60 2.78 3.17 3.16 l

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.16 3.33 3.45 2.41 3.33 2.81 1

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.68 3.19 3.81 2.49 3.17 2.90

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.73 3.72 3.51 2.97 3.00 4.00 1

30. Group reviewed perforiaance data 3.36 2.60 3.21 2.49 3.33 3.07

43. We review graphs of performance 2.65 3.02 2.77 2.62 2.83 2.20 ,

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.69 2.77 3.13 2.70 2.67 2.41  !

l Pee &ack

3. Groupe 1 support tell me about ury work 3.81 3.15 3.85 3.00 2.67 2.04

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.63 2.69 3.70 2.40 4.67 3.50

14. supy talked w/me about work with others 3.60 2.50 3.61 2.32 3.00 3.22

17. Supv specific about jok) performance 3.67 3.50 4.06 2.84 3.00 3.35 j

10. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.83 3.17 3.87 J.22 3.17 3.88

20. Supy talks about jobs 1 control 3.97 3.50 3.89 3.0S 3.00 3.47

35. Esployees coached to 1 grove performance 3.60 3.17 3.74 2.54 2.67 2.98 Tenantork & Ccemmunication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 4.19 3.92 4.00 3.57 3.50 4.09

29. Wy group encouraged for high performance 4.35 4.40 4.47 3.73 3.80 4.34

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.72 3.79 3.91 2.92 3.17 3.25

40. Employees involved is setting goals 3.73 2.59 3.43 2.19 2.67 2.51 l l

Teammrork & e-nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.94 3.56 3.68 3.92 3.33 3.84 i

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.71 2.98 3.81 3.57 3.17 3.70 l

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.29 4.27 4.38 3.96 3.50 4.19 i

44. Raployees asked for input 3.81 3.23 3.64 3.05 3.33 3.07

46. Changes made after input 3.45 2.90 3.11 2.49 2.67 2.93 ,

St. Group mucouraged to help each other 4.24 4.23 4.26 3.50 3.33 3.89  !

54. Supy listens to suggestions 4.14 3.60 4.04 3.11 3.33 3.SS

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concern 4.59 3.90 4.06 4.00 4.17 4.55 Teamwork & Cosenunication (With other groups) l

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.26 4.15 4.51 3.59 3.50 3.02 j

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 4.10 3.23 4.19 3.51 3.00 3.47 1

32. Meet with others to discuss services 3.00 2.29 3.13 2.75 3.00 2.60

34. Last time met face-to-face 3.53 2.44 3.12 3.17 3.17 3.19

37. Mooetve support asked for 3.90 3.65 4.09 3.41 3.17 3.29

52. Ask susport groups for suggestions 3.79 3.47 3.72 3.44 3.17 3.77

55. Group works as a tame 4.31 4.00 4.26 3.51 3.37 4.09

58. Group works effectively w/others 4.07 4.17 4.28 3.72 3.67 3.70 i

l 1

C meequent.a.s (mecognitton) it. Employees recognised for jobs 3.71 3.00 3.47 2.04 2.50 3.75

13. Recognition for effective support 3.45 3.00 3.47 2.70 2.83 2.80

47. 1.ast time told about 3cb performance 3.74 2.77 3.89 2.94 3.33 3.70

45. 1rimediate recognition for good work 3.61 3.00 3.60 2.73 2.67 2.79

56. Inforimod about co-workers good work 3.57 3.00 3.51 3.11 3.00 2.64 Consequenoes (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 4.10 3.27 3.72 2.97 2.67 3.00

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.57 3.54 3.32 2.32 2.17 2.56

42. Clear relationship promotion & 3.45 2.79 3.30 2.05 2.00 2.55 performance Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.29 3.27 3.64 1.92 2.60 3.00

23. First help for poor performance 4.00 3.42 3.81 2.78 3.67 3.33

31. Supv clear in criticism 4.09 3.96 4.09 3.41 3.00 3.64

33. Supy objective & constructive 4.00 3.30 3.99 2.64 3.00 3.67

49. Embarrassment 6 humiliation 4.10 3.96 4.02 3.49 4.33 4.14 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.10 3.56 4.00 2.59 2.83 3.55

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work 3.94 3.90 3.64 2.51 3.00 4.05

10. Know exactly what to do 4.36 4.40 4.56 3.86 4.00 4.09

15. Training gives skills 4.89 3.52 3.90 '.27 3.33 3.30

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.30 4.63 4.48 4.30 4.00 4.39

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 4.23 3.55 3.79 3.31 3.17 4.00 50 Can get resources for job 4.10 3.90 3.96 3.30 3.33 3.96 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.57 3.23 3.47 3.32 3.17 3.55

2. Make my own plans for job 4.00 3.89 3.85 4.00 4.00 3.96

53. I work at efficient level 4.17 4.56 4.64 4.06 4.33 4.16

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.74 3.22 3.40 3.24 2.67 3.39

61. I make suggestions for isprovement 3.70 2.75 3.45 3.56 3.00 3.55

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.86 3.33 3.74 3.20 3.67 3.64

Table 35 - Arithmetic means for survey items for Plant Services (continued)

Items staff Ascred other PA&C Train Train Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.68 3.99 3.35 3.81

7. Quality of my work abjectively measured 3.77 3.22 2.80 3.47

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.09 2.33 3.00 3.04

26. Data used to a g rove quality of work 3.18 3.22 2.90 3.16

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.05 4.00 3.65 3.84

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.41 3.17 2.10 3.47

43. We review graphs of performance 2.45 2.33 2.05 2.50

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.32 2.61 2.20 2.71 Poesback

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.73 3.39 3.10 3.34

6. 1.ast talked w/ supv quality of work 3.86 2.83 2.80 3.59

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.64 2.89 2.45 3.80

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.45 3.00 3.20 3.60

18. Supy talks w/mm about current job 3.77 3.44 3.50 3.70 20, supy talks about jobs I control 3.50 3.39 3.25 3.72

35. Employees coached to improve performance 3.41 2.78 2.75 3.19 Teamwork & Communication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.91 3.76 3.65 4.03

28. My group encouraged for high performance 3.77 4.22 4.10 4.38

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.27 3.44 3.00 3.72

40. Employees involved is setting goals 3.41 2.39 2.50 3.06 Teamwork & Cm==mication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.06 3.33 3.65 3.63

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.77 3.33 3.55 3.75

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.00 4.11 3.60 4.06

44. Employees asked for input 3.05 3.00 2.05 3.75

46. Changes made after input 2.95 3.17 2.50 3.25 I

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.09 5.83 3.55 4.28 54, supv listens to suggestions 4.09 3.61 3.25 3.91

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.27 4.11 4.00 4.41 Teamwork & Communication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.73 4.00 3.60 3.81

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.59 3.56 3.40 3.78

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.91 3.06 2.55 2.91

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 3.36 3.06 2.80 3.25

37. Receive support asked for 3.32 3.61 2.75 3.69

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.73 4.06 2.35 3.01

55. Group works as a team 4.14 3.76 2.45 4.19 54.oroup works effectively w/others 3.64 3.83 3.45 4.06

Consequences (hocognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 3.13 2.61 2.55 3.47

13. Rooognition for effective support 3.00 2.70 2.55 3.38

47. Last time told about job perforinance 3.68 3.22 2.95 3.78

48. Isumediate recognition for good work 3.27 2.70 2.40 3.47

$6 Informed about co-workers good work 3.14 2.70 2.60 3.44 Consequences (Cougsensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.41 2.94 2.10 4.19

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.91 2.99 2.55 3.41

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.77 2.67 2.50 3.16 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 2.77 2.03 3.00 3.03

23. First help for poor performance 3.59 3.06 3.05 3.51

31. Supy clear in criticism 3.86 3.83 3.70 3.97 33, supy objective & constructive 3.86 3.22 3.10 3.94

49. Babarrassment & humiliation 3.59 3.51 3.75 4.06 i Training & Development

4. supt checks skills for job 3.64 3.39 3.85 3.53

5. Supy understands toch aspect of work 3.82 3.83 3.30 3.94

10. Know exactly what to do 4.14 4.22 4.25 4.09

15. Training gives skills 3.27 3.50 3.05 3.15

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.00 4.22 4.40 4.38

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.86 3.44 3.40 4.00

50. Can get rescuroes for job 3.27 3.44 3.40 3.91 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.50 3.56 3.50 3.59

2. Isake own plans for job 4.00 4.22 3.00 3.94

53. I work at efficient level 3.95 4.17 3.95 4.09

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.41 3.82 3.00 3.54

61. I make suggestions for taprovemment 3.50 3.44 3.20 3.59

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.45 3.29 3.55 3.88

Table 3C - Standardized means for survey items for Plant Services Ituas Plant Record Ada Huc Huc Oper P&P Mgt Sys Train Train Measuressant

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .33 .11 .41 .34 .13 .02

7. Quality of my work objectively sensured .32 .05 .32 .45 .09 .10

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .44 .01 .24 68 .14 .33

26. Data used to improve quality of work .83 .25 .42 .56 .09 .16

30. Work tracked against schedule .13 .12 .20 .53 .51 .36

38. Group reviewed performance data .12 .34 .02 .47 .10 .08

43. We review graphs of performance .09 .20 .00 .11 .05 .44

45. Graphs & charts are amaningful .09 .01 .27 .07 .10 .30 Feeeack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .77 .11 .31 .04 .37 .20 6.1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .27 .37 .32 .56 .97 .18

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .35 .44 .35 .57 .08 .08

17. Supy specific about job performance .26 .12 .60 .44 .31 .01

18. supy talks w/me about current job .30 27 .34 23 .27 .34

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .46 .01 .39 .42 .47 .02

35. Employees coached to improve performance .45 .04 .58 .55 .43 .14 Teamwork & Casumunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .50 .20 .29 .17 .25 .39

28. My group encouraged for high performance .19 .24 .31 .48 .37 .18

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .36 .42 .54 .39 .16 -0.6

40. Raployees involved is setting goals .81 .12 .56 .49 .06 .19 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .33 .12 .02 .31 .40 .22

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement .27 .54 .38 .11 .34 .26

36. Co-workers work as effective team .20 .18 .30 .26 .66 .08

44. Employees asked for input .58 .05 .42 .12 .34 -10

46. Changes made after input .62 .05 .27 .37 .19 .09

51. Group encouraged to help each other .28 .27 .30 .42 68 .09

54. Supy listens to suggestions .41 .11 .32 .59 .37 .17

59. Cesafortably go to supv w/ concerns .25 .39 .23 .29 .14 .22 Teamwork & Communication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .42 .39 .70 .31 .42 .07

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .39 .21 .46 .01 .37 .05

32. Meet with others to discuss services .39 .10 .48 .22 .39 .11

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face .49 .20 .35 .26 .26 .27

37. Receive support asked for .32 .05 .52 .21 .47 .01

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .63 .30 .56 .28 .00 .61

55. Group works as a team .33 .09 .27 .21 .71 .30

58. Group works effectively w/others .23 .34 .47 .16 .23 .18 Consequences (mecognition)

11. Employees recognized for jobs .67 .03 .43 .20 .53 .28

13. Deoognition for effective support .60 .14 .62 .17 .04 .08 47 1.ast time told about job performance .14 .57 .25 .44 .16 .11

48. Isamediate recognition for good work .55 .02 .53 .27 .33 .22

56. Informed about co-workers good work .44 .09 .38 .01 .09 .42

l consequences (Wsation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows ery work .73 .11 .45 .22 .35 .10

29. Best qualified get promoted .45 .06 .42 51 .65 .01

42. Clear relationship promotion & .58 .03 .45 .59 .63 .it periormance Consequences (correction) 1

12. Prougit action for poor job .28 .26 .60 . 97 .44 .16 l

23. First help for poor performance .65 .17 .50 .36 .30 -10 1

31. Supv clear in criticise .36 ,16 .28 .30 .77 . 15

33. supe ces)ective & constructive .43 .19 .34 .78 .45 .14

49. Eme>arrassment s humiliation .37 .25 .31 . 16 .58 .41 Training & Development I

4. Supy checks skille for job .25 .08 .35 . 73 .79 .10

8. Supy understands toch aspect of work .06 .03 .20 - .78 .37 '

10. Know exactly wt at to do .18 .23 .43 1.22 .27 .16

15. Training gives skills .50 .50 .60 .44 .01 .02

19. Know how to obtain information for job .01 .34 .15 . 05 .51 .01

41. Open dimeuss needs w/supv .44 . 10 .09 .11 41 .26 50 Can get resources for 3 cts .36 .15 .21 . 3. - 44 .29 i

.4k Hiscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .01 32 .03 .20 .39 .06

2. Make my own plans for job .15 .10 .05 .25 .15 .03 1

53. I work at ef ficient level .06 .56 .45 .09 .26 .04

57. subordinates provide timely input .41 .09 .00 .00 .62 .07

61. I make suggestions for Suprovement .53 .50 .27 .38 .22 .37

62. Proper consideration for concern .25 .21 .15 .32 .00 .06 l

l l

1 i

i l

i

l Table 3C + Standardised means for survey items for Plant services (continued)

Items staff Accred other PA&C Train Train Weasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .37 .57 .05 .50

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .49 04 .44 .20

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .00 .31 .16 .59

26. Data used to improve quality of work .10 .14 .17 .00

30. Work tracked against schedule .40 .36 .06 .23

38. Grenap reviewed performance data .15 .01 .74 .19 ,

43. We review graphs of performance .24 .34 .56 .21

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .37 .14 .46 .06 Poe&ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .69 .35 .07 .31

6. Last talked w/ surv quality of work .43 .27 .29 .24

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .37 .16 .48 .54

17. Supy specific about job performance .08 .31 .14 .19

18. Supv talks w/me about current job .25 .03 .01 .26

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .01 .09 .23 .22

35. Beloyees coached to improve performance .27 .32 .35 .06 Teamwork & C-nication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .19 .04 .09 .32

20. My group encouraged for high performance .43 .05 .08 .21

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .06 .10 .32 .35

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .54 .29 .20 .26 Teasswork & Comanunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .25 .21 .01 .04

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .33 .40 .08 .35 I

36. Co-workers work as effective team .11 .01 .55 .05

44. Egloyees asked for input .12 .17 .30 .52

46. Changes made after input .11 .33 .36 .42

51. Group encouraged to help each other .12 .15 .45 .33

54. Supy listens to suggestions .37 .10 .46 .19

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .04 .19 .29 .09 )

l 1

Teasswork & Cosesunication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .17 .14 .31 .09

27. West face-to-face w/ support groups .04 .02 .09 .17 (

32. Meet with othere to discuss services .33 .43 .08 .33

34. Last time met f ace-to-f ace .38 .67 .03 .31 1

37. Receive support asked for .31 .01 .92 .09 i

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .56 .89 .19 .65 1

55. Group works as a taan .15 .24 .59 .20 ;

58.Oroup works effectively w/others .26 .04 .40 .23 1 1

1 j

Consegmences (mooognition)

11. Employees recognised for $cbs .10 .42 .48 .43

13. Amoogn'. tion for effective support .14 .09 .33 .52 #

47. Last time told about job performanoe .10 .24 . 44 .17 ,

48. 1 mediate recognition for good work .23 .23 .58 .41

56. Informed about co-workers good work .04 .30 .46 .32 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ealary control knows my work .21 .14 .02 .30

29. Best qualified yet promoted .04 .02 .30 .50

42. Clear relationship promotion s .01 .00 .22 .33 performance Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job .19 .14 .02 .04

23. First help for poor performance .31 .13 .14 .50

31. Supe clear in criticism .05 .03 .09 .17

33. Supy objective & constructive .31 .26 .37 .39

49. Embarrassment & humiliation .07 .05 .07 .34 Training & Development

4. Supy onecks skills for job .01 .25 .77 .02

8. Supy understanda toch aspect of work .04 .03 .51 .07

10. Enow exactly what to do .10 .01 .05 .15

15. Training gives skills .04 .25 .25 .12 .

19. Know how to obtain information for 3cb .51 .21 .03 .00

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .35 .19 .22 .26 '

50. Can get resources for job .51 .33 .37 .00 i

Miscellaneous  !

3. See opportunities to igrove .01 .07 .01 .23

2. Make own plans for job .15 .44 .11 .07

53. I work at efficient level .22 .05 .22 .04 ,

57. subordinates provide timely input .09 .49 .30 .21 '

81. I make suggestions for improvement .32 .25 .01 .43 -

62. Proper consideration for concern .10 .24 .02 .27 l l

Table da - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Human Resources.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othn Recgn Comp Corttn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Iluman Resources - Nuclear (n=38) .15 .12 .25 .04 .03 .08 .30 .01 .03 (3.31) (3.41) (3.80) (3.70) (3.37) (3.02) (3.28) (3.44) (3.81)

Site Facilities (n=43) .16 .07 .13 .17 .05 .25 .18 .12 .18 (3.32) (3.34) (3.65) (3.84) (3.48) (3.40) (2.70) (3.58) (3.65)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

l Table 43: Arithootic means for survey items for numan Resources  !

Items MR site Nuc Fac f Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.59 3.47

7. Quality of my work objectively anasured 3.32 3.35

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.14 3.16 ,

26. Data used to igrove quality of work 3.05 3.22

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.51 2.39

30. Group reviewed performance data 3.68 3.43

43. We review graphs of performance 3.97 3.42

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.05 3.64 Foo6ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.22 3.31

6. I.ast talked w/ supv quality of work 3.62 3.42

14. Supy talked w/mo about work with others 3,41 3.36

17. Supv specific about job performance 3.57 3.27 -

18. Supy talks w/se about current job 3.57 3.47 i

20. Supy talks about jobs I control 3.24 3.58

35. a gloyees coached to i grove performance 3.24 3.00 Teannrock & Ckmuunication (ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.95 3.80 ,

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.51 3.98

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.62 3.42

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals 3.10 3.40 Teamswork & Casemanication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.59 3.02

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.43 3.69

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.14 4.38

44. amployees asked for inrut 3.24 3.62 ,

46. Changes made after input 3.05 3.11

51. Group encouraged to help each other 3.97 4.00 [

54. Supy listens to suggestions 3.65 3.80 i

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.49 4.27 weamwork & Comumnication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.76 4.16

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.48 3.44

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.41 2.33

34. Last time met face-to-face 2.68 2.58 f

37. Roosive support asked for 3.78 3.82

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.14 3.22

55. Group works as a team 3.78 4.22 58.orcup works effectively w/others 3.09 4.07 Consequences (nacognition)

11. agioyees recognized for jobs 3.03 3.36

13. Recognition for effective support 2.76 3.07

47. Last time told about 3cb performance 3.41 3.52

40. Immsediate recognition for good work 2.97 3.20

56. Informed about co-workers good work 2.95 3.53

consequences (cospensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.59 2.90

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.11 2.64

42. Clear relationship promotion & 3.14 2.56 1 performance Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.14 3.04

23. First help for poor performance 3.78 3.70

31. supy clear in criticism 3.e4 3.82

33. Supy objective & constructive 3.35 3.44

49. Bearrassment & humiliation 3.49 3.92 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.57 3.58 S. Supy understands toch aspect of work 3.65 3.24

10. Know exactly what to do 4.05 4.16

15. Training gives skills 3.54 3.02

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.32 4.16

41. Open discuss needs w/supv 3.78 3.76

50. Can get resources for job 3.76 3.64 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.51 3.49

2. Make own plans for job 3.97 3.87 S3. I work at efficient level 4.38 3.96

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.42 3.40

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.35 3.44

82. Proper consideration for concern 3.97 3.60

4 h

Table 4C: Standardized means for survey items for Numan Resources k

l Items mR site Nuc Fac Measurement  ;

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .29 .16

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .06 .09

24. Data collooted to anticipate problems .04 .02

26. Data used to improve quality of work .02 .14

30. Work tracked against schedule .06 .61

38. erwup reviewed performance data .33 .17

43. We review graphs of performance .16 .51

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .21 .68  !

i Fes&ack l

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .10 .27 -

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .26 .13

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .21 .17 l

17. Supy specific about job performance .17 .00  !

10. supy talks w/me about current job .07 .02  !

20. Supv talks about jobs 1 control .23 .09 j

35. Employees coached to improve performance .31 .12 teamwork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .23 .00

29. My group oncouraged for high performance .36 .21

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .26 .00

40. Employees involved is setting goals .30 .54 Teamwork & Communnication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas =.00 .20

22. Tell supy ideas for ig rovement .04 .24 ,

36. Co-workers work as effective team .03 .30 j

44. Employees asked for input .06 .41

46. Changes made after input .21 .27

51. Group encouraged to help each other .00 .03 i'

54. Supv listens to suggestions -067 .00

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns .27 .04 l d

Teamwork & Communication (with other groups) l

21. Effective working w/other groups .13 .31 l

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .03 .06 i

32. Meet with others to discuss services .03 .00 I

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face .05 .11 1

37. Receive support asked for .19 .23 l

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .03 .06

55. Group works as a team .23 .23 l St.ercup works effectively w/others .03 .23 Consequences (Recognition)

11. Employees recognited for jobs .01 .32

13. Recognition for effective support .12 .20

47. Last time told about job performance .10 .20

48. Immediate recognition for good work .05 .16

56. Informed about oo-workers good work .11 .40 I

i

Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows ery work .35 .17

29. Best qualified get promoted .22 .21

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .31 .17 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job .14 .06

23. First help for poor perfotiaance .14 .47

31. supy clear in criticism .04 .02

33. Supy objective & constructive .14 .06 49, ambarrassment & humiliation .16 .13 I

Training & Development

4. supy checks skills for job .07 .06

9. Supy understands toch aspect of work .19 .56

10. Know exactly what to do .20 .07

15. Training gives skills .20 .27

19. Know how to obtain information for 3cb .07 .30

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .09 .06

50. Can get resources for job .00 12 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to imprcwe .02 .01

2. Make own plans for job .it .03

53. I work at efficient level .32 .22 57, subordinates provide timely input .11 .08

61. I make suggestions for igrovuusent .16 .26 E2. Proper consideration for concern .35 .03 l

i l

l 1

1 I

l

Table Sa - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Industry Relations.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corctn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Industry Relations (n=5) .29 .00 .17 .40 .03 .22 .62 .64 .06 (2.78) (3.26) (3.70) (4.09) (3.38) (3.36) (3.67) (4.20) (3.77)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

t l

i t

t Table 58: Arithmetic means for survey items for Industry malations Items End mal ,

senasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.20 f

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 2.80 .

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.20 a

26. Data used to taprove quality of work 3.20

30. Work tracked against sche ele 3.20

38. ero g reviewed performance data 2.20 i

43. We review graphs of performanos 2.00  ;

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.40 Fee 6ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 2.40

6. Last talked w/ supv quality of work 3.20 f

14. supy talked w/me about work with others 3.20  ;

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.40

10. supy talks w/me about current job 4.20

20. supy talks about $cbs I control 3.40 ,

35, amployees coached to a g rove performance 3.00 Teawork & Communication (Goal settirHg)  :

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.00  !

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.60

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.20

40. Raployees involved is setting goals 3.20 Teamwork & Camusanication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.60

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.80

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.40

44. Ruployees asked for input 3.40

46. Changes made after input 3.30 St. Group encouraged to help each other 4.60

54. supy listens to suggestions 4.20

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 5.00 teamwork & minication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.20

27. Beset face-to-face w/ support groups 2.60 32, beset with others to discuss services 2.20

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 2.20

37. Receive support asked for 3.60

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.20

55. Group works as a team 4.60 50.oroup works effectively w/others 4.40 Consequences (Recognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 3.40

13. Decognition for effective support 3.00

47. Last time told about job performance 3.20

43. Immediate recognition for good work 3,40

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.80 consequences (compensation)

25. person w/ salary control knows my work 4.40

29. Dest qualified get promoted 3.20

42. Clear relationship promotion 6 performance 3.40

Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.60

23. First help for poor performance 4.40

31. Supy clear in criticism 4.20

33. supy objective & constructive 4.40

49. subarrassment & humiliation 4.40 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.60 i S. Supy understands tech aspect of work 3.40

10. Know exactly what to do 4.00

15. Training gives skills 3.60

19. Know how to obtain information for job 3.80

41. Open discuss needs w/supv 4.20 S0. Can get resources for job 3.80 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.80

2. Make own plans for job 4.20 S3. I work at efficient level 4.20

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.00

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.40

62. Proper consideration for concern 4.60

Table SC: standardised means for survey items for Ine stry malations Items Ind mal ,

naasusement

5. Sreup evaluates based on needs of others .10 *

7. Quality of aqr work objectively measured .48

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .02

24. Data used to improve quality of work .12

30. Work traoked against schedule .34 Sf ereup reviewed performance data .67 e4 Ha review graphs of performance .60

44. She & charts are meaningful . 31 ym >

3. enoups I support tell me about my work .64

6. Last talked w/ supv guality of work .02

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .06

17. surv specific about job performance .03

10. supy talks w/me about current job .62

20. Supy talks about jobs 3 oontrol .00

36. Employees coached to improve performance .12 Teamwork & Caummanisation (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .08

28. My group encouraged for high performance .45

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .13

40. Bayloyees involved is setting goals .37 i

l Teamwork & Comunanication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .07  ;

22. Teli supv ideas for improvement .37 3

36. Co-workers work as effective team .32

44. amployees asked for 1rput .20

46. Changes made after input .90

51. Group encouraged to help each other .47 54 supy listens to suggestions .47 St. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .45 Teamwork & Communication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .34

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .64

32. Meet with others to discuss services .17

34. Last time not face-to-face .35

37. Recei w support asked for .00

52. Ask sunset groups for suggestions .04

55. Group worts as a team .64 58.Oroup works effectively w/others .61 Consequences (tsoognition) it, amployees rooognised for jobs .37

13. Rooognition for effective arpport .14

47. Last time told about job performance .25 es. 2mumediate recognition for good work .35

56. Inforend about co-workers good work .45 I

l

Consequences (Cogensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .96

29. Best qualified get promoted .31

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .53 Consequences (Correction)

12. Frompt action for poor job .58

23. First help for poor performance .99

31. Supv clear in criticism .39

33. Supy objective & constructive .79

49. Embarrassment & humiliation .63 Training & Development

4. Supt checks skills for job .04

9. supy understands tech aspect of work .42

10. Know exactly what to do .27

15. Training gives skills .26

19. Know how to obtain information for job 79

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .42

50. Can get resources for job .05 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .37

2. Make own plans for job .41

83. I work at efficient level .09

57. subordinates provide tissely input -30

61. I make suggestions for auprovement .21

62. Proper consideration for concern .90 l

4 1

l

Table 6a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Outage."

4 Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coreta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1 I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Outage (n=23) .06 .09 .01 .04 .37 .23 .11 .18 .18 (3.06) (3.15) (3.52) (3.62) (3.89) (2.85) (2.79) (3.21) (3.65)

I

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table sa: Arithmetic means for survey data for outage Items Outage Measurement

5. ereup evaluates based on needs of others 3.35

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.18

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.21

24. Data used to t w rove quality of work 2.06

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.74

38. Oscup reviewed performance data 2.71

43. We review graphs of performance 2.64 48, oraphs & charts are meaningful 2.77 Feeeack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.21

6. Last talked w/ supe quality of work 2.23

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 2.50

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.00

18. Supy talks w/me about current 3ab 2.90

20. supy talks about j e s I control 3.36

35. Rayloyees coached to igrove performance 2.81 Teamwork 6 t h mication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.96

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.09

39. set challenging and realistic goals 3.35

40. Employees involved is setting goals 2.67 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.74

22. Tell supv ideas for imprwesent 3.36

36. Co-workers work as effective team 3.45

44. Employees asked for input 3.04

46. Changes made after input 3.00

51. Group encouraged to help each other 3.70

54. Supv listens to suggestions 3.55

59. comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4476

)

1 Teasswork 6 Commmunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.17 1

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 4.52 1

32. Meet with others to discuss services 3.50

34. Last time met face-to-face 3.57

37. Deceive support asked for 3.87

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.65

55. Group works as a team 3.74 58.Oroup works effectively w/others 4.09 Consequences (hecognition)

11. Reployees recognized for jobs 2.96

13. Deoognition for effective support 2.78

47. Last time told about job performance 3.17

48. Zwiate recognition for good work 2.57

56. Informed about co-workers good work 2.77 l

1 l

l l

1

Consequences (C e sation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 2.95

29. Seat qualified get promoted 2.70

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.70 Consequences (Correction)

12. Pragt action for poor job 2.78

23. First help for poor performance 3.10 St. supy clear in criticism 3.57

33. surv objective & constructive 3.29

49. Sabarrassment & humiliation 3.30 Training & Development i

4. supy checks skills for job 3.17

8. Surv understands toch aspect of work 3.96

10. Know exactly what to do 4.33

15. Training gives skills 2.41

19. Enow how to obtain information for job 4.52

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.50

50. Can get resources for job 3.87 P

k Hisoollaneous

1. see opportunities to improve 3.65

2. Make own plans for job 3.91

53. I work at efficient level 3.91 57, subordinates provide timely input 3.40

61. I make suggestions for igrovement 3.32

62. Proper consideration for concern 4.05 i

L P

t

1 Table SC: standardised means for survey data for outage E

(

Items outage i

Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .05

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .07

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .03

26. Data used to improve quality of work .20

30. Work tracked against schedule .13

30. Group reviewed performance data .32

43. We review graphs of perforiaanoe .10

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .01 9ee&saak

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .38

6. Last talked w/ aupy quality of work .68

14. supy talked w/me about work with others .44

17. Supv specific about job performance .31

18. Supt talks w/me about current job -50

10. Supy talks about jobs I control .12

25. Employees coached to improve performance .29 Teamwork & hinication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .24

28. My group encouraged for high performance .09

19. set Challenging and realistic goals .01

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .06 Teasswork & Commmunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer Admas .10

22. Tell supy ideas for i grovement .12

36. Co-workers work as effective teme .49

44. Employees asked for input .08

46. Changes made after input .16

51. Group encouraged to help each other .30

54. Supy listens to suggestions .17

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .43 Teamwork & ra==minication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .33

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support gr%ps .68

32. Meet with others to discuss services .74

34. Last time met face-to-face .51

37. Mocefve support asked for .29

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .49

55. Group works as a team .28 St.oroup works effectively w/others .25 Consequences (Recognition)

11. Egloyees recognised for 3As .08

13. Amoognition for effective support .10

47. 1.ast time told about 3cb performance .27

48. 1emmediate recognition for good work .43

56. Taforand about co-workers good work .30

i I

Consequenoes (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .13

29. Seat qualified get proacted .16 1

42. Clear relationship proaction & perf. .05 !

l l

Consequences (Correction) l

12. Prompt action for poor job .10

23. First help for poor performance .09

31. Supy clear in criticism .22

33. Supy objective & constructive .20

49. Embarrassment 6 humiliation .32 Training & *.Arvelopment

4. sury checks skills for job .46 l S. Supy understands tech aspect of work .09 l

10. Know exactly what to do .11

15. Training gives skills .83 ,

19. Know how to obtain information for job .20 j

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .14 j

50. Can get resources for job .22 )

I l

l Miscellaneous 1

1. See opportunities to improve .19 l

2. Make own plans for job .03 )

53. I work at efficient level .27 !

57. subordinates provide timely input .00 '

51. I make suggestions for improvement .12

62. Proper consideration for concern .41

l l

l Table 7a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Generation Support.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othn Recgn Comp Corctn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1 I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Maint Support (n=59) .10 .13 .01 .13 .04 .13 .10 .19 .30 (3.01) (3.11) (3.49) (3.52) (3.36) (2.%) (2.79) (3.21) (3.52)

Ops Support (n=47) .16 .40 .26 .18 .25 .20 .18 .32 .26 (2.93) (2.78) (3.19) (3.46) (3.09) (2.88) (3.14) (3.04) (3.57)

MSSD (n=10) .04 .20 .06 .08 .44 .50 .10 .04 .06 (3.18) (3.01) (3.43) (3.74) (3.98) (2.54) (2.79) (3.48) (3.77)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

. Table 73: Arithmetto means for survey items for Generation support i

Items Maint ops MSDD suppt supt l Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.33 2.87 3.01

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.15 2.79 3.40

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 2.93 2.94 3.20 J

26. Data used to i g rove quality of work 2.95 2.70 3.10

30. Work tracked against schedule 2.66 3.40 3.00

30. ero g reviewed performance data 3.07 3.76 2.70

43. We review graphs of perforiaanos 2.46 2.54 3.00

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.52 2.52 3.10 Fee 6ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 2.82 2.54 3.20

6. Last talked w/ supe quality of work 3.15 2.49 2.60

14. Supv talked w/me ahaut work with others 3.16 2.34 2.80

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.13 2.72 2.90

10. sure talks w/me about current 3ab 3.20 3.15 3.60

20. Supy talks about 3che I control 3.3C 3.36 3.10

35. Employees coached to improve performance 3.00 2.87 2.90 Teamwork & Commuunication (Ooal setting) 16 ercup's goals reflect needs of others 3.54 3.40 4.00

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.21 4.00 4.10

39. Set Challenging anet realistic goals 2.85 2.90 3.10 40, agloyees irrvolved is setting goals 2.36 2.30 2.50 Teasprork & Comumunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 2.66 3.53 3.00

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.39 3.35 3.20

36. Co-workers work as effective team 3.66 3.96 4.30

44. Egloyees asked for input 3.15 3.00 3.00

46. Changes made after input 2.59 2.47 2.00 St. Group encouraged to help each other 3.93 3.78 4.30

54. Supy listens to suggestions 3.22 3.35 3.40

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.20 4.15 4.80 Teamwort & Casumanication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.66 3.35 4.60

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.56 3.22 4.10

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.59 2.15 3.20

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 2.99 2.58 3.30

37. Receive support asked for 3.33 3.30 3.90

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.40 2.98 3.60

55. Group works as a team 3.63 3.65 4.60 58.oroup works effectively w/others 3.00 3.42 4.50 i

Consequences (Recognition)

11. R g loyees recognised for jobs 2.75 2.68 2.50

13. Recognition for effective support 2.70 2.74 2.50

47. Last time told about job performance 3.46 2.72 2.90

40. Zamediate recognition for good work 2.93 2.58 2.40

56. Informed about oo-workers good work 2.97 2.70 2.20 l

l 1

Consequences (Compensation) 25, person w/ salary control knows my work 3.1C 3.04 2.90

29. Dost qualified get promoted 2.72 3.02 2.70

42. Clear relationship promotion & 2.56 3.00 2.70 performance Contequenees (Corroction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 2.70 2.66 2.50

23. First help for poor performance 3.21 3.02 3.30

31. Supv clear in criticism 3.52 3.36 3.60

33. supy objective s constructive 3.22 3.00 3.60

49. S h rrassment & humiliation 3.38 3.17 4.00 ,

f Training s Development

4. supv checks skills for job 3.21 3.15 3.50

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work 3.10 4.06 3.70

10. Know exactly what to do 4.31 3.81 4.30

15. Training gives skills 2.04 3.19 3.20

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.46 4.15 4.60

41. Open discuss needs w/supv 3.49 3.17 3.50

50. Can get resources for job 3.26 3.43 3.60 Misoe11aneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.30 3.66 3.50

2. Make own plans for job 3.59 4.06 4.00

53. I work at efficient level 3.93 3.96 4.30

57. subordinates provide t* w1y input 3.27 3.21 3.40

81. I make suggestions fc ; provement 3.58 3.17 3.70

62. Proper consideratiort .'or concern 3.37 3.46 3.80 r

i l

l l

I l

l

4 i

i Table 7c: standardized means for survey items for Generation support i

i Items Maint ops usDD suppt supt temasurement S. ero w evaluates based on needs of others .03 .41 .20

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .09 .45 .13

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .28 .39 .12

26. Data used to taprove quality of work .12 .20 .02

30. Work tracked against schedule .06 .09 .19

30. Group reviewed performance data .00 .39 .33

43. We review graphs of performance .24 .17 .it

45. eraphs & charts are meaningful .21 .21 .25 '

9eeback

3. ereups I support tell me about my work .22 .50 .35

6. 1.ast talked w/ supv quality of work .06 .50 .43

14. Supy talked w/mm about work with others .34 .56 .23

17. sury specific about 3cb performance .20 .54 .39

10. Supy talks w/me about current job .25 .29 .29 +

20. Supy talks about 3cbs I control .18 .13 .37 3b. Egloyees coached to improve performance .12 .24 .24 ;

i Teamwork & Commuunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .20 .27 .29

28. My group encouraged for high performance .04 .19 .00

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .46 .34 .23

40. Employees involved is setting goals .31 .36 .20 l

Teamwork & Communication (Participation) .

9. Volunteer ideas .01 .16 .27

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .09 .14 .30

36. Co-workers work as effective team .49 .16 .21

44. Employees asked for input .03 .17 .17

46. Changes made after triput .26 .39 .05

51. Group encouraged to help each other .01 .21 .35 i 54, supv listens to suggestions .49 .36 .31 I

59. Comfortably go to supt w/ concerns -.11 .15 .46 Teamarork & Communication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .25 .59 .00 j

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .02 .21 .39 l

32. Meet with others to discuss services .01 .10 .53 1

34. 1.as" (.ime met face-to-face .00 .11 .34  !

37. Receive support asked for .30 .32 .32

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .24 .18 .43 l

55. Group works as a team .39 .37 .54

)

54 orcup works effectively w/others .07 .51 .73 consequences (hocognition)

11. Egloyees recognised for 3 abs .28 .35 .53

13. Recognition for effective support .18 .13 .38

47. Last tims told about 3cb performance .07 .60 .47

48. Isumediate recognition for good work - .00 .42 .58

56. Informed about co-workers good work .12 .36 .83 l

l

Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .02 .06 .17

29. Best qualified get promoted .14 .24 .16

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .17 .20 .05 Comeequences (Correction)

12. Pragt action for poor job .25 .30 .44

23. First help for poor performance .00 .16 .07

31. Supv clear in criticism .25 .43 .19

33. Supy objective & constnetive .25 .45 .00 49, Embarrassment & humiliation .25 .43 .63 Training & Development

4. Supv checks skills for job .42 .48 .14 S. Supy understands tech aspect of work .69 .18 .15

10. Know exactly what to do .12 .52 .11

15. Tre.ining gives skills .44 .12 .11

19. Know how to obtain information for job .11 .31 .30

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .15 .41 .14 l

50. Can get resources for job .52 .35 .16 1

i Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .24 .20 .01

2. Make own plans for job .00 .23 .15

53. I work at efficient level .18 .22 .22 l

57. Subordinates provide timely input .05 .10 .08

61. I make suggestions for improvement .41 .03 .54

62. Proper consideration for concern .17 .10 .20 l

)

l I

l l

Table 8a - Standardized and arithmetic merm for survey categories for Unit 1.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othis Recgn Com9 Coreta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Unit 1 - Mech Maint (n=36) .17 .13 .04 .18 .04 .15 .00 .14 .19 (3.34) (3.I1) (3.46) (3.85) (3.36) (3.27) (2.92) (3.59) (4.04)

Unit 1 - Elect. Maint (n=40) .32 .32 .25 .27 .03 .63 .06 .44 .48 (3.52) (3.65) (3.79) (3.95) (3.45) (3.82) -(2.99) (3.96) (4.35)

Unit 1 - I & C Maint (n=44) .25 .23 .45 .26 .17 .05 .44 .52 .-31 (2.83) (2.98) (2.97) (3.39) (3.19) (3.17) (2.39) (2.80) (3.51)

Unit 1 - Work Control (n=46) .08 .12 .08 .01 .22 .29 .02 .09 .17 (3.23) (3.11) (3.41) (3.67) (3.70) (2.79) (2.94) (3.32) (3.66)

Unit 1 - Ops (n=66) .00 .02 .05 .05 .05 .04 .12 .25 .17 (3.13) (3.28) (3.56) (3.71) (3.47) (3.06) (3.07) (3.12) (4.02)

Unit 1 - Other (3) .38 .49 .21 .18 .49 .32 .20 .20 .20 (3.58) (3.86) (3.75) (3.86) (4.04) (3.47) (3.16) (3.67) (4.05)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 88: Arithmetic means for survey items for Unit 1 Items Mech 81ect 26C work Unit other Maint Maint Maint Conte Ops 1

Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.39 3.51 2.95 3.65 2.95 3.33

7. Quality of any work objectively measured 3.11 3.55 3.02 3.28 3.27 3.67

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.06 3.46 2.72 3.00 3.58 3.33

26. Data used to improve quality of work 5.03 3.52 2.53 2.75 3.15 3.67

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.14 4.15 3.58 4.07 3.58 3.67

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.33 3.69 2.84 3.22 3.32 4.33

43. We review graphs of performance 3.11 3.30 2.45 2.80 2.79 4.00

45. Graphs a charts are meaningful 2.97 3.08 2.45 3.07 2.41 2.67 Feehack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.00 3.33 3.02 2.83 2.82 4.00

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.08 3.60 3.07 3.22 3.23 4.00

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.06 3.40 2.86 3.37 3.92 4.33

17. Supv specific abcrat job perfor1aance 3.11 3.67 2.93 2.89 3.35 3.33

18. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.19 3.87 3.02 3.17 3.55 4.00

20. Supy talks about jobs I control 3.25 4.03 3.20 3.39 3.58 3.67

35. 8sployees coached to improve performance 3.08 3.65 2.77 2.91 3.53 3.67 Teamerork & rhnication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.69 3.90 3.16 3.74 3.85 3.33

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.47 4.53 4.07 4.22 4.58 4.33

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.28 3.88 2.84 3.17 3.56 4.00

40. S q 1oyees involved is setting goals 2.39 3.85 1.82 2.50 2.26 3.00 l

l Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.92 3.45 3.73 3.67 3.64 3.33

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.58 3.25 3.50 3.52 3.45 3.33

36. Co-workers was is effective team 4.50 4.50 3.86 4.00 4.38 4.67

44. 8sployees asket vor input 3.42 3.88 2.55 3.15 2.86 3.67

46. Changes made aft.'s input 2.75 3.38 2.50 2.74 2.74 3.00

51. Group encouraged help each other 4.14 4.36 3.64 4.13 4.17 4.33

54. Supv listens to smsstirms 4.14 4.44 3.25 3.61 3.82 4.00

59. Comfortably go to r pv w/ concerns 4.67 4.85 3.93 4.50 4.73 4.67 Teamwork & Ccummunication (with other groups)

21. Sffective working w/other groups 3.75 4.15 3.75 3.78 4.02 4.00

27. Noet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.56 3.46 3.55 4.00 4.09 4.67

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.25 2.24 1.86 3,02 2.21 3.00

34. Last time met face-to-face 2.33 2.16 2.20 3.57 2.39 4.33

37. Receive support asked for 3.75 4.03 3.89 3.76 3.94 4.33

52. Ask support groups for suggestsons 3.83 3.16 2.81 3.52 2.77 3.33

55. Group works as a team 4.42 4.41 3.77 3.96 4.33 4.33 58.oroup works effectively w/others 3.94 4.03 3.68 3.98 4.02 4.33 l Consequenoes (Recognition)

11. Suployees recognised for jobs 3.28 3.78 3.02 2.72 2.86 3.33  !

13. Recognition for effective support 3.89 3.35 2.91 2.52 2.65 3.33 l

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.92 4.05 3.82 3.26 3.74 3.67

48. Ismediate recognition for good work 3.28 3.90 2.95 2.78 2.95 3.67

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.00 4.03 3.16 2.65 3.12 3.33

Consequences (c y rasation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 2.71 3.24 2.17 3.09 2.52 3.33

29. Dest gaalified get permoted 2.78 3.33 2.39 2.91 3.09 3.67

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.72 3.23 2.09 2.65 3.00 3.67 Consequences (Correction)

12. Proept action for poor job 2.78 3.39 2.61 2.76 3.17 3.00

23. First help for poor performance 3.31 3.74 2.64 3.30 2.83 3.00

31. Supv clear in criticism 3.58 4.13 3.27 3.67 3.79 4.00

33. Supy objective & constructive 3.53 4.16 3.00 3.43 3.56 4.00

49. Bebarrassment & humiliation 3.78 4.38 2.95 3.41 3.27 4.33 Training & Develosament

4. supy checks skills for job 4.17 4.53 3.52 3.50 4.06 3.67

8. Supe understands toch aspect of work 4.31 4.50 3.68 3.54 4.62 3.67

10. Know exactly what to do 4.11 4.35 4.11 4.13 4.08 4.33

15. Training gives skills 3.50 4.18 2.57 2.67 3.61 3.00

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.47 4.40 4.11 4.41 4.27 4.67

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.81 4.18 2.89 3.67 3.61 4.33

50. Can get resources for job 3.89 4.33 3.68 3.72 3.92 4.67 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.53 3.73 3.02 3.35 3.79 4.67

2. Make own plans for job 3.97 3.65 3.61 3.98 4.03 4.33

53. I work at efficient level 4.11 3.90 3.70 4.07 4.17 4.33

57. Bubordinates provide timely input 3.33 3.65 3.05 3.24 3.26 3.33

61. I make suggestions for igravement 2.97 3.08 3.07 3.33 2.98 3.33

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.31 3.89 3.23 3.46 3.82 3.67 4

Table SC: standardized means for survey items for Unit 1 Items Mech Elect 16C Work Unit other Maint Maint Maint Contrl Ops Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .09 .21 .33 .34 .33 .03

7. Quality of my work ab3ectively measured .14 .2s .23 .02 .01 .3e

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .11 .25 .41 .16 .35 .24

26. Data used to isprove quality of work .04 .52 .32 .30 .07 .57

30. Work tracked against schedule .49 .49 .05 .42 .01 .07

38. Group reviewed performance data .10 .34 .23 02 .09 .78

43. We review graphs of performance .27 .26 .24 .03 .02 .97

45. Graphs 6 charts are meaningful .15 .23 .26 .22 .30 .10 ;

Feeback

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .04 .29 .02 .21 .22 .96

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .10 .25 .11 .01 .00 .52

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .04 .20 .10 .18 .14 .87

17. supy specific about job performance .21 .26 .36 .40 .01 .03

15. Supv talks w/me about current job .25 .33 .40 .27 .05 .45

20. supy talks about jobs I control .23 .52 .27 .09 .09 .17

35. Employees coached to improve performance .04 .49 .33 .20 .38 .51 Teamwork & Comunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .04 .10 .61 .01 .13 .43

20. My group encouraged for high performance .32 .37 .11 .11 .43 .17

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .06 .50 .47 .16 .21 .62

40. Employees involved is setting goals .20 .00 .76 .20 .40 .48 i

Teamwork & F-nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .31 .25 .08 .02 .03 .40

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement .12 .24 .03 .06 .12 .15

36. Co-workers work as effective team .43 .43 .26 .11 .30 .61

44. Employees asked for input .22 .64 .50 .03 .29 .45

46. Changes made after input .10 .54 .36 .11 .11 .16

51. Group encouraged to help each other .17 .41 .36 .17 .20 .30

54. supy listens to suggestions .41 .70 .46 .10 .10 .25

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns .34 .50 .36 .18 .39 .34 Teamwork 6 P-nication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .14 .30 .14 .11 .15 .14

27. Meet face-to-face w/cupport groups .02 .05 .01 .32 .39 .75

32. Meet with others to discuss services .13 .14 .40 .41 .16 .39

34. 1.ast time amt face-to-face .27 .38 .35 .51 .23 .99

37. Deceive support asked for .16 .45 .30 .17 .36 .79

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .33 .00 .34 .36 .39 .17

55. Group works as a team .45 .44 .24 .04 .36 .36 SS. Group works effectively w/others .09 .10 .21 .13 .17 .55 1 i

i 1

I i

1 Consequences (mecognition)  !

11. Egloyees recognized for jes .24 .74 .01 .32 .17 .30 l

13. Rooognition for effective support .02 .50 .04 .36 .23 .48 ;

47. Last time told about job performance .27 .37 .20 .21 .14 .09 '

40. Immediate recognition for good work .24 .81 .06 .22 .06 .60

56. Informed about co-workers good work .09 .86 .06 .41 .02 .22 Consequences (Compensation) l

25. Derson w/ salary control knows my work .31 .08 .72 .03 .46 .15

29. Dest qualified get promoted .08 .43 .45 .04 .21 .74

42. Clear relationship promotion & perf. .03 .39 .56 .09 .20 .76 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job .19 .38 .34 .20 .17 .02

23. First help for poor performance .08 .44 .48 .08 .32 .18

31. supy clear in criticism .21 .32 .51 .12 .01 .20

33. supy objective & constructive .01 .57 .45 .07 .04 .43

49. sabarrassment & humiliation .10 .61 .62 .22 .34 .58 Training & Development

4. supv checks skills for job .51 .86 .12 .14 .41 .22

3. Supy understands toch aspect of work .40 .58 .16 .29 .69 .18

10. Know exactly what to do .13 .17 .13 .11 .18 .15

15. Training gives skills .16 .79 .*? .59 .26 .29

19. Know how to obtain information for job .33 .03 .a6 .05 .14 .40

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .10 .40 .64 .00 .06 .53

50. Can get resources for job .14 .60 .77 .04 .18 .95 i

Kiscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .04 .28 .56 .18 .35 1.40

2. Make own plans for job .11 .31 .35 .12 .19 .50

53. I work at efficient level .02 .29 .54 .08 .05 .26

57. subordinates provide timely input .12 .32 .26 .07 .05 .02

61. I make suggestions for improvement .26 .14 .15 .13 .24 .24 !

62. Proper consideration for concern .23 .28 .30 .10 .21 .08 i i

Table 9a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Unit 2.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Cortta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Unit 2 - Mech Maint (n=51) .07 .20 .18 .03 .19 .06 .23 .14 .06 (3.05) (3.02) (3.29) (3.63) (3.17) (3.04) (2.64) (3.27) (3.91)

Unit 2 - Elect. Maint (n=35) .26 .09 .14 .20 .04 .51 .17 .17 .23 (3.45) (3.37) (3.67) (3.87) (3.47) (3.68) (2.71) (3.63) (4.08)

Unit 2 - I & C Maint (n=5l) .25 .25 .38 .33 .14 .08 .40 .33 .29 (2.83) (2.96) (3.05) (3.30) (3.23) (3.02) (2.43) (3.03) (3.53)

Unit 2 - Work Control (n=62) .23 .02 .04 .05 .31 .10 .00 .09 .10 (3.41) (3.29) (3.55) (3.71) (3.80) (3.23) (2.92) (3.54) (3.73)

Unit 2 - Ops (n=47) .17 .17 .25 .20 .12 .20 .16 .34 .10 (2.93) (3.05) (3.21) (3.45) (3.26) (3.26) (2.73) (3.02) (3.95)

Unit 2 - Other (n=0) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

(-2.59) (-2.69) (-2.99) (-3.42) (-2.64) (-2.75) (-2.41) (-2.83) (-3.62)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 95: Arithmetic means for survey items for Unit 2 Items Hech Elect IEC Work Unit Maint Maint Maint Contrl Ops Weasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.02 3.68 2.06 3.56 2.85

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.20 3.51 3.21 3.45 2.89

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 2.94 3.39 2.86 3.08 3.02

26. Data used to improve quality of work 2.92 3.46 2.43 3.11 2.72

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.94 4.31 3.86 4.24 3.43

38. Group reviewed performance data 2.90 3.50 2.47 4.02 2.87

43. We review graphs of performance 2.59 2.81 2.35 3.63 2.43 45, eraphs & charts are meaningful 2.82 2.91 2.59 3.24 2.23 Fee &ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.12 3.19 2.88 3.18 2.53 6.1.ast talked w/ supv quality of work 2.73 3.25 3.39 3.56 3.09

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 2.65 2.97 2.71 3.56 2.72

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.14 3.44 2.86 3.37 3.11

18. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.34 3.62 3.04 3.66 3.34

20. Supy talks about jobs I control 3.33 3.65 3.11 3.56 3.36

35. Employees coached to improve performance 2.84 3.50 2.73 3.11 2.94 Teamwork & e-nication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.37 3.78 3.31 3.98 3.60

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.12 4.52 3.98 4.21 4.23

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.49 3.61 2.82 3.56 2.91 7

40. Employees involved is setting goals 2.20 2.75 2.10 2.45 2.11 Teamwork & Consuunication (Participation) '

9. Volunteer ideas 3.88 3.75 3.57 3.74 3.49

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.63 3.53 3.37 3.61 3.15

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.14 4.58 3.92 4.21 4.02

44. Egloyees asked for input 2.92 3.36 2.51 3.34 2.66

46. Changes made after input 2.67 3.14 2.20 2.90 2.60

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.08 4.23 3.53 3.89 3.77

54. Supy listens to suggestions 3.78 4.03 3.27 3.73 3.45

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns 4.10 4.53 4.06 4.31 4.43 7eamwork & r-nication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.69 4.08 3.86 4.11 3.83

27. heet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.33 3.31 3.49 4.24 3.72 4

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.02 2.42 2.06 2.97 2.13 1

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 2.18 2.43 2.41 3.21 2.24

37. Receive support asked for 3.65 4.06 3.80 3.95 3.91

32. Ask support groups for suggestions 2.71 2.91 2.69 3.74 2.49

55. Group works as a team 4.04 4.48 3.82 4.11 4.04 l 58.oroup works effectively w/others 3.67 4.03 3.71 4.09 3.74 l Consequences (Recognition)

11. Egloyees recognized for jobs 3.16 3.67 2.87 3.10 2.66

13. Recognition for effective support 2.65 3.34 2.69 2.84 2.36

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.55 3.89 3.57 4.02 3.47

48. Isumediate recognition f or good work 2.94 3.53 2.96 3.15 2.68

56. Informed about co-workers good work 2.90 4.00 3.10 3.03 2.66 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 2.50 2.89 2.38 3.10 2.30

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.49 3.06 2.41 2.82 2.98

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.27 2.83 2.10 2.48 2.87

Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 2.70 3.26 2.49 2.39 3.09

23. First help for poor performance 2.86 3.39 2.71 3.34 2.29

31. supy clear in criticism 3.84 3.94 3.37 3.82 3.49

33. Supe objective & constructive 3.55 3.72 3.28 3.53 3.09

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.29 3.06 3.27 4.13 3.17 I

Training & Development

4. Supv checks skills for job 3.80 4.17 3.59 3.35 4.00

5. Supy understands tech aspect of work 4.06 4.33 3.67 3.63 4.17

10. Know exactly what to do 4.39 4.19 4.41 4.23 4.06

15. Training gives skills 3.22 3.S6 2.12 2.82 3.53

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.49 4.31 4.12 4.42 4.30

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.53 3.71 3.18 3.74 3.43

50. Can get resources for job 3.86 4.00 3.64 3.92 4.13 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to taprove 3.25 3.61 3.14 3.56 3.50

2. Make own plans for job 3.74 3.31 3.84 4.00 3.09

53. I work at efficient level 3.90 4.11 3.72 4.39 3.94

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.24 3.70 3.02 3.54 3.09

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.23 3.20 3.04 3.47 2.94

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.53 3.62 2.92 3.47 3.70 l

Table DC: Standardized samans for survey items for Unit 2 Items Mech Elect 16C Work Unit Maint Maint Maint Contrl Ops Measurement

5. eroup evaluates based on needs of others .27 .37 .42 .26 .43

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .06 .24 .04 .18 .35

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 21 .19 .28 .09 .14

26. Data used to igrove quality of work .15 .67 .60 .04 .34

30. Work tracked against schedule .31 .63 .24 .57 .14

30. Group reviewed performance data .19 .21 .49 .56 .21

43. We review graphs of performance .14 .03 .32 .60 .27

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .03 .10 .16 .36 .44 Fooeack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .00 .26 .16 .14 .21

6. 1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .34 .03 .11 .22 .10

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .34 .10 .29 .32 .25

17. Supy specific about job performance .19 .07 .42 .01 .22 te. supe talks w/me about current job 12 .12 .38 .15 .15

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .15 .15 .36 .08 .12

35. Esployees coached to igrove perforance .26 .35 .37 .37 .15 Teasnrork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .39 .05 .45 .45 .14

20. My group encouraged for high performance .06 .38 .21 .21 .06

39. set challenging and realistic goals .14 .25 -.48 .21 .40

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .45 .00 .53 .24 .52 Teaanrork & e-nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .27 .10 .11 .10 .21

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .17 .06 .11 .26 .36

36. Co-workers work as effective team .04 .52 .20 .11 .09

44. sg loyees asked for input .24 .17 .62 .15 .48

46. Changes made after input .19 .30 .67 .06 .26

51. Group encouraged to help each other .11 .27 .48 .09 .22

54. supy listens to suggestions .67 .31 .43 .01 .26

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .20 .21 .24 .00 .11 Teamwork & hmication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .21 .23 .02 .26 .05

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .14 .15 03 .49 .13 l

32. Meet wfth others to discuss services .30 .12 .27 .37 .22 '

34. Last time met face-to-face .36 .21 .22 .28 .33 l

37. Receive support asked for .05 .49 .21 .37 .33 j

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .46 .25 .47 .58 .67 i

55. Group works as a team .04 .52 .19 .12 .05 l St.oroup works effectively w/others .23 .19 .19 .26 .14 ]

1 l

Consequences (Recognition)

11. Esployees recognised for jobs .12 .63 .25 .06 .37

13. Recognition for effective support .23 .49 .19 .03 .51

47. 1.ast time told about 3ab performance .00 .25 .01 .34 .06

40. Immediata rooognition for good work .00 .41 .06 .11 .32 SS. Informed about co-workers good work .18 .84 .00 .05 .40 Consequences (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .47 .10 .57 .57 .63

29. Dest qualified get promoted .35 .17 .42 .04 .10

42. clear relationship promotion & performance .40 .06 .55 .07 .09 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job .18 .25 .45 09 .09

23. First help for poor performance .29 .15 .42 .10 .78

31. supy clear in criticism .44 .04 .41 .02 .30

33. Supy objective & constructive .34 .19 .21 .02 .38

49. Esbarrassment & humiliation .32 .17 .34 .40 .43 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .16 .51 .05 .20 .35

9. Supv understands toch aspect of work .18 .43 .18 .21 .28

10. Know exactly what to do .23 .02 .25 .02 .20

15. Training gives skills .10 .50 -1.10 .45 .19

19. Anow how to obtain information for job .16 .10 .35 .06 .10

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .12 .03 .40 .05 .20

50. Can get resources for job .11 .26 .12 .17 .39 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .29 .14 .43 .00 .22

2. Make own plans for job .18 .10 .06 .15 .00

53. I work at efficient level .29 .02 .51 .33 .24

57. subordinates provide timely input .07 .37 .25 .22 .21

61. I make suggestions for improvement .33 -01 .10 .29 .30 C2. Proper consideration for concern .04 .04 .57 .09 .10 l

i

Table 10m - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Security.a Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coreta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1 I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Nuclear Security (n=16) .06 .04 .18 .01 .30 .32 .26 .14 .08 (3.20) (3.31) (3.71) (3.65) (3.79) (3.47) (3.23) (3.26) (3.75)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 20s: Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear security items Nuc see Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.35 '

7. Quality of my work ab3ectively measured 2.80

24. Data collected to anticipate problemas 2.90

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.00

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.65

30. Group reviewed performance data 2,10

43. We review graphs of performance 2.05

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.20 ya. m  ;

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.10

6. Last talked w/ supe quality of work 2.80

14. supy talked w/mm about work with others 2.45

17. Supv specific about $ch performance 3.20

15. sure talks w/me about current $cb 3.50

20. supy talks about jobs I control 3.25

35. Employees coached to improve performance 2.75 Teamwork & h inication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.65

20. My group encouraged for high performance 4.10

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.00

40. Employees involved is setting goals 2.50 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) ,

9. Volunteer admas 3.65  !

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.55 '

34. Co-workers work as effective team 3.60

44. Employees asked for irput 2.85

46. Changes made after input 2.50

51. Group encouraged to help each other 3.55

54. supv listens to suggestions 3.25

59. Comfortably go to supv w/concerne 4.00 Teamwork & P-nication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.60

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.40

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.55

34. Last time met face-to-face 2.80

37. Receive support asked for 2.75

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.35

55. Group works as a team 3.45 58.Oroup works effectively w/others 3.45 1

Consequences (Recognition)

11. asyloyees recognised for jobs 2.55 i

13. Recognition for effective support 2.55

47. Last time told about job performance 2.95

40. Immediate recognition for good work 2.40

54. Informed about co-workers good work 2.60 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.30

29. Best qualified get pramoted 2.55

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.50

I consequences (correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.00

23. First help for poor performance 3.05

31. Sg v clear in criticism 3.70

33. supy objective & constructive 3.10

49. Babarrasseant & humiliation 3.75 Training & Development

4. Supv checks skills for $cb 2.85

8. Supy understands toch aspect of work 3.30

10. Know exactly what to do 4.25

15. Training gives skills 3.05

19. Know how to obtain inforination for job 4.40

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.40

50. Can get resources for job 3.40 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to a g rove 3.50

2. Make own plans for job 3.00

53. I work at efficient level 3.95

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.00

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.20

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.55 t

l

Table 10C: standardised means for survey items for Nuclear Security items Nuc See Measurement

8. Group evaluates based on needs of others .35

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .05

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .62

26. Data used to taprove quality of work .05

30. Work tracked against schee le .14

38. Group reviewed performance data .17

43. We review graphs of performance .33

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .11 feeback

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .04

8. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .18

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .30

17. Supv specific about job performance .06  ;

St. Supy talks w/me about current job .09

20. Supy talks about 3cbs I control .23 I

35. Egloyees coached to igrove performance .06 Teamwork & Cosamunication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .30

20. My group encouraged for high performance .21 l

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .21 ,

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .62 i

l Teamerock & Communication (Participation) l

9. Volunteer ideas .11 j

22. Tell supy admas for improvement .31 '

35. Co-workers work as effective team .39 ]

44. Egloyees asked for input .15 1

46. Changes made after input .16 l

51. Group encouraged to help each other .04 j

54. Supv listens to suggestions .03 i

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .29 l Teamwork & C - nication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .21

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .45

32. Meet with others to discuss services .56

34. Last time met face-to-face .70

37. Roosive support asked for .22

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .39

55. Group works as a team .20 SS. Group works effectively w/others .20 1

i l

l

i Consequences (mecognitit3)

St. Employees recognised for jobs .09

13. Recognition for effect.1ve support .20

47. Last time told about 3ab performance .69 (S. Immediate recognition for good work .62 ,

56. Informed about co-workers good work .09 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .37

29. Best qualified get promoted .12

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .25 Consequences (correction)

12. Proept action for poor job .07

23. First help for poor performance .03

31. supv clear in criticism .17

33. Supy objective & constructive .29

49. Bebarrassment & humiliation .42 Trair.ing & Development

4. surv checks skills for job .32

8. Supv understands tech aspect of work .50

10. Know exactly what to do .21

15. Training gives skills .06

19. Know how to obtain information for job .11

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .04 S0. Can get resources for job .12 meceu-o

1. See opportunities to improve .26

2. Make own plans for job .01

33. I work at efficient level .16 l

57. Subordinates provide timely input .00  :

41. 1 make suggestions for improvement .19 j

$2. Proper consideration for concern .21 '

1 l

i

Table lla - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Tech Services.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othn Recgn Comp Coreta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.1 I 2.92 3.43 3.84 Chemistry (n=32) .04 .21 .35 .45 .18 .59 .26 .40 .22 (3.08) (3.01) (3.09) (3.18) (3.17) (2.45) (2.60) (2.94) (3.60)

Health Physics (n=62) .18 .16 .00 .02 .01 .12 .01 .07 .21 (3.35) (3.46) (3.50) (3.68) (3.40) (3.25) (2.91) (3.51) (4.06)

Met 13 (n=32) .36 .05 .22 .08 .27 .15 .25 .16 .15 (3.57) (3.20) (3.76) (3.74) (3.06) (2.94) (3.22) (3.62) (3.99)

Efiluent Waste Mgmt (n=14) .26 .35 .34 .22 .26 .29 .44 .11 .10 (3.44) (3.69) (3.89) (3.90) (3.75) (3.44) (3.45) (3.56) (3.95)

I S & H (n=7) .52 .34 .31 .28 .32 .I8 .89 .33 .28 (3.77) (3.67) (3.86) (3.96) (3.82) (3.31) (4.00) (3.83) (4.14)

Chem Ops (n=54) .23 .08 .09 .06 .02 .20 .22 .08 .07 (2.86) (3.16) (3.40) (3.73) (3.38) (2.88) (2.65) (3.34) (3.92)

Other Tech Serv (n=8) .71 .63 .78 .57 .46 .63 .93 .74 .29 (3.99) (4.02) (4.41) (4.27) (4.00) (3.83) (4.04) (4.33) (4.14)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 113: Arithmetic means for survey data for Tech Services items Chem alth Met Bfflu 1865 Chem other Phy 1.ab Waste Ops Serv Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 2.94 3.50 3.64 3.64 3.71 2.98 4.25

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 2.34 3.30 3.42 3.57 4.29 2.96 4.00

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.53 3.67 3.58 3.36 3.86 3.00 4.30

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.06 3.38 3.48 3.36 3.57 2.75 4.14

30. Work tracked against schaeale 3.34 3,13 3.36 3.36 2.86 2.84 3.00

30. Group reviewed performance data 3.06 3.14 3.55 3.79 3.86 3.00 3.00

43. We review graphs of performance 3.22 2.80 3.73 3.43 3.86 2.76 3.00

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.70 2.91 3.52 3.00 4.14 2.53 3.50 Fee &ack

3. Groupe 1 support tell me about my work 2.01 2.95 2.55 3.29 2.06 2.64 3.25

6. 1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work 3.06 3.69 3.24 4.23 4.00 3.18 4.13

14. Supv talked w/me about work with others 2.97 3.31 2.67 3.05 4.00 2.95 4.25

17. Supv specific about job performance 2.94 3.63 3.45 3.79 1.71 3.34 4.25

10. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.20 3.61 3.70 3.06 4.14 3.53 4.30

20. supe talks about jobs 1 control 3.22 3.91 3.48 3.71 3.57 3.49 4.13 I

35. Employees coached to improve performance 2.70 3.20 3.33 3.07 3.43 2.96 3.75 l l

Teamrork & r h nication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.44 3.94 3.85 4.00 4.14 3.67 4.63

28. My group encouraged for high performance 3.53 4.13 4.45 4.36 4.29 4.18 4.75

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 2.08 3.63 3. 3'9 3.57 3.86 3.13 4.38

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals 2.50 2.31 3.33 3.64 3.14 2.42 3.00 Teamwork & Casumunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.72 3.77 3.58 3.04 3.06 3.71 4.13

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.53 3.50 3.67 3.29 3.43 3.40 3.es

36. Co-workers work as effective team 2.91 4.17 4.15 4.64 4.29 4.27 4.38

44. Employees asked for input 2.94 3.17 3.52 3.43 3.57 3.02 4.25

46. Changes made after input 2.44 2.67 3.03 3.36 3.14 2.65 3.88

51. Group encouraged to help each other 2.58 3.90 3.79 4.22 4.43 4.16 4.50

54. Supv listens to suggestions 3.22 4.00 3.67 4.00 4.14 3.05 4.38

59. Comfortably go to supv w/rnneerns 3.84 4.50 4.48 4.50 5.00 4.53 4.88 Teamwork & Commmunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.38 4.31 4.06 3.93 4.00 3.76 4.63

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groupe 4.06 3.77 2.40 3.79 4.00 4.05 4.50

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.63 1.89 1.67 2.77 2.71 2.24 2.80 34, 1.ast time met face-to-face 2.66 2.22 2.03 3.62 3.57 2.46 3.50

37. Receive support asked for 3.34 3.67 3.61 3.06 3.71 3.56 3.00

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.03 3.13 2.97 3.43 3.71 2.80 3.75

55. Group works as a team 2.80 4.09 3.94 4.29 4.57 4.22 4.38 St.oroup works effectively w/others 3.41 4.11 3.82 4.29 4.29 3.96 4.50 I

l

Conseaguences (mecognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 2.41 3.20 2.05 3.21 3.00 2.00 3.75

13. Rooognition for effective support 2.38 2.99 2.76 3.21 2.71 2.44 3.50

47. Last time told about job performance 3.03 3.77 3.37 3.06 3.50 3.50 4.00

40. I w ate recognition for good work 2.30 3.02 2.73 3.57 3.43 2.56 3.75

56. Informed about co-workers good work 2.25 3.27 3.00 3.36 3.06 3.02 4.13 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 2.51 3.00 3.73 3.86 4.29 2.31 4.38

29. Best agualified get promoted 2.59 2.se 3.15 3.14 3.71 2.09 4.00

42. Clear zelationship promotion & 2.41 2.77 2.79 3.36 4.00 2.75 3.75 performanom Consequences (Correction)

12. Presyt action for poor 3cb 2.38 3.06 3.30 3.07 3.71 2.93 3.75

23. First help for poor performance 2.53 2.77 3.58 3.29 3.51 2.40 4.63

31. Supv clear in criticism 3.44 4.13 3.95 3.93 4.29 3.78 4.25

33. Supv objective & constructive 3.19 3.81 3.52 3.50 3.36 3.71 4.63

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.19 3.70 3.05 4.00 3.71 3.97 4.63 Training & Development i

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.47 3.es 3.97 3.64 4.14 3.93 4.13

8. Supv understands coch aspect of work 3.91 4.39 3.51 3.43 3.43 4.05 4.00

10. Know exactly what to do 3.69 4.30 4.33 4.50 4.14 4.05 4.30 <

15. Training gives skil.le 3.34 3.64 3.70 3.36 3.71 3.67 3.50

19. Know how to obtain ArWormation for job 4.00 4.47 4.53 4.43 4.43 4.34 4.38

41. Open siiscuss needs w/eupy 3.44 3.95 3.70 4.21 4.71 3.69 4.50

50. Can get resources for job 3.38 3.70 4.12 4.07 4.43 3.47 4.13 Niacellaneoua

1. See opportunities to improve 3.41 3.44 3.55 3.29 3.71 3.45 4.00

2. Make own plans for job 3.94 3.84 3.82 4.29 3.71 3.05 4.13

53. I work at efficient level 3.72 4.13 4.39 4.14 4.43 4.02 4.38

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.32 3.25 3.24 3.50 3.71 3.17 4.25

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.09 3.17 3.30 3.43 3.86 3.02 3.63

62. Fraper consideration for concern 3.22 3.35 3.79 3.79 4.14 3.55 4.25

Table lic: standardised means for survey items for Tech services Items Chen Nealt Met Efflu 1s&M Chen Physi Lab waste Ops haasurement

5. Group anraluates based on needs of others .44 .19 .33 .33 .40 .31

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .40 .04 .16 .30 .90 .28

24. Data collected to anticipate problei.sa .31 .44 .35 .16 .61 .16

26. Data used to improve quality of work .01 .29 .39 .27 .48 .31

30. Work tracked against schedule .21 .40 .19 .20 .63 .6h

38. Group reviewed performance data .08 .03 .24 .41 .46 .13

43. We review graphs of performance .35 .02 .75 .52 .05 .00

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .00 .09 .57 .17 1.07 .21 Feeeack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .23 .09 .49 .25 .18 .40 6.1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .12 .31 .01 .58 .52 .04  !

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .11 .14 .31 .52 .63 .12

17. Supy specific about job performance .36 .22 .00 .36 .30 .01

13. supy talks w/me about current job .10 .11 .18 .32 .57 .04

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .26 .31 .00 .22 .08 .00

35. Reployees coached to isprove perf. .32 .07 .20 .05 .28 .15 i i

l Teamwork & C-inication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals rer'.ect needs of others .32 .22 .13 .29 .44 .06

28. My group encouraged for high perf. .69 .05 .30 .19 .12 .01

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals

40. Esployees involved is setting goals .44 .27 .05 .22 .48 .20

.20 .35 .4s .73 .33 .10 Teamwork & Coussunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .07 .11 .10 .24 .24 .06

22. Tell supv ideas for i grovement .07 .03 .22 .21 .05 .or

36. Co-workers work as effective team -1.31 .07 .C5 .59 .20 .it

44. Ray 1oyees asked for input .22 .01 .31 .23 .36 .15

46. Changes made after input .42 .10 .19 .53 .31 .20

51. Group encouraged to help each other -1.17 .01 .20 .26 .48 .20

54. Supy listens to suggestions .49 .28 .05 .28 .42 .14

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .44 .18 .16 .3e .65 .20

I l

Teamwork & Comunanication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups

27. Itset face-to-face w/ support groups .56 .48 .20 .06 .14 .13

32. Meet with others to discuss services .37 .16 .78 .1s .32 .36 34.1.ast time met f ace-to-face .13 .39 .54 .23 .19 .14

37. Hooeive support asked for .06 .34 .45 .54 .51 .18

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .20 .07 .00 .27 .12 .04

55. Group works as a team .13 .04 .19 .26 .55 .36

58. Group works effectively w/others -1.20 .10 .06 .31 .61 .23

.53 .20 .05 .40 .40 .11 l.

Consequences (mecognition) i 11. Bayloyees .c. cognised for jobs .63 .25 .19 .18 .03 23 l 13. Recognition for effective support .51 .02 .12 .36 .76 .45

47. 1.ast time told about 3ab performance .30 .16 .13 .22 .02 .02

48. Immediate recognition for good work .60 .01 .25 .51 .38 .43

54. Informed about co-workers good work .78 .16 .09 .24 .70 .07 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .24 .04 .45 .55 .37 .51

29. Best qualified get promoted .26 .00 .26 .25 .70 .02

42. Clear relationship promotion & perf. .29 .01 .02 .50 1.04 .01 Consequences (correction)

12. Frampt action for poor job .56 .07 .29 .08 .67 .05

23. First help for poor performance .57 .37 .30 .06 .30 .68

31. supv clear in criticism .35 .32 .05 .13 .47 .02

37. Supy objective & constructive .29 .27 .00 .01 .31 .18

49. Embarrassment & humiliation .42 .10 .26 .29 .04 .18 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .17 .23 .32 .00 .49 .20

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work .04 .48 .23 .39 .39 .18

10. Know exactly what to do .67 .11 .15 .36 .09 .20

15. Training gives skille .02 .29 .35 .03 .36 .32

19. Enow how to obtain information for job .51 .13 .21 .07 .07 .02

41. Oper. discuss needs w/supv .19 .22 .02 .43 .54 .01 i

50. Can get resources for job .40 .02 .30 .33 .70 .09 l

Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .11 .07 .06 .25 .26 .05

2. Make own plans for job .07 .06 .09 .52 .22 .04

53. I work at efficient level .52 .00 .34 .02 .39 .14 i

57. Subordinates provide timely input .01 .06 .07 .it .39 .14

61. I make suggestions for improvement .12 .03 .31 .25 .72 .21

62. Proper consideration for concern .31 .19 .19 .19 .50 .02 A

Table 11C Continued l

Items ot.her i Serv Measurement S. Group ervaluates based on needs of others .92

7. Qua;ity of any work objectively measured .71

24. Data collected to anticipate probleme 1.07

26. Data used to improve quality of work 1.02 i

30. Work tracked against schedule .25

38. Group reviewed perh..maCm data .47

43. We review graphs of performanos .57 s

48. Graphs & charts are meaningful .56 [

Feehack

3. Groups 1 support tell me about my work .21 .

4. 1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .60

14. supy talked w/tte about work with others .51

17. Supy spectfio about 3ab performance .75 '

10. supy talks w/me about current job .77

20. Supy talks about 3 abs I control .61

35. Bay 1oyees coached to taprove performance .59 Teamwork & Ccommunication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect rue of others .96

28. My group encouraged for high performance .62

39. Set Challenging and esalistic goala .37 CO. Employees involved is setting goals .92 Tenanrork & Commuunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .56

22. Tell supy ideas for auprovement .4S

36. Co-workers work a. effective tsaa .29

44. R@loyees asked for input .98

46. Changes made after input 1.06 St. Group enc.Juraged to help each other .56

54. Supy listens to suggestions .64 '

59. Comforta8 ply go to supv w/ concerns .53 Teamwork & hinication (with other groups) ,

21. Effective working w/other groups .53

27. tenet face-to-face w/ support groups .67

32. Meet with othere to discuss services .30 -

34. Last time met face-to-face .47

37. Receive support asked for .29 S2. Ask support groups for suggestions .LJ ,

SS. Group works as a team .40 St. Group works effectively w/others .73 A

i

Consequences (Recognition)

11. Suployees recognised for jobs .71 '

13. Amoognition for effective support .45 47,1.ast time told about job performance .33 48.1sumediate recognition for good work .67

56. Inforand about co-workers good work .95 Consequences (Compensation) *

25. Person w/ salary control knows ery work .94 29, test qualified get promoted 1.05

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .33 Consequences (Correction)

12. Pra g t action for poor job .70

23. First help for poor performance 1.17

31. Supy clear in criticism .44

33. Supv objective & constructive .99

49. Bearrassment & humiliation .83 Training & Developanent c

4. supv checks skills for job .47 *

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work .13

10. Know exactly what to do .21

15. Training gives skills .18

19. Know how to obtain information for job .00

41. Open riscuss needs w/supy .67

50. Can get resources for job .39 i

Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .60 1

2. Make own plans for job .31 l

53. I work at efficient level .32 57, subordinates provide timely input .90

61. I make suggestions for improvement .46

62. Proper consideration for concern .59 l

I i

I

Table 12a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Other Nuclear.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coreta Trag OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Other Nucl Gen Mgmt (n=3) .03 .22 .14 .18 .52 .14 .98 .02 .24 (3.17) (3.52) (3.67) (3.86) (4.09) (3.26) (4.11) (3.40) (4.10)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 123: Arithmetic means for survey items for Other Nuclear i

Items other Mgt Measurement ,

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.33

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 2.67

24. Data oollected to anticipate problems 3.00

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.00

30. Work tracked against schectale 3.33

30. Group reviewed performance data 2.67

43. We review graphs of performance 4.00

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.33 Fee 6ack

3. eroups I support tell me about my work 3.33 5.1.ast talked w/ supy agua11ty of work 3.33

14. surv talked w/me about work with others 2.67

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.33

18. Supy talks w/me about current job 4.00

20. Supy talks about 3cbs I control 4.33

35. Egloyees coached to improve performance 3.67 Teamwork & Comnication (Goal setting)

14. Group's goals reflect needs of others 4.00

20. My group encouraged for high per%1mance 4.67

39. set Osallenging and realistic goa14 3.00

40. Employees involved is setting goals 3.00  ;

l Teamwork & e- tication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 4.00

22. Tell supv idea = for improvement 3.67

36. Co-workers work as effective team 3.33 1

44. Bayloyees asked for input 3.67

46. Changes endo after input 3.33

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.00

54. Svpv listens to suggestions 4.00

59. Comfortably go to supv w/concerne 5.00 1

Teamwork & e-nacation (with other groups) 1

21. k_fective working w/other groups 4.00 I

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 4.67 l

32. Meet with others to discuss services 4.33  ;

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 4.67 l

37. Receive support asked for 4.00

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3. 6 */  !

55. Group works as a team 3.67  !

SS. Group works effectively w/others 3.67  !

l i

l l

l l

l l

Conseguences (Ascognition)

11. amployees recognised for jobs 3.33

13. Asoognition for effective support 3.33

47. I.ast time told about job performanoe 3.33

48. Zoondiate recognition for good work 3.33

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.00 Consequences (Cougsensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 4.33

29. Dest qualified get promoted 4.00

42. Clear relationship promotion & 4.00 performance Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.00

23. First help for poor performance 3.67

31. surv clear in criticism 4.0

33. supy objectivo a constructive 3.67

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 2.67 Training & Development

4. Supy chechs skills for job 3.67

8. Supv understands tech aspect of work 4.33

10. Know exactly wl.at to do 4.00

15. Training gives skills 3.00

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.67

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.96 SO. Can get resources for job 4.00 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to ig rove 4.00 ]

2. Make own plans for job 4.00

53. I work at efficient level 3.57 I

57. subordinates provide timely input 4.00 j

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.33 j

62. Proper consideration for concern 4.33

b Taule 12C: Standardised means for survey items for Other Nuclear Mgt Items Other Mgt <

Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .03

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .56

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .16

26. Data used to agreve quality of work .07

30. Work tracked against schedule .22

38. Group reviewed performance data .35 t

43. We review graphs of performance .97

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .43 ,

Fee hack

3. Groups I support tall me about my work .30

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .07

14. surv talked w/me about work with others

.32 9.7. sury specific about 3ab performance .03

10. Supy talks w/se about current job .45

20. supy talks about jobs I control 82

35. Reployees coached to imprcwe performance .51 Teamwork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .29

28. My group encouraged for high performance .53

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .32 *

40. Empicyees involved is setting goals .21 Teasswork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .41

22. Tell supy idear for i g rovement .22

36. Co-workers work as effective team .04

44. S q 1oyees asked for i gut .45

46. Changes made after input .50

51. Group encouraged to help each other .03

54. supy listens to suggestions .28 l

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .65 Teasswork & h inication (With other groups) I

21. Effective working w/other groups .14

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .78  ;

32. Meet with others to discuss services 1 33

34. Last time met face-to-face 1.20

37. haceive support asked for .43

52. Ask sugort groups for suggestions .50

55. Group works as a team .35 St.oroup works effectively w/others .23 i

l 1

k I

consespnences (mecognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs .30

13. Amoognition for effective support .48  !

47. Last time told about job performance .16 Co. Insmediate recognition for good work .29 ,

54. Informed about co-workers good work .09 Conseapnenoes (Cop ensation) '

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .91 l

29. Dest spia11 tied get promoted 1.05 i

42. Clear relationship promotion & perf. 1,04 l Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor 3ab .02

23. First help for poor performance .38

31. Supv clear in criticism .20 33, supy objective & constructive .14

49. Bearrassment & humiliation .87 Training a Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .02

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work .43

10. Know enactly what to do .27

15. Trainimit gives skills .29

19. Know ho ' to obtain information for job .40

41. Open 41, cuss needs w/supy 1.07 r

50. Can get resources for job .25 t

Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to a p rove .50

2. Make own plans for job .15

53. I work at efficient level .59

57. subordinatas provide timely input .56

61. I make suggestions for improvement .14

62. Prger consideration for concern .67 i

I i

?

I l

Table 13a - Standsdized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Assurance."

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corctn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Quality Control (n=30) .05 .32 .24 .25 .04 .10 .13 .15 .15 (3.20) (3.64) (3.79) (3.93) (3.46) (2.99) (3.08) (3.61) (4.00)

Quality Assurance (n=26) .28 .13 .02 .11 .I1 .14 .28 .05 .11 (2.79) (3.10) (3.53) (3.78) (3.27) (3.26) (3.26) (3.50) (3.72)

Other Nucl Assurara, s=15) .11 .07 .41 .47 .37 .29 .65 .31 .15 (3.27) (3.35) (3.99) (4.16) (3.88) (3.43) (3.71) (3.80) (4.00)

• Standard scores hvr an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

i Table 135: Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Assurance Stems Qual Qual other contrl Assur i l

teessurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.42 3.07 3.07

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.39 3.07 3.07

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.13 3.59 3.59 i

26. Data used to taprove quality of work 3.13 2.96 2.96 I

30. Work tracked against schedule- 3.26 3.26 3.26 l

30. Grow reviewed performance data 3.30 2.48 2.40 1

43. We review graphs of performance 4.00 1.93 1.93 l

45. Oraphs & charts are meaningful 3.00 1.92 1.92 Feestanck

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3,06 3.00 3.00

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of werk 3.55 3.04 3.04 ]

14. supy talked w/me about work wit.n others 3.71 2.99 2.09 '

17. supy specific about job performance 3.54 3.5 3.14 ,

10. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.55 3.12 3.12 l

20. Supy talks about jobs I control 2.f3 3.30 3.30 ]

35, amployees coached to taprove performance 3.16 2.93 2.93

)

l Teamwork & Communication (Goal setting)  !

16. Group's goals raflect needs of others 5.48 3.33 3.33

20. My group encouraged for higt performance 4.23 4.11 4.1

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.53 3.15 3.15 l

40. Egloyees involved is setting gnals 3.90 3.52 3.52 Teamwork & Caummnication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.71 3.79 3.70

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.94 3.78 3.78

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.13 3.81 3.81

44. Egloyees asked for input 3.55 3.44 3.44

46. Changes made after input 3.16 3.00 3.00

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.20 3.85 3.85

54. Supy listens to suggestions 4.00 3.74 3.74

59. Comfortably go to supy w/concerne 4.80 4.81 4.81 Teamwork & h inication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.13 3.48 3.48

27. Benet f ace-to-face w/ support groups 3.73 3.19 3.19

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.06 2.41 2.41

34. Last time met face-to-face 2.65 3.04 3.04

37. seceive support asked for 3.58 3.52 3.52

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.33 3.30 3.30

55. Group works as a team 4.10 3.74 3.74 58.Oroup works effectively w/others 4.07 3.52 3.52 1

I

Consequences (Recognition)

11. Raployees recognised for jobs 2.94 3.22 3.56

13. Deoognition for effective support 2.81 3.19 3.31 47.1.ast time told about job performance 3.42 3.33 3.56

48. Zwinte recognition for good work 2.94 3.25 3.44 56 Inforund about co-workers good work 2.87 3.33 3.31 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.39 3.70 4.25

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.90 3.07 3.44

42. Clear relationship promotion s 2.94 3.00 3.44 performance Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 2.81 2.60 2.69

23. First help for poor performance 3.50 3.30 3.88 31, supv clear in criticism 3.97 3.14 3.94

33. Supy objective & constructive 3.87 3.63 4.00

49. 8mbarrassment & humiliation 3.84 4.22 4.50 Training & Development

4. supv checks skills for job 3.90 3.41 3.56

8. Supv understands toch aspect of work 3.97 3.85 4.19

10. Know exactly what to do 4.13 3.78 4.25

15. Training gives skills 3.26 2.89 2.94

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.42 4.37 4.56

41. Open discuss r e w/supy 4.35 3.96 4.31

50. Can get resources for job 3.94 3.78 4.19 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.65 3.63 3.94

2. Make own plans for 3ab 3.84 3.81 4.13

53. I work at efficient level 4.23 4.04 4.00 57, subordinates provide, timely input 3.22 3.19 3.67

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.67 3.48 3.69

62. Proper considsration for concern 3.83 4.19 4.32 i

Table 13C: Standardised means for survey items for Nuclear Assurance Items Qual Qual other contri Assur senasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .22 .22 .07

7. Quality of my work ejectively measured .22 .18 .31

24. Da ta collected to anticipate problems .04 .37 .62

26. Data used to taprove quality of work .05 .11 .23

30. Work tracked against schedule 28 .20 .18

30. Group reviewed performance data .08 .48 .34

43. We review graphs of performance .13 .66 .40

45. Graphs & oharts are meaningful .17 .60 .32 hok

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .03 .04 .02 i

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .21 .13 .07

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .42 .16 .32

17. Supy specific about job performance .40 .18 .10 it. Supy talks w/me about current job .06 .32 .07

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .12 .18 .07

35. Egloyees coached to improve performance .03 .19 .18 Teasswork & Ccammunication (ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .27 .43 .29

20. My group encouraged for high performance .05 .07 .25

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .10 .18 .03

40. Employees involved is setting goals .95 .63 1.23 Teasswork & F-nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .06 .24 .34

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .41 .34 .31

36. Co-workers work as effective team .03 .32 .29

44. Bay 1oyees asked for input .43 .24 .87

46. Changes made after input .32 .16 .40

51. Group encouraged to help each other .24 .13 .69

54. Supv listens to suggestions .28 .02 .89

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns .46 .48 .65 I

Teamwork & Commuunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .28 .44 .07

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .14 .24 .32 32, heet with others to discuss services .26 .02 .45

34. Last time met face-to-face .07 .19 .54

37. Receive support asked for .03 .09 .16

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .17 .13 .65

55. Group works as a team .11 .27 .34 St.Oroup works effectively w/others .23 .40 .44 ,

Consequences (Decognition)

11. asyloyees recognized for jobs .10 .19 .53

13. Decognition for effective support .07 .33 .46

47. Last time told about job performance .09 .16 .01

40. Zussediate recognition inr good work .08 .22 .38

56. Informed about co-workers good work .21 .22 .20

Conseaguances (Co g ensation)

35. Person w/ salary control knows my work .19 .43 .e4

29. Best agualified get promoted .03 .19 .53

42. clear relationship promotion & performance .15 .20 .57 Consesguences (correction)

[ 12. Prompt action for poor job .16 .36 .27 l

23. First help for poor performance .31 .07 .55

31. supe clear in criticism .16 .06 .14

33. supy ejective & constructive .32 .11 .43

49. Bearrassment & humiliation .15 .48 .72 l

l Training & Development l

4. Supy checks skills for job .25 .23 .00

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work .10 .01 .30

10. Enow exactly what to do .11 .55 .05

15. Training gives skills .06 .39 .35

19. Know how to e tain information for job .06 .01 .25

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .55 .23 .51

50. Can get resources for job .19 .02 .45 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .18 .16 .53

2. Make own plans for job .06 .09 .31

53. I work at efficient level .14 .11 .16

57. Subordinates provide timsly input .09 .12 .34

61. I make suggestions for improvement .51 .30 .53

62. Proper consideration for concern .23 .54 .65 l

l l

l I

l 1

Table Ida - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Licensing.a Group Mess Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coretn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Nuclear Licensing (n=39) .07 .02 .09 .00 .02 .05 .09 .10 .09 (3.05) (3.28) (3.61) (3.66) (3.39) (3.17) (3.03) (3.55) (3.74)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table les: Arithmetic anans for survey items for Nuclear Licensing Items Muc ,

Licens i

temasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 2.93

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.00

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.10

26. Data used to improve quality of work 2.90

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.00

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.20 '

43. We review graphs of performance 2.82

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.67 t

toeback ,

3. Groups ! support tell me about my work 3.08 i S. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.07

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 2.98 P,7. Supy specific about $ 4 performanos 3.33

10. supy talks w/me about current job 3.72

20. Supy talks about $ abs ! control 3.59

35. amployees ooached to Leprove performance 3.10 Teamwork & Communication (Goal setting)

18. Group's goals reflect needs of others 2.78 )

St. My group encouraged for high performance 4.28 i

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.30 )

40, amployees involved is setting goals 3.08 ,

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.73

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.45

36. Co-workers work as effective team 3.85

44. Esployees asked for input 3.50

46. Changes made after input 3.13

51. Group encouraged to help each other 3.85 54, surv listens to suggestions 3.05

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.30 teamwork & Commmunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.65

27. Benet f ace-to-face w/ support groups 3.38

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.59 i

34. Last time met f ace-to-f ace 2.95 )

37. Deceive support asked for 3.58  !

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.13

55. Group works as a team 3.74 SS.Oroup works effectively w/others 3.77

i E

! onseaguences C (msoognition)

11. Egloyees recognised for jobs 3.13

13. Recognition for effective support 3.00 i

47. Last time told about 3cb performance 3.44

48. Ismediate recognition for good work 3.05 i Ei '.nforand about co-workers good work 3.23 t

Conseaguences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.25

29. most egualified get promoted 3.03

42. Clear relationship promotion & 2.82 performance .

Consesguenoes (correction)

12. Proept action for poor job 2.70

23. First help for poor perfomance 3.56

31. Supy clear in criticism 3.60

33. Supy objective s constructive 3.68 '

49. tabarrassment & humiliation 4.13 i

Training & Development '

4. supy cheeks skills for 3ab 3.35

8. supt understands toch aspect of work 3.90 l

80. Know exactly what to do 3.90 1

15. Training gives skills 3.23

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.43

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.64

50. Can get resources for 3cb 3.75 Miscellaneous  !

1. See opportunities to improve 3.48 *

2. Make own plans for job 4.05 53 I work at efficient level 4.08

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.75

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.18

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.95 ,

I r

t b

Table 14c: standardised means for survey items for Nuclear Licensing Items Muc Lie temasurement S. ereup evaluates based on needs of others .36

7. Quality of my work ab;octavely measured .18

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 00

26. Data used to imprwe quality of work .17

30. Work tracked against schedule .19

38. ereup avviewed performance data .01

43. We review graphs of performance .12 ,

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .10 l Feestpack

3. eroups I support tell me about my work .04

6. 3.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .11

14. supe talked w/me about work with others .10

17. Sy v specific about job perforeance .03 l

18. Supy talks w/me about current job .20

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .30

35. agloyees coached to igreve performance .05 l

Teamwork & Communication (ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .0S i

29. My group encouraged for high performance .11 I

39. set challenging and realistic goals .04

40. Bay 1oyees involved is setting goals .27 l l

l Teassrock & communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .00 l

22. Tell surv ideas for improvement .02

36. Co-workers work as effective team 28 l

44. Bayloyees asked for imput .31

46. Changes made after input .29 St. Group encouraged to help each other .13

54. surv listens to suggestions .23

59. Comfortably go to supt w/ concerns .01 Teamwork & -mication (Math other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .25

27. tenet face-to-face w/ support groups .03 i

32. tenet with others to siiscuss services .10 I

34. Last time met face-te-face .14

37. Receive support asked for .08 S2. Ask support groups for suggestions .04 SS. Group works as a team .27 SS.Oroup works effectively w/others .11

r-l Consequences (amoognition)

11. Esployees recognised for jobs .09

13. Ascognition for effective support .14

47. 2.ast ties told about job performance .08

48. 1susadiate recognition for good work .03

54. Infocused about co-workers good work 13 Consequences (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .09

29. seat qualified get promoted .15

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .05 Consequences (correction)

12. Proept action for poor job .19

23. First help for poor performance .29

31. Supy clear in criticism .19

33. Supy objective & constructive .15

49. Rebarrassment s humiliation .40 Training & Development

4. Supv checks skills for job .29

9. supy understands tech aspect of work .04

10. Know exactly what to do .40

15. Training gives skills .09

19. Know how to e tain infor1mation for job .07

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .03

50. Can get resources for job .01 Miscellaneous

1. see opportunities to improve .02

2. Make own plans for job .21

53. I work at efficient level .07

57. subordinates provide timely irput .42

61. I make suggestions for improvement .03

52. Proper consideration for concern .33

Tahic 15a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Systems Engineering.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Partic W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corttn Trng P 1 OVER ALL(N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Sys Eng - Mech Fluid Systems .04 .00 .02 .01 .08 .16 .23 .04 .15 (n=32) (3.08) (3.26) (3.47) (3.64) (3.31) (3.29) (3.20) (3.47) (3.68)

Sys Eng - Elect /I&C (n=24) .26 .32 .32 .08 .05 .20 .12 .13 .42 (2.82) (2.87) (3.12) (3.57) (3.34) (2.88) (3.07) (3.28) (3.39)

Sys Eng - Reliablity Eng (n=24) .28 .05 .10 .00 .06 .11 .26 .04 .11 (3.47) (3.20) (3.38) (3.66) (3.34) (3.23) (3.24) (3.38) (3.72)

Other Sys Eng (n=12) .14 .12 .14 .09 .24 .39 .34 .18 .16 (2.96) (3.41) (3.67) (3.75) (3.72) (3.55) (3.33) (3.65) (4.01)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 158: Arithmetic means for survey items for Design Engineering Items Mech Elect Design other Civil 1&C suppt Neasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 2.85 3.00 3.16 3.33

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.18 2.88 3.16 3.67

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.34 3.40 3.88 2.33

26. Data used to isprove quality of work 2.75 2.67 3.21 2.67

30. Work tracked against senedule 3.52 3.64 3.36 3.75

30. Group reviewed performance data 3.34 2.17 3.60 3.00

43. We review graphs of performance 2.94 2.48 3.28 2.25

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.73 2.28 3.08 2.67 Fee &ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 2.73 2.84 2.72 3.25

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.09 2.48 3.32 3.50

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.39 2.56 3.79 3.33

17. supv specific about job performance 3.27 3.08 3.08 3.67

18. supy talks w/me about current job 3.75 3.29 3.29 3.67

20. supy talks about jobs I control 3.42 3.28 3.00 3.50

35. Reployees coached to isprove performance 3.16 2.56 3.21 3.25 Teamwork & e - nication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect naada of others 3.88 3.28 3.76 4.08

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.53 4.00 3.88 4.42

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.15 2.84 3.20 3.50

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals 2.33 2.36 2.68 2.67 Teamwork & C - nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.73 3.56 3,40 3.25

22. Tell supv ideas for agrovement 3.45 3.40 3.32 3.50

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.09 3.92 4.08 4.67

44. Egloyees asked for input 2.79 2.60 3.32 2.92

46. Changes made after input 2.70 2.64 3.00 3.08

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.06 3.48 4.12 4.33

54. Supv listens to suggestions 3.97 3.68 3.52 3.50

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.10 4.44 4.36 4.83 Teamwork & Communication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.94 3.80 3.76 4.42

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.82 3.40 3.38 4.50

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.09 2.56 2.00 2.75

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face 2.61 2.88 3.25 3.42

37. Receive support asked for 3.15 3.44 3.44 3.58

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 2.88 3.20 3.04 3.17

55. Group works as a team 4.03 3.48 3.88 4.33 58.Oroup works effectively w/others 3.94 3.96 3.96 4.58

e t

f Consequences (hooognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 3.06 2.00 2.96 3.50

13. Rooognition for effective support 2.97 2.64 2.80 3.16

47. Last time told about job perfomance 3.55 3.16 3.92 3.83

48. Imamediate recognition for good work 3.21 2.54 3,16 3.50

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.36 2.80 3.24 3.75 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Derson w/ salary control knows my work 3.44 3.20 3.36 3.03 i

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.27 3.12 3.12 3.08

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.85 2.98 3.04 3.08 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 2.91 2.72 3.04 3.25

23. First help for poor performance 3.25 2.84 3.25 3.75

31. Supy clear in criticism 3.76 3.72 3.21 3.03

33. Supy objective & constructive 3.91 3.28 3.79 3.03

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.55 3.83 3.60 3.58 i

Training & Develpt i

4. supy checks skills for job 3.40 3.20 3.40 3.75

8. Supt understands tech aspect of work 4.58 4.00 3.96 4.17 ,

10. Know exactly what to do 3.67 3.72 4.00 4.42 >

15. Training gives skills 2.64 2.20 3.44 2.33 i 19.

41.

Know how to obtain information for job Open discuss needs w/supy 4.15 4.00 4.16 4.67 (

3.97 3.40 3.00 4.00  ;

50. Can get resources for job 3.65 3.00 3.29 4.17 t

Niscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.82 3.64 3.54 3.75

2. Make own plans for job 3.97 4.12 3.30 3.58

53. I work at efficient level 3.85 3.72 3.92 4.33

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.27 3.26 3.22 3.17 61,1 make suggestions for taprovement 3.18 3.12 3.16 3.25

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.97 3.42 3.52 3.08 i

4

I l

1 i

Table 15C: Standartu sed means for survey items for systems Engineering Items Hech Elect Reliab Other ,

sys 16C Engr Engr '

Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .43 .29 .13 .03

7. Quality of my work objectively esasured .07 .36 .10 .39

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .15 .20 .63 .75

26. Data used to improve quality of work .31 .39 .16 .39 30, Work tracked against schedule .06 .05 .20 .14 38, Group reviewed performance data .11 .69 .29 .13 [

43. We review graphs of performance .14 .22 .40 .40

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .05 .40 .23 .10 j Fee @ack

3. Groups I suport tell as about my work .31 .20 .32 .21

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .10 .51 .06 .28

14. Supe talked w/s.a about work with others .20 40 .48 .15

17. Supv specific about job performance .00 .24 .24 .26

13. supy talks w/me about current job .23 a.17 17 .16

20. Supy talks about jobs 1 control .06 .20 .47 .01

35. Reployees coached to improve performance .03 .53 .08 .22 Teamswork & Coseuunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others ,16 .49 .03 .38

28. My group encouraged for high performance .38 .19 .32 .26 I

39. Set challenging and realistic goals .18 .47 .13 .15 I

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .34 .31 05 .06 )

l Teamwork & Comssunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .05 .12 .31 .50

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .02 .00 .17 .03

36. Co-workers work as effective teae .02 .20 .03 .61

44. Egloyees asked for input .36 .46 .33 .24

46. Changes made aster input .15 .21 .26 .24

51. Group encouraged to help each other .09 .53 .25 .38

54. Supv listans to suggestions .25 .04 .19 .21

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .36 .12 .05 .49 l

Teamwork & Casamunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .07 .09 .13 .60

27. Meet f ace-to-face w/ support groups .20 09 .11 .67

32. Meet with others to discuss services .25 .08 .31 .22

34. Last time est face-to-face .09 .08 .31 .41

37. Receive support asked for .49 19 .10 .02

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .28 .04 .12 .00

55. Group works as a team .03 .55 .13 .36 ,

SS.orcup works effectively w/others .00 .11 .11 .82 l I

1 i

l l

consequences (Ascognition)

11. Asg>1oyees rooognised for jobs .03 .15 .07 .46

13. Recognition for effective support 10 .24 .01 .31

47. Last time told about job performance .22 .28 .27 .21

48. Isumediate recognition for good work .17 .17 .33 .44

86. Inforund about co-workers good work .25 .20 .13 .60 Consequences (Compenoation)

28. Person w/ salary control Itnows my work .23 .05 .17 .53

29. Seat qualified get promoted .37 .23 .42 .20

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .10 .10 .23 .27 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 07 .24 .05 .24

23. First help for poor performance .03 .31 .03 .45

31. Supy clear in criticism .04 .00 .57 .03

33. Supv objective & constructive .35 .21 .25 .29

49. Rabarrassment & humiliation .11 .14 .06 .07 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .24 .43 .24 .10

5. Supv understands toch aspect of work .55 .13 .09 .20

10. Know exactly what to do .70 .63 .27 .26

18. Training gives skills .62 .95 .11 .44

19. Know how to obtain information for job .31 .40 .29 .40

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .24 .22 .10 .33 S0. Can get resources for job .38 .10 .49 .43 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .39 .17 .41 .31

2. Make own plans for job .11 .30 .11 .39

53. I work at efficient level .35 .52 .26 .28

57. subordinates provide timely input 05 .05 .09 .14

61. I make suggestions for improvement .03 09 .05 .05

62. Proper consideration for concern .35 .14 .04 .43

Table 16a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Design Engineering.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coretn Trng OVER ALL(N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.I1 2.92 3.43 3.84 Design Eng - Mech / Civil (n=28) .15 .02 .03 .08 .11 .03 .10 .03 .II (3.31) (3.28) (3.53) (3.75) (3.55) (3.08) (3.05) (3.46) (3.72)

Design Eng - Elect /I&C (n=22) .29 .15 .38 .13 .24 .20 .36 .28 .16 (2.78) (3.07) (3.06) (3.52) (3.10) (2.88) (2.48) (3.09) (3.67)

Design Eng-Design Support (n=21) .08 .03 .07 .18 .17 .09 .13 .34 .05 (3.23) (3.23) (3.59) (3.86) (3.63) (3.01) (3.08) (3.84) (3.79)

Other Design Eng (n=12) .03 .11 .09 .08 .14 .23 .07 .18 .03 (3.09) (3.13) (3.40 (3.75) (3.23) (2.85) (3.00) (3.22) (3.81)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 163: Arithmetic means for survey items for Systems Engineering Items Hoch Riec.t Design Other Sys IEC Supet Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.10 2.95 3.15 3.25

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.21 2.91 3.42 2.92

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.00 2.41 3.31 2.42

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.21 2.64 2.85 2.75

30. Work tracked against scheele 4.19 3.58 3.25 3.33

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.25 2.40 3,40 4.00

43. We review graphs of performance 3.39 2.54 3.45 3.33

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.07 2.55 3.10 2.75 Fee eack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.04 2.77 3.20 2.58

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 2.89 2.77 3.16 2.92

14. Supv talked w/me about work with others 3.18 2.55 2.70 3.25

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.21 3.14 3.47 2.75

10. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.32 3.64 3.53 3.42

20. supy talks about jobs I control 3.15 3.36 3.56 3.56

35. Employees coached to improve performance 2.96 2.77 3.20 3.17 l

Teassrork & Commmunication (Ooal setting) 4

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.70 3.13 3.65 3.67 l

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.18 3.82 4.50 4.25 1

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.43 3.00 3.30 2.92

40. Employees involved is setting goals 2.52 2.23 2.90 2.75 Teamwork & e - nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.61 3.73 3.85 3.53

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.39 3.36 3.60 3.67

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.14 3.82 4.50 3.42

44. Employees asked for input 3.61 2.95 3.35 3.67

46. Changes made after 1rput 2.93 2.41 2.95 3.00

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.04 3.77 4.05 3.83

54. supv listens to suggestions 3.79 3.77 3.90 3.92

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.54 4.59 4.70 4.75 Teamwork & e-nication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.89 3.59 3.95 3.75

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.78 3.00 4.00 3.67

32. Nest with others to discuss services 2.78 1.86 2.37 2.33

34. Last time met face-to-face 3.25 2.45 2.45 2.33

37. Amoeive support asked for 3.79 3.27 4.10 3.17

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 2.93 3.09 3.20 2.92

55. Group works as a team 3.93 3.59 4.50 3.58 St. Group works effectively w/others 4.07 3.95 4.25 3.58 l

l

Consequences (amoognition)

11. Sg1oyees recognised for jobs 2,96 2.55 2.95 2.92

13. Recognition for effective support 2.82 2.64 2.89 3.00 47,1.ast time told about job perforiaanos 3.36 3.45 3.35 3.17

40. Immediate recognition for good work 3.18 2.77 2.95 2.58

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.18 3.00 2.90 2.58 Consequences (Cogensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.32 2.68 3.45 3.00

29. Dest qualified get promoted 3.00 2.50 3.05 3.08

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.82 2.27 2.74 2.92 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.00 2.68 2.95 2.42

23. First help for poor performance 3.50 3.58 3.90 3.25

31. supy clear in criticism 3.68 3.50 4.26 3.25

33. Supv objective & constructive 3.35 3.10 3.90 3.58

49. Babarrassment & humiliation 3.71 3.14 4.20 3.58 Training & Development

4. Supv checks skills for job 3.57 3.77 3.50 3.42

8. Supv understands tech aspect of work 3.68 4.00 4.00 3.83

10. Know exactly what to do 3.93 4.27 4.50 4.33

15. Training gives skills 3.21 2.50 2.40 2.75

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.21 4.32 4.60 4.67

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.82 3.32 3.55 3.67

50. Can get resources for job 3.61 3.50 3.65 4.00 Kisos11aneous

1. See opportunities to igrove 3.68 3.23 3.45 3.83

2. Make own plans for 3cb 3.79 4.09 4.00 4.00 ,

53. I work at efficient level 4.00 3.73 4.35 3.92 ]

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.33 3.40 3.22 3.42 !

41. I make suggestions for isprovement 3.36 3.09 3.00 3.58

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.96 3.59 3.50 4.00 i

l i

l l

l 4

l l

l i

Table 16C: standardized means for survey items for Design Engineering Items hech/ Elect Desig Other Civil I&C suprt Measuremment

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .12 .33 .14 .05

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .04 .33 .15 .33

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .16 .69 .03 .68

26. Data used to improve quality of work .13 .42 .21 .31

30. Work tracked against schedule .52 .08 .29 .22

30. Group reviewed performance data .04 .40 .15 .55 j

43. We review graphs of performance .49 .10 .54 .44 1

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .22 .19 .25 .03 Fee &ack ,

3. Groups I support tell as about my work .00 .27 .16 .46 l S. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .23 .31 .05 .21 ]

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .04 .10 .30 .10 l

17. Supv specific about job performance .13 .19 .09 .52

18. supy talks w/me about current job .14 .13 .04 .06 l

20. supy talks about jobs I control .30 .12 .07 .15 1

35. Esployees coached to improve performance .15 .33 .07 .04 '

Teamwork & Commuunication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .03 .59 .09 .07 l

28. Wy group encouraged for high performance .00 .38 .35 .08

39. set challenging and realistic goals .00 .32 .04 .40

40. Employees involved is setting goals .06 .42 .13 .00 I

Teamwork & Cossmanication (Participation) l

9. Volunteer ideas .06 .08 .23 21 l

22. Tell supy ideas for isprovement .09 .12 .14 .22

36. Co-workers work as effective team .04 .31 .43 .75

44. Esployees asked for input .39 21 .16 .45

46. Changes made after input .00 .45 .11 .24

51. Group encouraged to help each other .06 .22 .00 15

54. surv listens to suggestions .07 .06 .18 .20

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .21 .26 .37 .41

l l

I 1

I Teamwork & Consmnication (With other groups) l

21. Effective working w/other groups .02 .32 .00 .14

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .17 .37 .32 .09

32. Meet with others to discuss services .24 .40 .05 .00

34. 1.ast time met f ace-to-f ace .31 .19 .00 .05

37. Receive support asked for .20 .36 .53 .47

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .23 .07 .04 .25 .

55. Group works as a team .07 .43 .54 .44 St. Group works effectively w/others .24 .10 .44 .32 l i

consequences (Amoognition) l

11. Employees recognised for jobs .18 .49 .09 .12 l

13. mooognition for effective support .05 .24 .03 .14 l

47. Last time told about $ch performance .14 .07 .14 .20 j 40, 2ausadiate recognition for good work .14 .23 .07 .41 )

56. Informed about co-workers good work .00 .09 .18 .47 )

l 1

1 Consequences (Coupensation)  !

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .15 .34 .24 .10

29. Best qualified get promoted .12 .34 .17 .20 ,

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .05 .41 .02 .13 i l

Consequences (Correction) i

12. Prompt action for poor job .02 .25 .03 .52

23. First help for poor performance .30 .22 .57 .03

31. supy clear in criticism .12 .29 .45 .53

33. supy objective & constructive .15 .29 .35 .06

49. Ambarrassment & humiliation .04 .46 .46 07 i

Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job .07 .13 .14 .22

8. Supv understands tech aspect of erork 17 .13 .13 .03

10. Know exactly what to do .36 .00 .36 .15

15. Training gives skilla .10 .75 .84 .52

19. Know how to obtain information for job .22 .08 .30 .40

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .12 .29 .14 .01

50. Can get resources for job .16 .27 .11 .26 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .22 32 .05 .41

2. Make own plans f or job .13 .27 .15 .15

53. I work at efficient level .16 .51 .29 .27

57. subordinates provide timely input .02 .08 .09 .10

41. I make suggestions for improvement .17 .13 .22 .42

62. Proper consideration for concern .34 .02 .06 .45 r

Table 17a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Fuel & Analysis.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coreta Trag OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 i

Nuci Fuel & Analysis (n=23) .16 .08 .18 .22 .00 .02 .23 .23 .01 (2.94) (3.36) (3.71) (3.90) (3.42) (3.09) (3.20) (3.70) (3.85)

• Stan . i scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

l l

l l

4 1

Table 173: Arithmetic means for survey items for Nuclear Fuel & Analysis Items pue ksA Measurement

5. ereup evaluates basai on needs of others 0.38 *

7. Quality of my work e)ectively sneasured 3.33

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.22

28. Data used to improve quality of work 2.96 i

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.70

30. Group .v,1ewed perforiaanos data 2.40 ,

43. We review graphs of performarce 2.17 (

48. Graphs a charts are meaningful

~

2.26 t

Pee 6ack

3. Groups I support tell me about ary work 2.88

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 3.04

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.25

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.74 St. Aupy talks w/me about current 3cb 3.71 l20. supy talks about 3abe I control 3.83

35. amployees coached to improve performance 3.25 Teamwork & Comm.onication (ooal setting)

18. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.00

28. My group encouraped for high performance 4.26

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.52

40. amployees involved 1J setting goals 3.15 I

l Teamwork & Commuunication (Participation) =

9. Volunteer ideas 3.96

22. Teil supy ideas for improvement 3.78 St. Co-workers work as effective team 3.96 44, amployees asked for triput 3.51

46. Changes made after input 3.26 St. Group encouraged to help each other 4.00

54. Supy listens to suggestions 3.87

59. Counfortably go to supv w/concerne 4.70 Teamwork & Commanication (with othat groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.17

27. nemt face-to-face w/ support groups 3.30

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.30 i

34. Last '.ine met face-to-face 2.55 )

37. Aeoelve support asked for 3.74 j

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.30

85. Group works as a team 3.83 58.orcup works effectively w/others 4.02 1

\

l

Consequences (Amoognition)

11. Reployees recognised for jobs 3.08

13. Rooognition for effective support 2.88 .

47.1.ast ties told about 3cb performance 3.57

40. Immediate recognition for good work 3.04

86. Informed about co-workers good work 2.87 I

consequences (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.61

29. Dest qualified get promoted 3.17

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 2.87 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prqupt action for poor job 3.04

23. First help for poor performance 3.74

31. surv clear in criticism 3.96

33. Supv ob3ective & constructive 3.74  !

49. Searrassment & humiliation 4.04 l

i Training & Development *

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.63 S. Supv understands toch aspect of work 4.00

10. Know exactly what to do 3.92 4

15. Training gives skills 3.25 {

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.46

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.96 S0. Can get resources for job 3.70 i

Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.75

2. Make own plans for job 3.52

$3. I work at efficient level 3.51 S7. subordinates provide timely input 3.63

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.30

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.96 L

j i

i

I I

l Table 17C Standardized semans for survey items for Nuclear Fuel & Analysis I

l l

l Items Nuc F&k l Measurement  !

5. Group ovaluates based on needs of o mers .07

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .07

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .03

26. Data used to improve quality of work .11

30. Work tracked against schedule .10

38. Group reviewed performance data .40

43. We review graphs of performance .46

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .42 Fee h c1

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .16

6. Last talked w/ aupy quality of work .13

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .10

17. Supy specific about job performance .32 18, sept talks w/me about current job .19

20. Supy talks about jobs 2 control .33

35. Employees coached to improve performance .13 Teaanrork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's gsals reflect needs of others .16

28. My group encouraged for high performance .09

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .17

40. Employees involved is setting goals .34 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .36

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .35 ,

36. Co-workers work as effective team .16 '

44. Employees asked for input .39

46. Changes made after input .43 St. Group encouraged to help each other .03

54. Supe listens to suggestions .15

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .36 Teamwork & CommunicaticwI (with other groups)

21. Effective working w ther groups .33

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .16  !

32. Meet with others to discuss services .10

34. Last time met f ace-to-face .07 37, neceave support asked for .15 S2. Ask support groups for suggestions .14 SS. Group works as a team .18 St.oroup works effectively w/others .20

l Consespnences (hooognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs .05

13. Rooognition for effective support .01

47. Last time told about job performance .01

48. Immediate recognition for good work .02 as. Inforund about co-workers good work .21 Consequences (Cag ensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .36

29. most equalified get promoted .2s

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .05 Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job .05

23. First help for poor performance .44  ;

31. supy clear in criticism .15 33, supy objective & constructive .20

49. Bearrassment & humiliation .33 Training & Development

4. supy checks skills for job .02

9. supy understands toch aspect of work .13

10. Know exactly what to do .38

15. Training gives skills .06

19. Know how to obtain information for job .11

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .23

50. Can get resources for 3cb .06 s

kisoallaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .31 4

2. Make own plans for job .04

53. I work at effacient level .27 l

57. subordinates provide timely input .31

81. I make suggestions for improvement .11 ,

62. Proper consideration for concern .34 ,

9

?

t i

r

i Table 18a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Engineering Support.*

l l

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Coretn Trng

! 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 OVER ALL (N = 2112)

Engineering Support (n=35) .15 .01 .14 .12 .18 .18 .31 .22 .04 (3.31) (3.27) (3.67) (3.79) (3.64) (3.31) (3.29) (3.70) (3.80)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

l 1

l l

l f

Table 193: Arithmetic means for survey items for Engineering support I

Itmas Engr l Suppt  !

Desamurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.51

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.22

24. Data co11octed to anticipate problems 3.22

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.17

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.83

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.31

43. We review graphs of performanos 2.92

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.09 1

l Feeeack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.33

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work 2.91

14. supy talked w/me about work with others 3.14

17. Supv specific about 3cb performance 3.30 it. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.47

20. Supy talks about jobs 2 control 3.54

35. Employees coached to improve performance 3.11 Teamwork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 3.53

28. My group encouraged for high performance 4.33

39. set Challenging and realistic goals 3.67 ,

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals 2.83 l Teamwork & r-inication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.50

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement 3.36

34. Co-workers work as effective team 4.25

44. Egloyees asted for input 3.53

46. Changes made after input 3.14 St. Group encouraged to help each other 4.25

54. Supe listeos to suggestions 4.00

59. Comfortably go to supv w/concerne 4.49 Teamwork & Cosesunication !With other groups)

21. Effective working w/or>st groups 4.08

27. Hoet face-to-ht::,f.cf %pport groups 3.75

32. Meet m n others to discuss services 2.94

$8 1.ast tian met face-to-face 3.03

37. Receive support asked for 3.64

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.53

55. Group works as a team 4.17 St. Group works effectively w/others 3.98 i

l l

l l

l l

)

l l

Consequences (Hooognition)

11. Esp 1pyees recognised for jobs 3,19 l

13. Secognition for effective support 3.22

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.71

40. Imediate recognition for good work 3.17

56. Informed about co-workers good work 3.25 l

i Consequences (Campensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.40

29. Dest qualified get promoted 3.22

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance 3.19 I

Consequences (Correction)

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.06

23. First help for poor performance 3.61

31. supy clear in criticism 3.98

33. supy objective & constructive 3.91

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.94 Training & Development

4. surv checks skills for job 3.59

9. Supy understands tech aspect of work 3.25

10. Know exactly what to do 4.25

15. Training gives skills 3.31

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.20

41. Open discuss needs w/supv 3.89

50. Can get resources for job 3.75 i

i Wiscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 6.67 i

2. Make own plans for 3cb 3.56 l

53. I work at efficient level 4.19

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.52

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.25

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.28

Table 1sC: standardised means for survey itosas for Engineering support items Engr suppt Measureunent S. Group evaluaces based on needs of others .30

7. Quality of any work ob? actively measured 04

24. Data oo11octed to anticipate problems .26

26. Data used to improve quality of work .09

30. Work tracked against schedule .22

38. Group reviewed performance data .05

43. We review graphs of performance .12

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .24 Fee 6ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .30

6. Last talked w/ supv quality of work .22

14. supt talked w/me about work with others .02

17. supy specific about job performance .02 te, supy talks w/me about current 3re .16

20. supy talks about jobs I control .14

35. saployees coached to improve performance .01 Teasswork & Commuunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .13

29. My group encouraged for high performance .17

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .31

40. Employees involved is setting goals .07 l

i Teasswork & Comsmunication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .19

22. Tell supy ideas for improvement .12

36. Co-workers work as effective team .19

44. Employees asked for input .32

45. Changes made after input .30

51. Group encouraged to help each other .29 54, supy listens to suggestions .36

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .16 Teamwork & cosmmunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .23

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .15

32. Meet with others to discuss services .35

34. 1.ast time met face-to-face .17

37. Receive support asked for .04 S2. Ask support groups for suggestions .36 .

55. Group works as a team .18 l 58.Oroup works effectively w/others .12 l l

e Consequences (Recognition)

11. Egloyees recognized for 3 abs .16

13. Shaoognition for effective support .37 47.1.ast time told about 3cb performance .12 48.1susadiate recognition for good work .13

86. Inforsnad about co-workers good work .14 Consequences (Co pensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows sry work .26

29. Dest qualified get proumoted .33

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .36 Consequences (Correction)

12. Frampt action for poor job .07

23. First help for poor performance .33

31. Supv clear in criticism .17

33. Supt objective 4 constructive .36

49. Bearrassment s humiliation .24 Training a Developeant

4. Supy checks skills for job .24

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work .55

10. Know exactly what to do .05

15. Training gives skills .01

19. Know how to obtain information for job .13

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .17

50. Can get resources for job .01 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .21

2. Make own plans for 3cb .03

53. I work at efficient level .09 57, subordinates provide timely input .19

61. I make suggestions for igrovement .05

62. Proper consideration for concern . 26 1

Table 19a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Er.gineering Programs.*

Group Mens Fdhk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corctn Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.s1 2.92 3.43 3.84 Engineering Programs (n=22) .I1 .12 .01 .00 .07 .02 .27 .16 .02 (2.99) (3.I1) (3.49) (3.56) (3.33) (3.09) (3.25) (3.62) (3.82)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

Table 193: Arithmetic means for sturvey items for Engineering Programs Items angr Prog

?

Measurement S. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.05

7. Quality of my work abjectively measured 3.04

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.11 ,

26. Data used to taprove quality of work 3.25

30. Work tracked against scheele 3.91

'M. Group reviewed performanos data 3.10

43. We review graphs of performance 2.33

45. Graphs & charts are meani.gful 2.14 l

Fee eack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 2.50 6.1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work 2.01

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 2.57

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.47

18. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.72

20. supy talks about jobs 1 control 3.35

35. Egloyees coached to ispeove perDraance 3.24 Teasuork & Communication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reGect needs of ethers 3.71 4

20. Wy group encouraged for high rarfc,.mance 4.33 I

39. set Challenging m.1 m realistic goals 2.95 l

40. Reployees involve (.is setting goals 2.95 j teasswork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.55

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement 3.22

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.19

44. Employees asked for input 2.77

46. Changes made after irlput 2.76

51. Group encouraged to help each other 3.56

54. supy listens to suggestions 3.86

89. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.57 Teasswork & e-nication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.14

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.50

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.45

34. Last time met face-to-face 2.45

37. Receive support asked for 3.45

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 2.57

$5. Group works as a team 3,86 SS. Group works effectively w/others 4.18 I

4 i

1 1

I l

1 l

Consequences (mooognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs 2.90  ;

13. Recognition for effective support 2.71

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.36

40. Isamediate recognition for good work 3.41

$6. Informed about co-workers good work 3.05 Consequences (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows any work 3.60

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.10

42. Clear relationship promotien & performance 3.05 l

l Consequences (correction) l

12. Frampt action for poor job 3.10 1

23. First help for poor performance 3.53

31. Supe clear in criticism 3.95 33, supy objective & constructive 3.63 j

49. Embarrassment & humiliation 3.90 l l

Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.41 S. Supt understands tech aspect of work 4.00

10. Know exactly what to do 4.23 ,

15. Training gives skills 3.18 l

19. Know how to obtain information for job 4.55 -

41. Open discuss needs w/supv 3.76 '

50. Can get resources for job 3.59 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.30

2. Make own plans for job 3.52

53. I work at efficient level 4.23

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.17

61. I make suggestions for improvement 2.73 l

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.71 '

l l

Table 19C: Standardised means for survey items for Engineering Programs i

1tems angr Prog Measurement S. Group evaluates based on needs of others .24

7. Quality of aqr work objectively measured .20

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .07

26. Data used to improve quality of work .17

30. Work tracked against schedule .28

30. Group reviewed pertoriennae data .06

43. We review graphs of performance .34

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .51 1

Feedmck  !

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .54

4. 1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work .29

14. supy talked w/me about work with others .39

17. Supy specific about job performance .09 it. Supy talks w/me about current 3ab .21

20. supy talks about jobs I control .13

35. Employees coached to igrove performance .11 Teamwork & Comumunication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .02 ,

29. My group encouraged for high performance .17

39. set Challenging and realistic goals .36 .

40. Reployees involved is setting goals .17 ,

l Teasswork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .14

22. Tell supy ideas for ig rovement .27

36. Co-workers work as effective team .09

44. Employees asked for 1:1put .37

46. Changes made after input .09 St. Group encouraged to help each other .12 S4. supe listens to suggestions .14

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns ,25 Teamwork & Commuunication (With other groups) )

21. Effective working w/other groups .29 '

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .02

32. Meet with others to discuss services .01 i

34. 1.ast time met face-t.o-face .19 -]

37. Rooeive support asked for .16 1

52. Ask support groups for suggrJtions .59 l

55. Group works as a team .14 l SS. Group works effectively w/others .36 1

1 Consesysences (hooognition)

St. Egloyees recognised for jobs .13

13. Dewition for effective support .14 47.1.ast time told about 3cb performance .13

49. tammediate recognition ':or good work .36

86. Inforened about co-worl ra good work .05 Consequences (Compensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work .35

29. Best qualified get promoted .21

42. Clear relationship promotion & perf. .24 i

Consequences (Correction) i

12. Frogt action for poor job .11

23. First help for poor performance .26

31. surv clear in craticism .15 i

33. Supy objective & constructive .11 49, ambarrassment & humiliation .21 Training & Development

4. supy checks skills for job .23 i O. supy understands tech aspect of work .13

10. Know exactly what to do .05

15. Training gives skills .13

19. Enc'r how to obtain information for job .23 i

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .07 l

50. Can get resources for job .17 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve .14

2. Make own plans for job .47

53. I work at efficient level .33

57. subordinates provide timely input .14

61. I make suggestions for improvement .52 W2. Proper consideration for concern .33 I

i

Table 20s - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Nuclear Purchasing.a Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Corean Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.I4 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Purch, Contracts & Inventory (n=43) .27 .03 .15 .05 .02 .08 .01 .00 .03 (3.46) (3.30) (3.68) (3.60) (3.39) (3.01) (2.93) (3.43) (3.81)

Warehouse (n=29) .11 .34 .24 .23 .42 .60 .68 .42 .33 (3.00) (2.85) (3.22) (3.41) (2.87) (2.43) (2.10) (2.93) (3.49)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

I

Table 20s: Arithamstic means for survey items for Nuclear Purchasing Items PCs1 Whee Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.50 3.27

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.32 2.73

24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.07 2.90

26. Data used to improve quality of work 3.16 2.33 ,

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.55 3.55  ;

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.77 3.77  ;

43. We review graphs of performance 3.77 3.47

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.50 3.50 Pee &ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.18 2.43 6.1.ast talked w/ supy quality of work 3.07 2.67

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.41 2.53

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.52 2.00

18. supy talks w/mm about current job 3.70 2.97

20. Supy talks about jobs I control 3.47 3.30 35, amployees coached to igrove performance 2.93 2.77 i

Teasurork & Comunanication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 4.05 3.77

20. Wy group encouraged for high performance 4.25 3.50

39. Set mallenging and realistic goals 3.52 2.77

40. amployees involved is setting goals 2.89 2.63 f

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.43 3.83

22. Tell supy ideas for taprovement 3.34 3.34

34. Co-workers work as effective team 4.07 4.07

44. Employees asked for input 3.27 3.00

46. Changes made after input 2.77 2.60

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.09 3.70

54. Supv listens to suggestions 3.70 3.23

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns 4.25 3.90 I

7eaantork & Commuunication (With other groups) i

21. Effective working w/other groups 3.98 3.50

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.28 2.70

32. Meet with others to discuss services 2.21 1.93 34.1.ast time est f ace-to-f ace 2.95 2.13

37. Roosive support asked for 3.50 2.90

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.25 2.87

55. Group works as a team 4.00 3.33 St.oroup works effectively w/others 3.91 3.57 1

Consequences (Recognition)

11. Esployees rooognized for jobs 2.68 2.30

13. Deoognition for affective support 2.82 2.17

47. 1.ast time told about job performance 3.73 2.90

40. Immediate recognition for good work 2.82 2.40

56. Informed about co-wo11ers good work 3.02 2.40 Consequences (Coopensation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3,30 2.23

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.02 2.20

42. Clear relationship promotion & 2.68 1.07 performance Consequences (Correction)

12. Freept action for poor job 2.73 2.40

23. First help for poor performance 3.52 2.57 31, supy clear in criticism 3.68 3.73 ,

33. Supv objective s constructive 3.36 2.93

49. Babarrassment s humiliation 3.89 3.20 Training & Development

4. Supy checks skills for job 3.32 3.10

8. supv understands toch aspect of work 3.66 2.73

10. Know exactly what to do 4.30 4.47

15. Training gives skills 3.07 3.27

19. Enow how to obtain information for job 4.59 4.50

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.00 2.77

50. Can get resources for job 3.95 3.60 Miscellaneous

1. See opportunities to improve 3.52 3.50

2. Make own plans for job 3.06 4.10

53. I work at efficient level 4.23 4.40

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.23 2.93

61. I make suggestions for improvement 3.16 3.07

62. Proper consideration for concern 3.56 3.40 t

i Table 20C: Standardised means for survey items for Nuclear purchasing Items PC&1 Whee l

senasurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others .19 .03

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .06 .50

24. Data co1 M d to anticipate problems .10 .25 ,

26. Dats esed ' ig rove quality of work .08 .23 1

30. Weak tracked against schedule .03 .51

30. Group reviewed performance data .40 .24

43. We review graphs of performance .79 .55 j

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful .56 .17 j 1

Poeshack l

3. Groups I support tell me about my work .14 .61

6. 1.ast talked w/ supv quality of work .11 .36

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .21 .42

17. supy specific about job performance .13 .48

18. supy talks w/mm about current job .19 45

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .02 .18

35. Egloyees coached to improve performance .10 .33 i

l Teamwork & Communication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .34 .04

28. My group encouraged for high performance .08 .40

39. set Ota11enging and realistic goals .17 .54

40. Egloyees involved is setting goals .22 .09 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) j

9. Volunteer ideas .28 .21 j

22. Tell supv ideas for improvement .14 .08

36. Co-workers work as effective team .04 .73

44. Egloyees asked for input .09 .17

46. Changes made after input .00 .25

51. Group encouraged to help each other .13 .29

54. supy listens to suggestions .02 .47

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns .05 .39 Teassrork & Ccameanication (With other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups .11 .42

27. tenet face-to-f aos w/ support groups .17 .57

32. Meet with others to discuss services .16 .36

34. 3.ast time met face-to-face .12 .39

37. Receive support asked for .11 .76

52. Ask support groups for suggestions .09 .30

55. Group works as a team .00 .71 St.oroup works effectively w/others .05 .34 Consequences (Recognition)

11. Baployees recognised for jobs .35 .73 l

13. Ascognition for effective support 05 .73 47.1.ast time told about job performance .13 .47

40. Immediate recognition for good work .19 .58

56. Informed about co-workers good work .07 .66

Consepanoes (Co w sation)

25. Person w/ salary control knows ury work .13 .67

29. Dest p alified get promoted .05 .62

42. Clear relationship promotion & performance .06 .74 Conso penons (Correction)

12. Frampt action for poor job .23 .53

23. First help for poor performance .26 .54

31. Supy clear in criticisst .11 .06

33. surv objective & constructive .13 .51

49. Babarrassment & humiliation .19 .41 Training & Development

4. Supv checks 21111s for job .32 .53

8. Supy understands tech s p y' of work .18 -1.02

10. Know exactly what to do .10 .32

15. Training gives skills .23 .05

19. Know how to obtain information for job .29 .17

41. Open discuss needs w/supy .10 .74

$0. Can get resources for job .21 .16 Misos 11anervus

1. See cyportunities to improve .03 .01

2. Make own plans for job .03 .28

53. I work at efficient level .14 .35

57. Subordinates provide timely input .00 .37

61. I make suggestions for igrovement .05 .15

62. Proper consideration for concerta .01 .15 i

t l

1 I

r

Table 21a - Standardized and arithmetic means for survey categories for Contractors.*

Group Mens Fdbk Goal Particp W/Othrs Recgn Comp Cortta Trng OVER ALL (N = 2112) 3.14 3.26 3.50 3.66 3.41 3.11 2.92 3.43 3.84 Ebasco (n=51) .14 .08 .19 .07 .28 .06 .18 .32 .18 (3.30) (3.36) (3.72) (3.73) (3.77) (3.18) (3.14) (3.81) (4.03)

Sun Services (n=33) .03 .32 .11 .16 .04 .25 .I1 .27 .16 (3.16) (3.65) (3.37) (3.49) (3.35) (3.39) (3.06) (3.76) (4.01)

Wackenhut (n=152) .26 .21 .21 .26 .49 .20 .46 .27 .00 (2.81) (3.01) (3.26) (3.38) (2.78) (2.88) (2.36) (3.10) (3.84)

Other Contractors (n=133) .14 .35 .07 .01 .15 .17 .17 .21 .15 (3.31) (3.69) (3.58) (3.65) (3.61) (3.31) (3.13) (3.68) (4.00)

• Standard scores have an average (mean) equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one.

i Table 213: Arithmetic means for survey items for contractor

==

Items Ebasco Sun Mack Other l Serv Measurement

5. Group evaluates based on needs of others 3.51 3.38 3.07 3.56

7. Quality of my work objectively measured 3.80 3.74 3.00 3.58 l 24. Data collected to anticipate problems 3.34 3.30 2.94 3.31

26. Data used to a prove quality of work 3.31 3.26 3.04 3.35

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.97 3.44 2.92 3.69

38. Group reviewed performance data 3.24 3.59 2.73 3.68

43. We avview graphs of performance 2.63 2.24 2.12 2.52

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.61 2.25 2.63 2.74 Fee &ack

3. Groups I support tell me about my work 3.10 3.12 2.66 3.45

6. Laer, talked w/ supv quality of work 3.33 4.03 4.03 3.92

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others 3.39 3.62 2.80 3.55

17. Supy specific about job performance 3.78 3.88 3.30 3.94

19. Supy talks w/me about current job 3.59 3.82 3.11 3.79

20. supy talks about jobs I control 3.78 3.75 3.31 3.73

35. Egloyees coached to igrove performance 3.59 3.32 2.95 3.44 Teamwork 6 Consuunication (Goal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others 4.00 3.59 3.51 3.68

20. My group encouraged for high performance 4.32 3.82 3.87 3.95

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals 3.66 3.35 3.09 3.57

40. E g loyees involved is setting goals 2.90 2.71 2.57 3.11 Teamwork & Communication (participation)

9. Volunteer ideas 3.74 3.56 3.43 3.49

22. Tell supy ideas for improveennt 3.51 3.26 3.30 3.36

36. Co-workers work as effective team 4.41 4.09 4.10 4.27 1

44. Egloyees asked ior input 3.04 2.91 2.94 3.13

46. Changes made af ter input 2.84 2.94 2.53 2.98 l

51. Group encouraged to help each other 4.18 3.85 3.75 4.16 l

54. supy listens to suggestions 3.46 3.88 3.42 3.90 l

59. Comfortably go to supy w/ concerns 4.32 3.82 3.63 4.16 l

Teamwork & Casamunication (with other groups)

21. Effective working w/other groups 4.22 3.52 3.47 3.87

27. Noet face-to-face w/ support groups 3.84 3.53 2.33 3.38

32. Meet with others to discuss services 3.12 2.73 1.73 2.60 .

34. 1.ast time ont face-to-face 3.39 3.18 1.84 2.95 1

37. Amoeive support asked for 3.84 3.44 2.96 3.53 l

52. Ask support groups for suggestions 3.32 3,06 2.60 3.18 l

55. Groep works as a team 4.22 3.91 3.95 4.13 58.oroup works effectively w/others 4.18 3.35 3.34 3.80

Consequences (mecognition)

11. Egleyees recognised for jobs 3.10 3.47 2.84 3.30 1

13. Recognition for effective support 3.10 2.94 2.72 2.90 l

47. Last time told about job performance 3.00 4.15 3.04 3.95

48. Imediate recognition for good work 2.96 3.18 2.72 3.35

$6. Informed about co-workers good work 2.92 3.24 3.07 3.22 i

Consequences (Cogensation)  !

25. Person w/ salary control knows my work 3.39 3.50 2.72 3.50

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.05 2.79 2.14 2.87 l

42. Clear relationship promotion 5 2.94 2.88 2.24 3.01 ,

performance  !

Consequences (Correction) . .

12. Prompt action for poor job 3.73 3.24 3.10 3.33

23. First help for poor performance 3.65 3.52 2.51 3.50

31. Supv clear in criticise 4.20 4.18 3.72 4.19

33. Supy objective s constructive 3.55 3.79 3.07 3.73

49. Bearrassment G humiliation 3.98 3.97 3.13 3.67 f

Training & Development

4. Supv checks stills for 3ab 3.se 3.79 3.47 3.06

8. Supy understands tech aspect of work 3.63 4.24 3.81 4.13

10. Know exactly what to do 4.59 4.38 4.41 4.40

15. Training gives skills 3.75 3.47 3.90 3.59

19. Know how to obtain information for 3ab 4.66 4.30 4.38 5.00

41. Open discuss needs w/supy 3.65 3.74 3.24 5.00

50. Can get resources for job 4.04 3.05 3.64 3.00 i i

Miscellaneous

1. see opportunities to improve 3.55 3.46 3.27 3.42 r

2. Make own plans for job 4.04 3.77 3.73 3.73 !

53. I work at efficient level 4.42 4.21 4.30 4.22

57. subordinates provide timely input 3.60 3.15 3.03 3.32 :

41. I make suggestions for igrovement 3.40 2.79 2.78 3.01 !

62. Proper consideration for concern 4.02 3.56 3.03 3.51 !

l k

i

i l

I I

i i

Table 21C - Standardized means f.or survey items for contractors i Items Obasco Sun Wacken other Serv ,

e Measurement l

S. Group evaluates based on needs of others .20 .08 .22 .25

7. Quality of my work objectively measured .52 .45 .25 .31 j

24. Data collected to anticipate problems .16 .18 .21 .22 ,

26. Data used to impawe quality of work .23 .30 .03 .27 l

30. Work tracked against schedule .33 .13 .58 .09  !

38. Group reviewed performanos data .03 .27 .31 .34

43. We review graphs of performance .11 .42 .51 .19  !

45. Graphs & charts are reaningful .14 .41 .08 .04 l

Feeeaok

3. Groups I support tall me about my work .06 .00 .38 .41

6. Last talked w/ supy quality of work .07 .54 .21 .46

14. Supy talked w/me about work with others .20 .36 .22 .31

17. Supy specific about job performance .36 .44 .05 .49

18. Supy talks w/me about current job .09 .29 .32 .27

20. Supy talks about jobs I control .29 .27 .17 .23

35. Suployees coached to improve performance .43 .19 .16 .30 i

i i

Teamswork & Commmanication (Ooal setting)

16. Group's goals reflect needs of others .29 .15 .24 .05

28. My group oncouraged for high performance .16 .30 .33 .24

39. Set Challenging and realistic goals .30 .01 .23 .21

40. Sq 1oyees involved is setting goals .13 .03 .14 .30 I

Teamwork & e-nication (Participation)

9. Volunteer ideas .10 .12 .28 .20

22. Teil supv ideas for improvesment .15 .23 .19 .12

36. Co-workers work as effective team .33 .02 .01 .18

44. Suployees asked for input .13 .25 .22 .04

46. Changes made after input .00 .30 .33 .14

51. Group encouraged to help each other .22 .13 .25 .19

54. Supv listens to suggestions .25 .16 28 .it

59. Comfortably go to supv w/ concerns .01 .46 .65 .15 Teamwork & Commuunication (With other groups)

21. Offective working w/other groups .30 .29 .45 .00

27. Meet face-to-face w/ support groups .21 .00 .83 .10

32. Meet with others to discuss services .47 .20 .50 .11

34. Last time met face-to-face .40 .26 .58 .12 ,

37. Amoeive support asked for .26 .18 .49 .08

52. Ask su p rt groups for suggestions .26 .10 .56 .01

55. Group works as a team .24 .09 .05 .14 58.orcup works effectively w/others .36 .59 .60 .08 i

mm Consequences (Recognition)

11. Employees recognised for jobs .06 .44 .20 .27

11. Neoognition for effective support .24 .07 .16 .31 4*i.1.ast time told about job performance .19 .44 .36 .30 4 0., lummediate recognition for good work .06 .14 .20 . 3'J

56. Informed about co-workers good work .16 .33 .03 .il Conse quences (Compensation) '

25. Paroon w/ salary control knows my work .20 .28 .31 .20

29. Boat qualified get promoted .19 .07 .68 .00

42. Clarr relationship promotion & performance .15 .10 .43 .21 Conesquence s (Correction)

12. Frogt 6ction for poor job .60 .23 .11 .32

23. First help for poor performance .36 .34 .59 .24

31. Supy cle&3 in criticism .39 .37 .08 .38

33. Supy objective & constavetive .03 .25 .39 .20

49. Embarrassetnt & humiliation .27 .26 .47 .00 Training & Develop unt ,

4. Supv checks skills for 3cb .23 .15 .17 .21 S. Supv understanda toch aspect of work .21 .34 .05 .25

10. Know exactly what to do .40 .22 .24 .23

15. Training gives skills .39 .14 .53 .24 ,

19. Know how to obtain information for job .39 .01 .00 .04 '

l

41. Open discuss needs w/supv .02 .21 .36 .16

50. Can get resources for job .30 .10 .12 .03 Miscellaneous  ;

1. See opportunities to improve .07 .04 .26 .09 l

2. Make own plans for job .20 .15 .21 .20

53. I work at efficient level .37 .10 .22 .12

57. Subordinates provide timely input .28 .16 .27 .00

$1. I make suggestions for improvement .30 .45 .46 .21

62. Proper consideration for concern .39 .01 ..47 .04 I

I 1

1

V Table 22 - Raw score comparisons for STP Executives.

1994 1993 Items Exec Exec Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.70 3.39 0.31

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.75 3.83 -0.08

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.25 3.22 0.03

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.65 3.66 -0.01

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.65 3.72 -0.07

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.94 3.90 0.04

43. We review graphs of performance 4.21 3.29 0.92

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.80 2.83 0.97 Feedback i

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.45 3.06 0.39 l

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.75 4.22 -0.47

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.50 3.99 -0.49

17. Supv is specific 3.30 4.17 -0.87

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.95 4.17 -0.22 ,

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.80 4.17 -0.37

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.74 3.01 0.73 l Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) l

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.10 4.01 0.09  !

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.60 4.60 0.00 l

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.84 3.96 -0.12  !

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.70 3.45 0.25 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 4.10 3.83 0.27

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.60 3.55 0.05

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.95 4.17 -0.22

44. Employees are ask for their input 4.00 3.71 0.29

46. Changes are made based on input 3.80 3.33 0.47

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.55 4.34 0.21

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.45 4.16 0.29

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supy 4.70 5.00 -0.30 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.35 4.00 0.35

27. I meet with other groups 3.85 3.84 0.01

32. Meet with other grps to discuss sersice 3.21 2.56 0.65

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.80 3.51 0.29

37. When I ask for support from other grps 4.25 3.83 0.42

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.74 3.27 0.47

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.00 4. I 1 -0. I 1

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.30 4.06 0.24 l

l

Table 22 - Raw score comparisons for STP Executives.

1994 1993 Items Exec Exec Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.90 3.27 0.63

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.70 3.21 0.49 ,.

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.95 3.72 0.23

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.60 3.39 0.21

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.90 3.43 0.47 Consequences (compensation)

25. Perron who makes salary decission has info 4.10 4.17 -0.07

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.80 3.95 -0.15

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.70 3.72 -0.02 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.50 3.60 -0.10

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.80 3.94 -0.14

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.00 4.17 -0.17

33. Supv is objective and constructive 4.25 4.11 0.14

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.90 2.64 1.26 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.35 4.16 0.19 ,

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.40 4.17 0.23 ,

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.50 3.83 0.67 I

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 4.00 3.50 0.50

19. I know how to get info I need 4.80 4.56 0.24

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.35 4.39 -0.04

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.55 3.95 0.60

~

Table 23 - Raw score comparisons for Plant Projects and Programs. ,

1994 1993

"" sud& !afat. .F."m. .  ;

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.65 3.26 0.39

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.60 3.48 0.12

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.16 3.08 0.08

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.68 2.74 0.94

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.73 3.51 0.22

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.36 2.60 0.76

43. We review graphs of performance 2.65 2.23 0.42

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful ,

2.68 2.41 0.27 Feedback  ;

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.81 3.45 0.36 )

6. L,ast talked about quality of my work 3.63 3.55 0.08 l

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.60 2.99 0.61 l

17. Supy is spe::ific 3.67 3.41 0.26

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.83 3.74 0.09

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.97 3.74 0.23 j

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.60 3.01 0.59 l Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.19 3.56 0.63 l

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.35 4.25 0.10 l

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.72 3.37 0.35 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.73 2.66 1.07  !

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)  !

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.94 3.70 0.24 l

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.71 3.26 0.45

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.29 3.89 0.40

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.81 n/a n/a

46. Changes are made based on input 3.45 2.88 0.57

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.24 4.26 -0.02

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.14 3.66 0.48

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.59 4.71 -0.12 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.26 3.66 0.60

27. I meet with other groups 4.10 4.00 0.10

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 3.00 2.64 0.36

34. 'Ihe last time I met with other groups 3.5 ' 2.80 0.73

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3% [, 3.66 0.24

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.79 3.22 0.57

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.31 -3.81 0.50

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.07 3.81 0.26

i l

Table 23 - Raw score comparisons for Plant Projects and Programs.

1994 1993 ,

Items P.P. & P. Intz Schd Change l Consequences (recognition) i 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.71 2.92 0.79

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.45 2.73 0.72

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.74 3.77 -0.03

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.61 3.04 0.57 j

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.57 2.62 0.95 l Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 4.10 3.63 0.47

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.57 2.97 0.60 l

42. Relationship betv.Ter promotion and perf 3.45 2.85 0.60 l Consequences (correction) l

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.29 -8.26 11.55

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 4.00 3.63 0.37

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.09 4.01 0.08

33. Supy is objective and constructive 4.00 3.99 0.01

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.10 2.61 1.49 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.10 3.52 -0.42

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.94 3.74 0.20 l

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.36 3.92 0.44

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 4.89 3.30 1.59

19. I know how to get info I need 4.30 4.30 0.00 4_1 1 I can discuss develop need with supy 4.23 4.00 0.23

50. I can get resources to perfonn myjob 4.10 3.85 0.25 l

l i

i i

l l

i i

Table 24 - Raw score comparisons for Records Management.

1994 1993 Items .

g RMS

, g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cus.t requirenm s 3.19 3.44 -0.25

7. Quality of work objectively measured _

3.31 3.60 -0.29

24. Collect data to anticipate problems _ 3.33 3.11 0.22

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.19 3.25 -0.06

30. Work tracked against schedule _; 3.72 3.57 0.15

38. My group reviewed data on perf j 2.68 3.19 -051

43. We review graphs of performance .,

3 02 3.52 -0.50

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.77 3.19 -0.42 Feedhnck

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.15 3.12 0.03 >

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.69 3.43 -0.74

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.50 2.86 -0.36

17. Supv is specific 3.50 3.79 -0.29

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.17 3.54 -0.37

20. Fdbk on events I contrni 3.50 3.68 -0.18 >

35. Employees coached to help impreve 3.17 3.01 0.16 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3 92 3.91 0.0i

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.40 4.40 0.00 ,

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.79 3.41 0.38

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goa's 2.89 2.56 0.33 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)  :

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.56 3.56 0.00  !

22. I tell my supy about opp for impnmnt 2.98 3.09 -0.11

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.27 3.92 0.35 _

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.23 3.46 -0.23

46. Changes are made based on input 2.90 2.84 0.06

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.23 3.98 0.25

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.60 3.77 -0.17

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supy 3.90 4.31 -0.41 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.15 4.00 0.15

27. I neet with other groups 3.23 3.68 -0.45

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.29 2.21 0.08

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.44 2.34 0.10

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.65 3.67 -0.02  !

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.47 3.02 0.45

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.08 3.90 0.18

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.17 3.92 0.25

i l

Table 24 - Raw score comparisons for Records Management.

1994 1993 Items Rec Mgt RMS Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employee; are recognized for a good job 3.00 2.98 0.02

13. Recognition is given for support to other gros 3.00 3.05 -6 05

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 2.77 3.48 -0.71

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.00 2.96 0.01

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.00 3.12 -0.1. !_ ,

Consequences (compensation) _

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.27 3.51 -0.2 4 _

29. Best quahfied get promoted 3.94 2.91 1.03 _

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.79 2.84 -0.05 -

i Consequences (correction) _

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.27 2.79 0.48

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.42 3.25 0.17

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.96 3 85 0.11  ;

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.30 3.38 -0.08

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.96 2.95 1.01 Training & Develo9 ment

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.56 3.58 -0.02  ;

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.90 3.98 -0.08

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.40 4.36 0.04

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.52 3.31 0.21

19. I know how to get info I need 4.63 4.42 0.21

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 3.55 3.74 -0.19

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.90 3.64 0.26

-.m _ ._.

Table 25 - Raw score comparisons for Plant Services - Administration.

1994 1993 Items Admin Admin Ch

. .. ,_ - dane Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.72 3.82 -0.1

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.60 3.66 -0.06

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.45 3.10 0 35

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.51 3.48 0.03

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.81 3.81 0.00

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.21 3.32 -0.11

43. We review graphs of performance 2.77 2.87 -0.10

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.13 2.92 0.21 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.85 3.59 0.26

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.70 3.69 0.01

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.61 3.57 0.04

17. Supv is specific 4.06 4.04 0.02

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.87 3.71 0.16

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.89 3.76 0.13

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 3.74 3.01 0.73 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.00 3.98 0.02

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.47 4.65 -0.18

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.91 3.78 0.13

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.43 2.95 0.48 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.68 3.50 0.18

22. I tell my supv about opp for impnmnt 3.81 3.40 0.41

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.38 4.21 0.17

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.64 3.13 0.51

46. Changes are made based on input 3. I I 2.96 0.15

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.26 4.27 -0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.04 3.95 0.09

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.06 4.37 -0.31 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.51 4.25 0.26

27. I meet with other groups 4.19 3.41 0.78

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 3.13 2.72 0.41

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.12 2.80 0.32 _

37. When I ask for support from other grps 4.09 3.62 C ,

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.72 3.26 o

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.26 4.21 0 05

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.28 4.24 0.04

Table 25 - Raw score comparisons for Plant Services - Administration.

1994 1993 Items Admia Admin Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.47 3.33 0.14

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.47 3.12 0.35

47. Last time i . aid I was doing a good job 3.89 3.84 0.05 i

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.60 3.24 0.36 j

$6. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.51 3.28 0.23 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.72 3.90 -0.18

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.32 3.42 -0.10

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.30 3.47 -0.17  ;

Consequences (correction) '

l

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.64 3.47 0.17

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.81 4.00 -0.19

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.09 3.94 0.15

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.89 3.95 -0.06

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.02 3.28 0.74 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.00 4.10 -0.10

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.64 3.63 0.01

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.56 4.45 0.11 l

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.98 3.74 0.24 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.48 4.39 0.09  !

I

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.79 4.16 -0.37

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.96 3.87 0.09 l

1

i l

Table 26 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Information Services.

I 1994 1993 Items .

NIS _

g g  :

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.95 2.87 0.08

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.78 3.10 -0.32

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.41 2.51 -0.10

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.49 3.03 -0.54 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 2.97 3.42 -0.45

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.49 3.42 -0.93

43. We review graphs of performance 2.62 2.39 0.23

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.70 2.54 0.16 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.08 3.33 -0.25

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.40 3.41 -1.01

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.32 3.06 -0.74

17. Supy is specific 2.84 3.29 -0.45

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.22 3.51 -0.29

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.05 3.32 -0.27

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.54 3.01 -0.47 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.57 3.78 -0.21

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.73 4.25 -0.52

.39. Set challenging yet realistic goalt 2.92 3.17 -0.25

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.19 2.51 -0.32 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) 9 I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.92 3.65 0.27

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.57 3.45 0.12 36 My co-workers and I work as a team 3.86 3.77 0.09

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.05 2.87 0.18

46. Changes are made based on input 2.49 2.64 -0.15

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.58 3.84 -0.26

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.11 3.45 -0.34

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.00 4.32 -0.32 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have eticctive relations with others 3.59 3.80 -0.21

27. I meet with other groups 3.51 4.03 -0.52

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.75 3.10 -0.35

34. He last time I met with other groups 3.17 3.59 -0.42

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.41 3.74 -0.33

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.44 3.35 0.09 1

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.81 3.55 0.26

58. We mdntain working relations w other gps 3.72 3.87 -0.15 i

4 Table 26 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Information Services. 3 1994 1993 Items NIS App Dev Change  ;

Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.84 3.06 -0.22 -

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.70 2.89 -0.19 l

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 2.94 3.57 -0.63

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.73 2.97 -0.24

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.11 3.08 0.03 Consequences (compensation) ,

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.97 3.46 -0.49

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.32 2.72 -0.40

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.05 2.77 -0.72 l Consequences (correction)  !

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 1.92 2.42 -0.50

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.78 3.06 -0.28

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.41 3.49 -0.08

33. Supv is objective and constructive 2.64 3.13 -0.49

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.49 2.41 1.08 >

Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 2.89 3.03 -0.14

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 2.51 2.77 -0.26

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.86 4.03 -0.17 I

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.27 3.36 -0.09

19. I know how to get info I need 4.30 4.35 -0.05 ,

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.31 3.97 -0.66

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.30 3.35 -0.05 l

l

i I

J Table 27 - Raw score comparisons for Operations Training.

1994 1993 Items g g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.32 3.06 0.26

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.16 3.00 0. I 6

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.81 2.65 0.16

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.90 2.52 0.38

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.00 3.41 0.59

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.07 2.40 0.67 l

43. We review graphs of performance 2.20 2.12 0.08

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.41 2.47 -0.06 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.84 3.13 -0.29 l

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.50 3.52 -0.02

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.22 2.69 0.53 1

17. Supv is specific 3.35 3.36 -0.01 l

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.88 3.18 0.70 l

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.47 3.12 0.35

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.98 3.01 -0.03 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) j

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.09 3.94 0.15

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.34 4.18 0.16

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.28 2.89 0.39

40. Involved in settmg Dept / Division goals 2.51 2.53 -0.02 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.84 3.77 0.07

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.70 3.47 0.23

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.18 3.59 0.59

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.07 2.58 0.49

46. Changes are made based on input 2.93 2.46 0.47

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.89 3.47 0.42

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.55 3.05 0.50

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.55 3.83 0.72 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) l

21. We have efTective relations with others 3.82 3.11 0.71

27. I meet with other groups 3.47 3.35 0.12

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.60 2.25 0.35

34. He last time I met with other groups 3.19 3.06 0.13

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.59 3.23 0.36

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.77 3.12 0.65

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.09 3.47 0.62

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.70 3.47 0.23 l

Table 27 - Raw score comparisons for Operations Training.

1994 1993 Items Ops Trng Ops Trng Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.75 2.76 0.99

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.80 2.75 0.05

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.70 3.59 0.11

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.79 2.42 0.37

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.64 2.93 -0.29 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.00 3.18 -0.18

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.86 2.71 0.15

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.55 2.05 0.50 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.00 2.82 0.18

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.33 2.88 0.45

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.64 3.39 0.25

33. Supy is objective and constructive 3.67 3.53 0.14

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.14 2.71 1.43 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.55 3.17 0.38

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.05 3.06 0.99

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.09 4.00 0.09

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.30 2.88 0.42

19. I know how to get info I need 4.39 3.88 0.51

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.00 3.29 0.71

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.96 3.12 0.84 l

l l

t i

l I

i

Table 28 - Raw score comparisons for Staff Training.

1994 1993 Items .

g g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.68 3.05 0.63

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.77 2.98 0.79

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.09 2.45 0.64

{

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.18 2.80 0.38 5 130. Work tracked against schedule 4.05 3.39 0.66

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.41 2.85 0.56

43. We review graphs of performance 2.45 2.02 0.43

45. Graphs & chans are meaningful 2.32 2.25 0.07 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.73 2.98 0.75

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.86 3.48 0.38

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.64 3.14 0.50

17. Supv is specific 3.45 2.95 0.50

18. E ipv discusses current performance 3.77 3.31 0.46

20. Fabk on events I control 3.50 3.24 0.26

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.41 3.01 0.40 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.91 3.61 0.30

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.77 3.97 -0.20

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.27 2.9 ) 0.36

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.41 2.27 1.14 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.86 3.91 -0.05

22. I tell my supy about opp for impnmnt 3.77 3.56 0.21

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.00 3.98 0.02

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.05 2.53 0.52

46. Changes are made based on input 2.95 2.38 0.57

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.09 3.81 0.28

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.09 3.36 0.73

59. I can discuss nuel safety concem w supy 4.27 3.76 0.51 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.73 3.24 0.49 l

27. I meet with other groups 3.59 2.95 0.64

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.91 2.46 0.45

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.36 2.78 0.58

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.32 3.14 0.18

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.73 3.73 0.00

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.14 3.83 0.31

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.64 3.51 0.13 1

f Table 28 - Raw score comparisons for Staff Training.

1994 1993 Items Staff Tre Staff Trg Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.13 2.68 0.45

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.00 2.65 0.35

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.68 3.56 0.12

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.27 2.61 0.66

56. Informed of co-worker's perform nee 3.14 2.70 0.44 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salar" decission has info 3.41 3.17 0.24

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.91 2.71 0.20

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.77 2.51 0 26 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.77 2.74 0.03

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.59 2.83 0.76 l

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.86 3.39 0.47

33. Supy is objective and constn.ctive 3.86 3.25 0.61

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.59 2.21 1.38 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.64 3.24 0.40

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.82 3.46 0.36 i

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.14 3.59 0.55 j

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.27 2.52 0.75 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.00 3.90 0.10

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 3.86 3.38 0.48

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.27 2.83 0.44 I

i l

Table 29 - Raw score comparisons for Planning, Assessment and Controls.

1994 1993 Items P. A. & C Pin & Ass g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.81 4.06 -0.25

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.47 3.82 -0.35

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.84 3.53 0.31

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.16 3.70 -0.54

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.84 3.59 0.25

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.47 3.53 -0.06

43. We review graphs of performance 2.50 3.12 -0.62 >

45. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.71 3.18 -0.47  !

Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.34 3.36 -0.02  !

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.59 4.18 -0.59

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.88 4.11 -0.23 i

17. Supv is specific 3.60 4.01 -0.41

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.78 4.11 -0.33

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.72 3.82 -0.10

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.19 3.01 0.18 i Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)  !

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.03 3.89 0.14 l

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.38 4.77 -0.39 I I

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.72 4.01 -0.29

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.06 3.54 -0.48 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.63 3.65 -0.02

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.78 3.40 0.38

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.06 4.47 -0.41

44. Employees are ask for theirinput 3.75 3.76 -0.01

46. Changes are made based on input 3.25 3.41 -0.16

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.28 4.53 -0.25 f 4. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.91 4.23 -0.32

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.41 4.65 -0.24 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.81 4.20 -0.39

27. I meet with other groups 3.78 3.17 0.61

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.91 2.53 0.38

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.25 2.53 0.72

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.69 3.99 -0.30

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.81 3.54 0.27

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.19 4.24 -0.05

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.06 4.29 -0.23

Table 29 - Raw score comparisons for Planning, Assessment and Controls.

1994 1993 Items P. A. & C Pin & Ass Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.47 3.76 -0.29

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.38 3.41 -0.03

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.78 4.24 -0.46

18. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.47 3.76 -0.29

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.44 3.75 -0.31 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 4.19 4.48 -0.29

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.41 3.71 -0.30

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.16 3.71 -0.55 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.03 3 41 -0.38

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.81 e 12 -0.31

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.97 4.29 -0.32

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.94 4.30 -0.36

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.06 3.26 0.80 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.63 3.94 -0.31

8. Supv understand teen aspects of work 3.94 4.30 -0.36

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.09 3 82 0.27

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.18 3.17 0 01

19. I know how to get info I need 4.38 4.18 0.20

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 4.00 4.30 -0.30 l

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.91 3.89 0.02 l

l l

1 l

l I

l Table 30 - Raw score comparisons for Human Resources - Nuclear.

I 1994 1993  !

Items HR Nucl HR Chan=e summmmma mammudas Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.59 3.42 0.17 i

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.32 3.10 0.22

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.14 2.89 0.25

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3 05 2.78 0.27

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.51 3.00 0.51

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.68 2.78 0.90

43. We review graphs of performance 3.97 2.21 1.76

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.05 2.95 0.10 Feedback '

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.22 2.68 0.54

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.62 3.58 0.04

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.41 3.31 0.10 ,

17. Supvis specific 3.57 3.53 0.04

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.57 3.58 -0.01

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.24 3.78 -0.54

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.24 3.01 0.23 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) 7

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.95 3.47 0.48

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.51 4.21 0.30

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.62 3.16 0.46

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.10 2.74 0.36 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.59 3.63 -0.04

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.43 3.26 0.17

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.14 3.68 0.46

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.24 2.57 0.67  ;

46. Changes are made based on input 3.05 2.36 0.69 S t. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.97 3.47 0.50

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.65 3.67 -0.02

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.49 4.60 -0.11 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.76 3.10 0.66

27. I meet with other groups 3.48 3.31 0.17 ,

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.41 2.11 0.30

34. De last time I met with other groups 2.68 2.27 0.41

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.78 3.62 0.16 -

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.14 2.90 0.24

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.78 3.47 0.31

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.89 3.32 0.57 ,

i i

i Table 30 - Raw score comparisons for Human Resources - Nuclear.

1994 1993 Items HR Nuci HR Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.03 3.21 -0.18

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.76 2.89 -0.13 i

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.41 3.79 -0.38 !

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.97 2.95 0.02 j

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.95 2.94 0.01 l Consequences (compensation) l

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.59 3.79 -0.20 i

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.11 3.22 -0.11

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.14 3.31 -0.17 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor j f 3.14 2.84 0.30

23. First aciton is to help rad cr than punish 3.78 3.69 0.09

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.84 3.79 0.05 ;

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.35 3.68 -0.33 )

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.49 3.05 0.44 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.57 3.68 -0.11

8. Supy understand tech aspects of work 3.65 3.68 -0.03

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.05 4.16 -0.11

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.54 3.42 0.12

19. I know how to get info I need 4.32 4.21 0.11

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.78 3.58 0.20

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.76 3.69 0.07 l

l l

l l

Table 31 - Raw score comparisons for Site Facilities.

1994 1993 Items Site Fact Facilities Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.20 3.90 -0.7

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.80 3.40 -0.60

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.20 3.00 0.20

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.20 2.80 0.40

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.20 3.14 0.06

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.20 3.25 -1.05

43. We review graphs of performance 2.00 , , 2.96 -0.96

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.40 l 2.95 -0.55 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.40 2.85 -0.45

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.20 3.19 0.01

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.20 3.64 -0.44

17. Supv is specific 3.40 3.26 0.14

18. Supv discusses current performance 4.20 3.47 0.73

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.40 3.42 -0.02

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.00 3.01 -0.01 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.80 3.66 0.14

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.60 4.40 0.20

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.20 3.76 -0.56

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.20 2.80 0.40 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.60 4.00 -0.40

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.80 3.69 0.11 !

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.40 4.31 0.09

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.40 3.25 0.15 i l

46. Changes are made based on input 3.80 2.90 0.90 5

_1. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.60 4.20 0.40 de My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.20 3.85 0.35 11 can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 5.00 4.61 0.39 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.20 3.95 0.25

27. I meet with other groups 2.60 2.64 -0.04

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.20 1.85 0.35 j

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.20 2.91 -0.71

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.60 3.80 -0.20

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.20 2.85 0.35

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.60 4.05 0.55

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.40 4.00 0.40 I l

1 1

Table 31 - Raw score comparisons for Site Facilities.

1994 1993  ;

Items Site Fac1 Facilities Change 1 Consequences (recognition) i 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.40 3.34 0.06

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.00 3.04 -0.04

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.20 3.09 0.11

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 3.40 3.11 0.29

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.80 3.24 0.56 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 4.40 3.30 1.10

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.20 2.90 0.30

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.40 2.55 0.85 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.60 3.00 0.60

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 4.40 3.85 0.55 ,

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.20 4.01 0.19

33. Supv is objective and constructive 4.40 3.65 0.75

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.40 2.75 1.65 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.60 3.55 0.05

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.40 3.49 -0.09

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.00 4.15 -0.15

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.60 3.06 0.54

19. I know how to get info I need 3.80 4.30 -0.50

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.20 3.80 0.40

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.80 3.55 0.25

i l

I Table 32- Raw score comparisons for Outage.

1994 1993 Items Outage Outage Change i Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.35 3.24 0.11

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.18 3.51 -0.33

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.21 2.93 0.28

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.86 2.92 -0.06

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.74 3.39 0.35

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.71 2.85 -0.14

43. We review graphs of performance 2.64 2.28 0.36

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.77 2.32 0.45 Feedback i

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.21 3.08 0.13 I

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.23 3.65 -1.42 l

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.50 3.03 -0.53 i

17. Supv is specific 3.00 3.68 -0.68

18. Supv discusses current performance 2.90 3.86 -0.96 )

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.36 3.64 -0.28

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.81 3.01 -0.20 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reficct needs of others 3.96 3.90 0.06

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.09 4.21 -0.12

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.35 3.25 0.10

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.67 2.39 0.28 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.74 3.86 -0.12

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.36 3.54 -0.18

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.65 4.00 -0.35

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.04 n/a

46. Changes are made based on input 3.00 2.75 0.25

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.70 3.96 -0.26

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.55 3.64 -0.09

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.76 4.39 0.37 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.17 3.35 0.82

27. I meet with other groups 4.52 3.82 0.70

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 3.50 2.75 0.75

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.57 2.86 0.71

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.87 3.46 0.41

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.65 3.79 -0.14

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.74 3.93 -0.19

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.09 3.64 0.45

Table 32- Raw score comparisons for Outage.

1994 1993 Items Outage Outage Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.% 3.14 -0.18

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.78 2.78 0.00 47.1.ast time I was told I was doing a good job 3.17 3.80 -0.63

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.57 2.86 -0.29 ,

56. Informed of co-worker's perfonnance 2.77 2.% -0.19 Consequences (compensation)  ;

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.95 3.55 -0.60

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.70 3.08 -0.38

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.70 2.92 -0.22 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.78 3.17 -0.39

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.10 3.31 -0.21

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.57 3.82 -0.25

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.29 3.36 -0.07

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.30 2.72 0.58 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.17 3.44 -0.27 ,

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.% 3.79 0.17

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.13 3.97 0.16

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.41 3.00 -0.59

19. I know how to get info I need 4.52 4.32 0.20

41. I ca. discuss develop need with supv 3.50 3.74 -0.24

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.87 3.51 0.36

Table 33 - Raw score comparisons for Maintenance Support.  ;

1994 1993

=; = - = .== I =M"' = - u _ ._. D DM Measurement 1

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.33 3.24 0.09

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.16 3.51 -0.35

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.93 2.93 0.00

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.95 2.92 0.03

30. Work tracked against schedule 2.66 3.39 -0.73 f 38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.07 2.85 0.22 l 43. We review graphs of performance 2.46 2.28 0.18

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.52 2.32 0.20 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.82 3.08 -0.26

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.15 3.65 -0.50

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.16 3.03 0.13

17. Supvis specific 3.13 3 68 -0.55

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.20 3.86 -0.66

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.30 3.64 -0.34 q

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.00 3.01 -0.01 '

Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) 16 Goals reflect needs ofothers 3.54 3.90 -0.36 l

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.21 4.21 0.00

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 2.85 3.25 -0.40

40. Imolved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.36 2.39 -0.03 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 2.66 3.86 -1.20

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.39 3.54 -0.15

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.66 4.00 -0.34

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.15 n/a

46. Changes are made based on input 2.59 2.75 -0.16

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.93 3.96 -0.03

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.22 3.64 -0.42

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supy 4.20 4.39 -0.19 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.66 3.35 0.31

27. I meet with other groups 3.56 3.82 -0.26

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.59 2.75 -0.16

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.89 2.86 0.03

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.33 3.46 -0.13

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.40 3.79 -0.39

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.63 3.93 -0.30

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.80 3.64 0.16

Table 33 - Raw score comparisons for Maintenance Support.

1994 1993 Items Mnt Sup Men Ping Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.75 3.14 -0.39

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.70 2.78 -0.08

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.46 3.80 -0.34

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.93 2.86 0.07

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.97 2.% 0.01 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.10 3.55 -0.45

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.72 3.08 -0.36 ,

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.56 2.92 -0.36 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.70 3.17 -0.47

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.21 3.31 -0.10

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.52 3.82 -0.30

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.22 3.36 -0.14

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.38 2.72 0.66 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.21 3.44 -0.23

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.10 3.79 -0.69

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.31 3.97 0.34

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.84 3.00 -0.16

19. I la.ow how to get info I need 4.46 4.32 0.14

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.49 3.74 -0.25

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.26 3.51 -0.25 i

i r

i

Table 34 - Raw score comparisons for Operations Support.

1994 1993 Items . __

g g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.87 3.45 -0.58 ,

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.79 3.31 -0.52

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.94 3.31 -0.37

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.78 3.12 -0.34

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.48 3.56 -0.08

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.76 2.87 0.89

43. We review graphs of performance 2.54 2.87 -0.33

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.52 3.13 -0.61 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.54 3.07 -0.53

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.49 3.32 -0.83

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.34 2.62 -0.28

17. Supvis specific 2.72 3.31 -0.59  ;

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.15 3.69 -0.54

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.36 3.44 -0.08

35. Employces coached to help improve 2.87 3.01 -0.14 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.48 4.19 -0.71

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.00 4.43 -0.43

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.98 3.63 -0.65

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.30 2.76 -0.46  ;

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.53 3.50 0.03

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.35 3.38 -0.03 8

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.% 4.19 -0.23

44. Emplovces are ask for their input 3.00 3.38 -0.38

46. Changes are made based on input 2.47 3.12 -0.65

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.78 4.13 -0.35 ,

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.35 3.87 -0.52

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.15 4.69 -0.54 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.35 4.00 -0.65

27. I meet with other groups 3.22 4.19 -0.97

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.18 2.27 -0.09  !

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.58 2.75 -0.17

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.30 3.68 -0.38

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.98 2.75 0.23

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.65 4.25 -0.60

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.42 3.81 -0.39 l

l 1

a Table 34 - Raw score comparisons for Operations Support.

1994 1993 f Items Ops Sup Ops Sup Change Consequences (recognition) i 1. Employees are recnoni-A for a good job 2.68 3.24 -0.56 ,

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.74 2.93 -0.19 l

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 2.72 3.68 -0.% l

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.58 3.00 -0.42

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.70 3.11 -0.41 Consequences (compensation) ,

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.04 3.63 -0.59

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.02 3.38 -0.36

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.00 3.00 0.00 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.66 3.25 -0.59

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish ' 3.02 3.82 -0.80

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.36 3.87 -0.51 l

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.00 3.90 -0.90

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.17 3.07 0.10 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.15 3.69 -0.54

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.06 4.07 -0.01

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.81 4.08 -0.27

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.19 3.69 -0.50

19. I know how to get info I need 4.15 4.31 -0.16

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.17 3.74 -0.57  :

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.43 3.82 -0.39 ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ._ _ ___ - _m _--

~ *m . -

Table 35 - Raw score comparisons for MSSD, i 1994 1993

_ . . _ . I',*".s.

g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.01 3.57 -0.56

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.40 3.69 -0.29

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.20 3.38 -0.18 :

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.10 3.49 -0.39

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.80 3.85 -0.05 ,

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.70 3.12 -0.42 *

43. We review graphs of performance 3.00 2.38 0.62 .

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.10 2.66 0.44 Feedback j

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.20 3.20 0.00 '

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.60 3.62 -1.02

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.80 3.39 -0.59

17. Supvis specific 2.90 3.86 -0.%

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.60 3.74 -0.14

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.10 3.85 -0.75

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.90 3.01 -0.11 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reficct needs of others 4.00 3.91 0.09

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.10 4.35 -0.25 j

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.10 3.76 -0.66

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.50 2.53 -0.03 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) '

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.80 3.64 0.16

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.20 3.37 -0.17

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.30 4.35 -0.05

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.00 3.11 -0.11

46. Changes are made based on input 2.80 2.80 0.00

$1. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.30 4.25 0.05

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.40 3.79 -0.39

59. I can discuss nucI safety concern w supv 4.80 4.52 0.28 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.60 4.24 0.36

27. I meet with other groups 4.10 3.60 0.50

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 3.20 2.68 0.52

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.30 3.06 0.24

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.90 3.69 0.21

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.60 3.28 0.32

$5. Members of my group work as a team 4.60 4.27 0.33

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.50 4.13 0.37

Table 35 - Raw score comparisons for MSSD.

1994 1993 Items MSSD tn a Sun Change Consequences (recognition) i 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.50 3.29 -0.79

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.50 2.94 -0.44

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 2.90 3.84 -0.94

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.40 3.05 -0.65

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.20 2.99 -0.79 ,

Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.90 3.27 -0.37

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.70 3.01 -0.31

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.70 2.95 -0.25 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.50 3.58 -1.08

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.30 3.97 -0.67

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.60 4.14 -0.54

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.60 3.88 -0.28 ,

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.00 2.86 1.14 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.50 4.11 -0.61 1

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.70 4.11 -0.41  !

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.30 4.37 -0.07

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.20 3.82 -0.62

19. I know how to get info I need 4.60 4.50 0.10

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.50 4.02 -0.52

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.60 3.85 -0.25 i

l i

Table 36 Raw score comparisons for Unit I- Mechanical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items _ _

Unt IM Mech Min g

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.39 3.12 0.27

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.11 3.05 0.06

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.06 2.71 0.35

26. Data use to improve quality of work 5.03 2.83 2.20

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.14 3.64 0.50

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.33 2.27 1.06

43. We review graphs of performance 3.11 2.43 0.68

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.97 2.60 0.37 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.00 2.80 0.20

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.08 2.76 0.32

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.06 2.24 0.82

17. Supvis specific 3. I I 2.86 0.25

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.19 3.04 0.15

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.25 2.97 0.28

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.08 3.01 0.07 Teamwork & Communication (goal .-atting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.69 3.27 0.42

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.47 3.89 0.58

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.28 3.04 0.24

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.39 1.90 0.49 ,

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.92 3.70 0.22 .

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.58 3.34 0.24

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.50 3.79 0.71

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.42 2.61 0.81  !

46. Changes are made based on input 2.75 2.45 0.30

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.14 3.63 0.51

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.14 3.43 0.71

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.67 4.12 0.55 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.75 3.45 0.30

27. I meet with other groups 3.56 3.17 0.39 1

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.25 1.69 0.56 j

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.33 2.00 0.33  !

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.75 3.56 0.19 l

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.83 2.84 0.99 l

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.42 3.74 0.68 _ l

53. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.94 3.52 0.42 l

_A

Table 36 Raw score comparisons for Unit I- Mechanical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 1M Mech Mtn Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.28 2.76 0.52

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.89 2.54 1.35

47. Last hme I wn told I was doing a good job 3.92 3.15 0.77

)

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.28 2.62 0.66

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.00 2.58 0.42 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.71 2.72 -0.01

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.78 2.66 0.12

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.72 2.47 0.25 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.78 2.68 0.10

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.31 2.82 0.49

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.58 3.57 0.01

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.53 3.27 0.26

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.78 2.51 1.27 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.17 3.74 0.43 1

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.31 3.82 0.49 l

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.11 4.03 0.08 l

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.50 3.06 0.44 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.47 4.18 0.29

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.81 3.31 0.50

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.89 3.77 0.12

l l

Table 37 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Electrical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 1 Elet Elct Min Chan e suuuuseumi -

]

Measurement i

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.51 3.02 0.49 l

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.55 2.97 0.58

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.46 2.96 0.50  ;

1

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.62 2.88 0.74

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.15 3.87 0.28

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.69 2.51 1.18

43. We review graphs of performance 3.10 2.58 0.52

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.08 2.47 0.61  ;

l Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.33 2.85 0.48

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.60 2.69 0.91

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.40 2.27 1.13

17. Supv is specific 3.67 3.20 0.47 j

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.87 3.26 0.61 ,

3.39 0.64  ;

20. Fdbk on events I control 4.03

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 3.65 3.01 0.64 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.90 3.41 0.49

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.53 3.99 0.54

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.88 3.26 0.62

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.85 1.98 1.87  :

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.45 3.53 -0.08

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.25 3.27 -0.02

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.50 4.19 0.31

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.88 2.91 0.97

46. Changes are made based on input 3.38 2.54 0.84

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.36 3.93 0.43

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.44 3.77 0.67

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supy 4.85 4.30 0.55 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.15 3.71 0.44

27. I meet with other groups 3 46 3.41 0.05

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.24 1.72 0.52

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.16 1.88 0.28

37. When I ask for support from other grps 4.03 3.66 0.37

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.16 2.68 0.48

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.41 4.07 0.34

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.03 3.75 0.28

N Table 37 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Electrical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 1 Elet Ekt Mtn Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.78 3.00 0.78

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.35 2.73 0.62 ,

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 4.05 3.39 0.66 1

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 3.90 2.92 0.98

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 4.03 2.90 1.13 1 1

Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.24 2.68 0.56

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.33 2.98 0.35 l

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.23 2.73 0.50 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.39 2.% 0.43

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.74 3.06 0.68

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.13 3.66 0.47

33. Supy is objective and constructive 4.16 3.62 0.54

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.38 2.51 1.87 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.53 3.84 0.69

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.50 3.91 0.59

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.35 4.03 0.32

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 4.18 3.22 0.%

19. I know how to get info I need 4.40 4.11 0.29

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.18 3.50 0.68

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.33 3.58 0.75

i Table 38 - Raw score comparisons for Unit I - I & C Maintenance.

1994 1993 ,

Items Unt 11aC I&C gane Ch  ;

.;. _ _ _ _ . - . - ,. .. = m .

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.95 2.72 0.23

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.02 2.74 0.28

24. Collect data te anticipate problems 2.72 2.83 -0. I I  :

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.53 2.37 0.16 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.68 3.15 0.53

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.84 2.03 0.81

43. We review graphs of performance 2.45 2.01 0.44  ;

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.45 2.21 0.24 Feedback i

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.02 2.95 0.07

6. Last talked about quality ofmy work 3.07 2.58 0.49

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.86 2.30 0.56  ;

17. Supv is specific 2.93 2.72 0.21 (

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.02 2.85 0.17

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.20 2.86 0.34

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 2.77 3.01 -0.24 Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.16 3.28 -0.12

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.07 3.71 0.36

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 2.84 2.56 0.28

40. Insolved in setting Dept / Division gcals 1.82 1.77 0.05 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.73 3.47 0.26

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.50 3.21 0.29

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.86 3.82 0.04

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.55 2.38 0.17

46. Changes are made based on input 2.50 2.17 0.33

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.64 3.54 0.10

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.25 3.25 0.00 j

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 3.93 3.94 -0.01 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relatioris with others 3.75 3.47 0.28

27. I meet with other groups 3.55 3.35 0.20

32. Meet with other grps to discuss sersice 1.86 1.74 0.12

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.20 1.99 0.21

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.89 3.61 0.28

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.81 2.73 0.08

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.77 3.67 0.10

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.68 3.52 0.16 l

Table 38 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - I & C Maintenance.  ;

i 1994 1993  !

Items Unt 1 IaC I&C Chante l Consequences (recognition) l

11. Emplovees are recognized for a good job 3.02 2.65 0.37 ,

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.91 2.58 0.33 i

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.82 3.13 0.69  !

48. Individua!s receive recognition for a good job 2.95 2.58 0.37 .

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.16 2 48 0.68  ;

Consequences (compensation) l

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.17 2.22 -0.05 [

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.39 2.90 -0.51 l

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.09 2.61 -0.52  !

Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.61 2.46 0.15 1

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.64 2.41 0.23 .

I

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.27 3.34 -0.07

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.00 3.10 -0.10

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 2.95 1.84 1.11 Training & Development f

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.52 3.49 0.03 1

8. Supv understand tech vs pects of work 3.68 3.70 -0.02 t

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.11 3.92 0.19  !

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 2.57 2.47 0.10  ;

19. I know how to get info I need 4.11 3.96 0.15  :

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 2.89 3.19 -0.30 l

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.68 3.44 0.24 ,

I E

I l

f I

l r

s i

. _ . . __~

l l

l Table 39 - Raw score comparisons for Unit I- Work Control.

1994 1993 l Items Unt 1WC g j Measurement )

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.65 3.23 0.42 i

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.28 2.72 0.56 l

, 24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.00 3.15 -0.15 i

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.76 2.86 -0.10 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.07 3.71 0.36  !

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.22 2.63 0.59

43. We review graphs of performance 2.80 2.72 0.08

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.07 3.14 -0.07 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.83 2.82 0.01

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.22 3.33 -0.11

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.37 2.61 0.76

17. Supy is specific 2.89 3.01 -0.12

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.17 3.34 -0.17 ,

3.39 3.47 -0.08 ,

20. Fdbk on events I control

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 2.91 3.01 -0.10 i Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.74 3.58 0.16  ;

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.22 3.57 0.65 I

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.17 2.82 0.35

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.50 2.48 0.02 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)  :

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.67 3.43 0.24

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.52 3.33 0.19

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.00 3.7) 0.29

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.15 na

46. Changes are made based on input 2.74 2.85 -0.11

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.13 3.68 0.45

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.61 3.19 0.42 ,

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supv 4.50 4.06 0.44 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) i

21. We have effective relations with others 3.78 3.62 0.16 ,

27. I meet e.9.h other groups 4.00 3.% 0.04

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 3.02 2.78 0.24

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.57 2.86 0.71  ;

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.76 3.52 0.24

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.52 3.14 0.38

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.% 3.52 0.44

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.98 3.67 0.31

Table 39 - Raw score comparisons for Unit I- Work Control.

1994 1993 Items Unt IWC WCC Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Emplovces are remonived for a gcod job 2.72 2.58 0.14

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.52 2.61 0.09

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.26 2.95 11

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.78 2.81 4 03

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.65 2.42 0.23 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.09 2.91 0.18

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.91 3.01 -0.10 i

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.65 2.86 -0.21 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.76 2.76 0.00

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.30 2.81 0.49

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.67 3.58 0.09

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.43 3.00 0.43

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.41 3.00 0.41 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob _ , .

3.50 3.52 -0.02

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work _

3.54 3.42 0.12

10. I know exactly how to do myjob weli _. 4.13 3.95 0.18 ;

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.67 3.05 -0.38 ,

19. I know how to get info I need 4.41 4.24 0.17

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.67 3.37 0.30

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.72 3.71 0.01 L

r t

Table 40 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Operations.

1994 1993 Items Unt 1 Ops Unt 1 Ops Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk base [en cust requiremnts 2.95 2.85 0.1

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.27 2.98 0.29

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.58 3.45 0.13

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.15 2.91 0.24

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.58 3.08 0.50

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.32 2.12 1.20

43. We review graphs of performance 2.79 2.30 0.49

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.41 2.46 -0.05 Feedback  ;

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.82 2.94 -0.12

6. Imt talked about quality of my work 3.23 2.69 0.54

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.92 2.45 1.47 ,

17. Supvis specific 3.35 3.50 -0.15

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.55 3.58 -0.03 j

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.58 3.65 -0.07

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.53 3.01 0.52 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.85 3.44 0.41

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.58 4.16 0.42

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.56 3.19 0.37

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.26 2.08 0.18 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I voluistcer ideas to improve groups perf 3.64 3.54 0.10

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.45 3.20 0.25

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.38 4.13 0.25

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.86 2.67 0.19 l

46. Changes are made based on input 2.74 2.56 0.18 l

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.17 4.09 0.08

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.82 3.85 -0.03

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supy 4.73 4.48 0.25 Teemwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.02 3.92 0.10

27. I meet with other groups 4.09 3.75 0.34 i 1

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.21 1.77 0.44

34. %c tast time I met with other groups 2.39 2.05 0.34

37. Whea I ask for support from other grps 3.94 3.60 0.34

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.77 2.65 0.12

, 55. Members of my group work as a team 4.33 4.29 0.04 I

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.02 3.79 0.23

L Table 40 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 1 - Operations.

1994 1993 Items Unt 1 Ops Unt 1 Ops Change Consequences (recognition) ,

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.86 2.84 0.02

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.65 2.66 -0.01

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.74 3.37 0.37 l

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.95 2.94 0.01

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.12 3.35 -0.23 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 2.52 2.81 -0.29  ;

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.09 3.09 0.00

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.00 2.91 0.09 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.17 2.99 0.18

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.83 3.25 -0.42 i

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.79 3.61 0.18 l

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.56 3.65 -0.09

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.27 2.65 0.62 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.06 3.91 0.15

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.62 4.59 0.03

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.08 4.00 0.08

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.61 3.09 0.52

19. I know how to get info I need 4.27 4.17 0.10

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.61 3.65 -0.04

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.92 3.78 0.14 l

I l

l l

I i

l l

Table 41 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Mechanical Maintenance.

1994 1993

_ N * L = = = = =_ h0  ?'=Y" W Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.02 3.12 -0.1

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.20 3.05 0.15

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.94 2.71 0.23

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.92 2.83 0.09

30. Work tracked meinst schedule 3.94 3.64 0.30

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.90 2.27 0.63

43. We review graphs of performance 2.59 2.43 0.16

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.82 2.60 0.22 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.12 2.80 0.32

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.73 2.76 -0.03 {'

14. Imet talked about support for other grps 2.65 2.24 0.41

17. Supv is specific 3.14 2.86 0.28 ,

18. Supv discusses current perfonnance 3.34 3.04 0.30

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.33 2.97 0.36

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 2.84 3.01 -0.17 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.37 3.27 0.10

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.12 3.89 0.23

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.49 3.04 0.45

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.20 1.90 0.30 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) ,

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.88 3.70 0.18 ,

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.63 3.34 0.29

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.14 3.79 0.35

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.92 2.61 0.31

46. Changes are made based on input 2.67 2.45 0.22

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.08 3.63 0.45

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.78 3.43 0.35

59. I can discuss nucl sefety concern w supy 4.10 4.12 -0.02

[eamwork & Communication (w other groups) 2i. We have effective relations with others 3.69 3.45 0.24

27. I meet with other groups 3.33 3.17 0.16

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.02 1.69 0.33 ,

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.18 2.00 0.18 f

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.65 3.56 0.09 l

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.71 2.84 -0.13 i

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.04 3.74 0.30

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.67 3.52 0.15

t Table 41 - Raw wore comparisons for Unit 2 - Mechanical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 2 M Mech Mtn Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are ra-nimed for a good job 3.16 2.76 0.40

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.65 2.54 0.11

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.55 3.15 0.40

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.94 2.62 0.32

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.90 2.58 0.32 Consequences (compensation) -

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.50 2.72 -0.22

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.49 2.66 -0.17

42. Relationsitip between promotion and perf 2.27 2.47 -0.20 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.78 2.68 0.10

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.86 2.82 0.04 <

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.84 3.57 0.27 l

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.55 3.27 0.28

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.29 2.51 0.78 l Training & Development i

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.80 3.74 0.06 l

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.% 3.82 0.24

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.39 4.03 0.36

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.22 3.06 0.16

19. I know how to get info I need 4.49 4.18 0.31 .

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.53 3.31 0.22 l

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.86 3.77 0.09 l

l I

Table 42 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Electrical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items _

Unt 2 Elct g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.68 3.02 0.66

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.51 2.97 0.54

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.39 2.% 0.43

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.46 2.88 0.58 i

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.31 3.87 0.44

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.50 2.51 0.99

43. We review graphs of performance 2.81 2.58 0.23

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.91 2.47 0.44 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.19 2.85 0.34

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.25 2.69 0.56

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.97 2.27 0.70

17. Supv is specific 3.44 3.20 0.24  ;

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.62 3.26 0.36

20. Fdhk on events I control 3.65 3.39 0.26 l

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 3.50 3.01 0.49 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)  !'

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.78 3.41 0.37

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.52 3.99 0.53  !

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.61 3.26 0.35

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.75 1.98 0.77 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.75 3.53 0.22 ,

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.53 3.27 0.26 )

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.58 4.19 0.39

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.36 2.91 0.45

46. Changes are made based on input 3.14 2.54 0.60

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.23 3.93 0.30

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.03 3.77 0.26

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supv 4.53 4.30 0.23 l Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) l

21. We have effective relations with others 4.08 3.71 0.37 f

27. I meet with other groups 3.31 3.41 -0.10

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.42 1.72 0.70

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.43 1.88 0.55

37. When I ask for support from other grps 4.06 3.66 0.40

52. I ask other grps for sut2cstions 2.91 2.68 0.23

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.48 4.07 0.41

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.03 3.75 0.28 I

Table 42 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Electrical Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 2 Elct Elct Min Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.67 3.00 0.67

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.34 2.73 0.61

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.89 3.39 0.50

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 3.53 2.92 0.61

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 4.00 2.90 1.10 Consequenet ympensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decision has info 2.89 2.68 0.21

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.06 2.98 0.08

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.83 2.73 0.10 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.26 2.% 0.30

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.39 3.06 0.33

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.94 3.66 0.28

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.72 3.62 0.10

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.06 2.51 0.55 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.17 3.84 0.33

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.33 3.91 0.42

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.19 4.03 0.16

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.86 3.22 0.64 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.31 4.11 0.20

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.71 3.50 0.21

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.00 3.58 0.42 l

)

l I

i 1

l Table 43 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 -I & C Maintenance.

i 1994 1993 N'** . . ==== *' 2 C gg

=_

0.14  !

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.86 2.72

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.21 2.74 0.47

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.86 2.83 0.03

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.43 2.37 0.06 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.86 3.15 0.71

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.47 2.03 0.44 ,

43. We review graphs of performance 2.35 2.01 0.34  ;

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.59 2.21 0.38 l Feedback '!

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.88 2.95 -0.07 l'

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.39 2.58 0.81

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.71 2.30 0.41

17. Supv is specific 2.86 2.72 0.14

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.04 2.85 0.19

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.11 2.86 0.25

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 2.73 3.01 -0.28 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.31 3.28 0.03 l

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.98 3.71 0.27

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 2.82 2.56 0.26

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.10 1.77 0.33 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) l

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.57 3.47 0.10

^

j

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.37 3.21 0.16

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.92 3.82 0.10

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.51 2.38 0.13

46. Changes are made based on input 2.20 2.17 0.03

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.53 3.54 -0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.27 3.25 0.02

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.06 3.94 0.12 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.86 3.47 0.39 ,

27. I meet with other groups 3.49 3.35 0.14

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2 06 1.74 0.32

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.41 1.99 0.42

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.80 3.61 0.19

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.69 2.73 _-0.04

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.82 3.67 0.15

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.71 3.52 0.19 l

l

Table 43 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - I & C Maintenance.

1994 1993 Items Unt 2 lac I&C Change Consequences (recognition) i 1. Employees are rerngnied for a good job 2.87 2.65 0.22

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.69 2.58 0.11

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.57 3.13 0.44

48. Individuals receive recognitic's for a good job 2.96 2.58 0.38

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.10 2.48 0.62 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.38 2.22 0.16

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.41 7.90 -0.49

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.10 2.61 -0.51 Consequertces (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.49 2.46 0.03

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.71 2.41 0.30

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.37 3.34 0.03

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.28 3.10 0.18

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.27 1.84 1.43 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.59 3.49 0.10

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.67 3.70 -0.03

10. I know exactly hew to do myjob well 4.41 3.92 0.49

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.12 2.47 -0.35

19. I know how to get info I need 4.12 3.96 0.16

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.18 3.19 -0.01

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.64 3.44 0.20 i

C

Table 44 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Work Control.

1994 1993 Items Unt 2WC WCC Chang Measurement

5. Evaluate wk bacd on cust requiremnts 3.56 3.23 0.33

7. Quality ofwork objectively measured 3.45 2.72 0.73

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.08 3.15 -0.07

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.11 2.86 0.25

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.24 3.71 0.53

38. My group reviewed data on perf 4.02 2.63 1.39

43. We review graphs of performance 3.63 2.72 0.91

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.24 3.14 0.10 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.18 2.82 0.36

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.56 3.33 0.23  ;

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.56 2.61 0.95

17. Supv is specific 3.37 3.01 0.36

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.66 3.34 0.32

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.56 3.47 0.09

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.11 3.01 0.10 I

Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.98 3.58 0.40 1 l

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.21 3.57 0.64

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.56 2.82 0.74

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.45 2.48 -0.03 j Teamwork & Communication (Participation) l

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.74 3.43 0.31

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.61 3.33 0.28

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.21 3.71 0.50

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.34 na

46. Changes are made based on input 2.90 2.85 0.05

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.89 3.68 0.21

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.73 3.19 0.54

59. I can discuss nuel safety concem w supv 4.31 4.06 0.25 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.11 3.62 0.49 l

27. I meet with other groups 4.24 3.96 0.28 l

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.97 2.78 0.19 l

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.21 2.86 0.35

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.95 3.52 0.43

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.74 3.14 0.60

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.11 3.52 0.59

58. We maintain werking relations w other gps 4.09 3.67 0.42

l l

Table 44 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Work Control.

1994 1993 l Items Unt 2 WC WCC Change i Consequences (recognition) l l 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.10 2.58 0.52

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.84 2.61 0.23

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 4.02 2.95 1.07 ,

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.15 2.81 0.34 l

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.03 2.42 0.61 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.10 2.91 0.19

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.82 3.01 -0.19

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.68 2.86 -0.18 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.89 2.76 0.13

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.34 2.81 0.53

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.82 3.58 0.24

33. Supv is objective and conttructive 3.53 3.00 0.53

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.13 3.00 0.53 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.35 3.52 -0.17

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.63 3.42 0.21

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.23 3.95 0.28

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.82 3.05 -0.23

19. I know how to get info I need 4.42 4.24 0.18

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.74 3.37 0.37

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.92 3.71 0.21

Table 45 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Operations.

1994 1993 Items _ _ _ _ _ _ . gg Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.85 2.94 -0.09

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.89 3.17 -0.28

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.02 3.56 -0.54

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.72 2.81 -0.09

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.43 3.13 0.30

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.87 2.68 0.19

43. We review graphs of performance 2.43 2.40 0.03

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.23 2.46 -0.23 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.83 2.81 0.02

6. I met talked about quality of my work 3.09 3.06 0.03

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.72 2.64 0.08

17. Supv is specific 3.11 3.47 -0.36

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.34 3.42 -0.08

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.36 3.76 -0.40

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.94 3.01 -0.07 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.60 3.36 0.24

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.23 4.45 -0.22

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.91 3.50 -0.59 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.11 1.98 0.13 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)  ;

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.49 3.71 -0.22  ;

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.15 3.51 -0.36

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.02 4.23 -0.21

44. Emplovces are ask for their input 2.66 2.69 -0.03

46. Changes are made based on input 2.60 2.59 0.01

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.77 4.09 -0.32

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.45 3.86 -0.41

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supv 4.43 4.67 -0.24 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others ~3.83 3.91 -0.08

27. I meet with other groups 3.72 4.02 -0.30

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.13 1.67 0.46

34. Thepst Smc I met with other groups 2.24 1.88 0.36

37. When I ask_ for support from other grps 3.91 3.61 0.30

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.49 2.82 -0.33 I

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.04 4.20 -0.16

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.74 3.81 -0.07

l l

Table 45 - Raw score comparisons for Unit 2 - Operations.

1994 1993 l Items Unt 2 Ops Unt 2 Ops Change  !

Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.66 2.76 -0.10 J

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.36 2.43 -0.07

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.47 3.33 0.14

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.68 2.70 -0.02 l

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.66 3.04 -0.38 Consequences (compensation)  :

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 2.30 2.72 -0.42

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.98 2.99 -0.01

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.87 2.64 0.23 i Consequences (correction)  !

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.09 3.13 -0.04

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.28 2.98 -0.70

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.49 3.83 -0.34

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.09 3.68 -0.59

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.17 2.47 0.70 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.00 3.83 0.17

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.17 4.37 -0.20

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.06 3.98 0.08

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.53 3.42 0.11

19. I know how to get info I need 4.30 4.33 -0.03

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.43 3.71 -0.28

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.13 3.77 0.36 i

1

Table 46 - Raw score connparisons for Nuclear Security.

1994 1993 Items- __ _

_ gg g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.35 3.37 -0.02

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.80 3.22 -0.42 ,

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.90 3.48 -0.58 j

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.00 3.10 -0.10 j

30. Work tracked meninst schedule 3.65 3.78 -0.13

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2,10 3.09 8.91  !

43. We review graphs of performance 2.05 2.74 -0.69

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.20 2.95 -0'15 l l

Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.10 2.90 0.20 l

6. I mtt talked about quality of my work 2.80 3.11 -0.31

14. I met talked about support for other grps 2.45 2.68 -0.23 l

17. Supvis specific 3.20 3.26 -0.06

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.50 3.10 0.40

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.25 3.47 -0.22  ;

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 2.75 3.01 -0.26 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.65 3.53 0.12

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.10 4.05 0.05

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.00 3.32 -0.32

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.50 2.95 -0.45 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.65 3.74 -0.09

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.55 3.47 0.08

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.60 4.00 -0.40

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.85 2.89 -0.04

46. Changes are made based on input 2.50 2.84 -0.34 I

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.55 3.79 -0.24

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.25 3.53 -0.28

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supy 4.00 3.89 0.11 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.60 3.73 -013

27. I meet with other groups 3.40 3.63 -0.23

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.55 2.90 -0.35

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.80 3.06 -0.26

37. When I ask for suppod from other grps 2.75 3.73 -0.98

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.35 3.31 0.04

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.45 3.52 -0.07

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.45 3.79 -0.34

Table 46 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Security.

1994 1993 Items Nuc See Nuc Sec Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.55 2.94 -0.39

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.55 2.71 -0.16

47. Imt time I was told I was doing a good job 2.95 3.32 -0.37

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.40 2.79 -0.39

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.60 2.83 -0.23 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.10 3.81 -0.71

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.55 2.95 -0.40

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.50 2.84 -0.34 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.00 2.84 0.16

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.05 3.10 -0.05

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.70 4.32 -0.62

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.10 3.37 -0.27

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.75 2.95 0.80 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 2.85 3.47 -0.62

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.30 3.35 -0.05

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.25 4.16 0.09

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.05 3.61 -0.56

19. I know how to get info I need 4.40 4.53 -0.13

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.40 3.42 -0.02

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.40 3.64 -0.24 I i

Table 47 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemistry.

1994 1993

-= . . - . = . = =  ?" :

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.84 2.86 -0.02

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.84 2.90 -0.06

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.53 3.18 0.35

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.06 2.66 0.40

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.34 3.03 0.31

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.06 2.64 0.42

43. We review graphs of performance 3.22 2.45 0.77

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.78 2.49 0.29 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.81 2.39 0.42

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.06 2.65 0.41

14. last talked about support for other grps 2.97 2.47 0.50

17. Supv is specific 2.94 3.20 -0.26

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.28 3.30 -0.02

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.22 3.26 -0.04

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.78 3.01 -0.23 Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.44 3.37 0.07

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.53 3.53 0.00

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 2.88 2.85 0.03

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.50 2.15 0.35 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.72 3.48 0.24

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.53 3.43 0.10

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 2.91 3.77 -0.86

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.94 2.71 0.23

46. Changes are made based on input 2.44 2.43 0.01

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 2.88 3.57 -0.69

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.22 3.64 -0.42 ;

$9. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 3.84 4.18 -0.34 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.38 3.46 -0.08

27. I meet with other groups 4.06 3.65 0.41

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.63 1.85 0.78

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.66 2.22 0.44

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.34 3.27 0.01

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.03 2.72 0.31

55. Members of my group work as a team 2.88 3.60 -0.72

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.41 3.54 -0.13

)

i I

Table 47 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemistry.

1994 1993 Items Chem Chm Anal Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Emplovees are recognized for a goodjob 2.41 2.52 -0.11

13. Ramtnition is given for support to other grps 2.38 2.31 0.07

47. I *=t time I was told I was doing a good job 3.03 3.00 0.03

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 2.38 2.39 -0.01

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.25 2.75 -0.50 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.81 2.42 0.39

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.59 2.85 -0.26

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.41 2.51 -0.10 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.38 2.65 -0.27

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.53 2.64 -0. I 1

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.44 3.64 -0.20

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.19 3.46 -0.27

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.19 2.74 0.45 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.47 3.66 -0.19

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.91 3.86 0.05 3.94 -0.25 i

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.69

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.34 2.% 0.38

19. I know how to get info I need 4.00 4.11 -0.11

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.44 3.58 -0.14

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.38 3.42 -0.04 3

6 I

I

Table 48 - Raw score comparisons for Health Physics.

1994 1993

"? = = = M O W Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.50 3.31 0.19

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.30 3.25 0.05

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.67 3.40 0.27

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.38 3.05 0.33

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.13 3.27 4.14

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.14 2.98 0.16

43. We review graphs of performance 2.80 2.92 -0.12

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.91 2.81 0.10 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.95 3.15 -0.20  ;

6. L.ast talked about quality of my work 3.69 3.39 0.30 l'

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.31 3.31 0.00

17. Supv is specific 3.63 3.63 0.00  :

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.61 3.69 -0.08  ;

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.81 3.58 0.23

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.20 3.01 0.19 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) ,

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.94 3.66 0.28

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.13 4.16 -0.03 ,

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.63 3.13 0.50 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.31 2.28 0.03  ;

Teamwork & Communication (Participation) ,

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.77 3.58 0.19 l

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.50 3.40 0.10 f

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.17 3.91 0.26 ,

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.17 3.12 0.05

46. Changes are made based on input 2.67 2.59 0.08

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.98 3.82 0.16 1

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.00 3.79 0.21

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supy 4.50 4.56 -0.06 j Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) i

21. We have effective relations with others 4.31 3.98 0.33

27. I meet with other groups 3.77 3.79 -0.02

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 1.89 2.25 -0.36

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.22 2.59 -0.37

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.67 3.42 0.25  ;

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.13 3.03 0.10  ;

$5. Members of my group work as a team 4.09 3.70 0.39

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.11 3.77 0.34 l l

7,,- --

Table 48 - Raw score comparisons for Health Physics.

I 1994 1993 Items Hith Phys Hith Phys Change Consequences (recognition) ,

i1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.28 2.87 0.41 j

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.89 2.76 0.13

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.77 3.64 0.13

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.02 2.92 0.10 l

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.27 2.82 0.45 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.08 3.26 -0.18

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.88 3.05 -0.17

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.77 2.77 0.00 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.06 2.87 0.19

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.77 3.03 -0.26

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.13 3.88 0.25

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.81 3.82 -0.01 ,

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.78 2.34 1.44 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.88 3.79 0.09  ;

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.39 4.37 0.02

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.30 4.00 0.30

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.64 3.03 0.61

19. I know how to get info I need 4.47 4.31 0.16

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.95 3.95 0.00  ;

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.78 3.37 0.41 ,

i i

B t

Table 49 - Raw score comparisons for Met Lab.

1994 1993 ltems MetL,ab g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.64 3.52 0.12

7. Quality ofwork objectively measured 3.42 3.35 0.07

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.58 3.29 0 29

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.48 3.31 0.17

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.36 3.43 -0.07

38. My group renewed data on perf 3.55 3.32 0.23

43. We renew graphs of performance 3.73 3.09 0.64 4_6. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.52 3.34 0.18 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.55 2.92 -0.37

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.24 3.54 -0.30

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.67 3.24 -0.57

17. Supv is specific 3.45 3.54 -0.09

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.70 3.52 0.18

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.48 3.54 -0.06

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 3.33 3.01 0.32 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) l

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.85 4.03 -0.18  ;

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.45 4.50 -0.05  ;

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.39 3.80 -0.41

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.33 3.17 0.16 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.58 3.75 -0.17

22. I tell my supy about opp for impnmnt 3.67 3.50 0.17  ;

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.15 3.94 0.21  !

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.52 3.38 0.14 l

46. Changes are made based on input 3.03 3.06 -0.03

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.79 4.03 -0.24

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.67 3.92 -0.25

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supv 4.48 4.50 -0.02 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.06 4.00 0.06 ,

27. I meet with other groups 2.40 3.05 -0.65

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 1.67 2.15 -0.48

34. 'Ihe last time I met with other groups 2.03 2.56 -0.53

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.61 3.44 0.17

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.97 2.98 -0.01

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.94 3.94 0.00

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.82 3.98 -0.16 l

Table 49 - Raw score comparisons for Met Lab.

1994 1993 Items Met Lab Met Lab Change j Consequences (recognition) i1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.85 3.08 -0.23

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.76 2.89 -0.13

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.37 3.29 0.08 l

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.73 2.98 -0.25

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.00 3.18 -0.18  !

Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.73 3.68 0.05

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.15 3.02 0.13

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.79 2.80 -0.01 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.30 3.25 0.05

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.58 3.56 0.02

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.85 3.79 0.06

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.52 3.68 -0.16

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.85 3.03 0.82 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.97 3.56 0.41

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.61 3.69 -0.08

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.33 4.14 0.19

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.70 3.11 0.59

19. I know how to get info I need 4.53 4.31 0.22

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.70 3.83 -0.13

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.12 3.76 0.36 i

b

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ . - _

Table 50 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Emuent Waste Management.

1994 1993 ltems g g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.64 3.31 0.33

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.57 3.35 0.22

24. Collect data to anticipate prelems 3.36 3.29 0.07

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.36 3.31 0.05

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.36 3.43 -0.07

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.79 3.32 0.47

43. We review graphs of performance 3.43 3.09 0.34

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.00 3.34 -0.34 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.29 2.92 0.37

6. Last talked about quality of my work 4.23 3.54 0.69

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.85 3.24 0.61

17. Supv is specific 3.79 3.54 0.25

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.86 3.52 0.34

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.71 3.54 0.17

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.07 3.01 0.06 Teamwork & Communication (aoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.00 4.03 -0.03

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.36 4.50 -0.14

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.57 3.80 -0.23

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.64 3.17 0.47 Teamwork & Commun! cation (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.86 3.73 0.11

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.29 3.50 -0.21

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.64 3.94 0.70

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.43 3.38 0.05

46. Changes are made based on input 3.36 3.06 0.30

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.22 4.03 0.19

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.00 3.92 0.08

59. I can discuss nuel safety concern w supv 4.50 4.50 0.00 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.93 4.00 -0.07

27. I meet with other groups 3.79 3.05 0.74

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.77 2.15 0.62

34. He last time I met with other groups 3.62 2.56 1.06

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.86 3.44 0.42

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.43 2.98 0.45

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.29 3.94 0.35

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.29 3.98 0.31

Table 50 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Emuent Waste Management.

1994 1993 Items EWM Othr TS Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.21 3.08 0.13

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.21 2.89 0.32

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.86 3.29 0.57

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.57 2.98 0.59

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.36 3.18 0.18 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.86 3.68 0.18

29. Best qualified get pronxraxi 3.14 3.02 0.12

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.36 2.80 0.56 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3 07 3.25 -0.I8

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.29 3.56 -0.27

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.93 3.79 0.14

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.50 3.68 -0.18

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.00 3.03 0.97 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.64 3.56 0.08

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.43 3.69 -0.26

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 430 4.14 0.36

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.36 3.11 0.25

19. I know how to get info I need 4.43 4.31 0.12

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 4.21 3.83 0.38

50. I can get resources to perfonn my job 4.07 3.76 0.31 ,

t 4

Table 51 - Raw score cosnparisons for Tech Sesvices - Industrial Safety & Hygiene .

1994 1993

"'='

'S*" .J.!i.LH,, gggs Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.71 3.31 'O.4

7. Quality of work objectively measured 4.29 3.35 0.94

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.86 3.29 0.57

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.57 3.31 0.26

' 30. Work tracked against schedule 2.86 3.43 -0.57

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.86 3.32 0.54

43. We review graphs of performance 3.86 3.09 0.77

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 4.14 3.34 0.80 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.86 2.92 -0.06

6. Last talked about quality of my work 4.00 3.54 0.46

14. Last talked about support for other grps 1.00 3.24 0.76

17. Supv is specific 3.71 3.54 0.17

18. Supv discusses current performance 4.14 3.52 0.62 .i

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.57 3.54 0.03 ]

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.43 3.01 0.42 )

Teamwork & C mmunication (zoal setting) i 7

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.14 4.03 0.11

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.29 4.50 -0.21

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.86 3.80 0.06

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.14 3.17 -0,.03 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.86 3.75 0.11

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.43 3.50 -0.07

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.29 3.94 0.35

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.57 3.38 0.19

46. Changes are made based on input 3.14 3.06 0.08

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.43 4.03 0.40

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.14 3.92 0.22

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 5.00 4.50 0.50 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) I

21. We have effective relations with others 4.00 4.00 0.00

27. I meet with other groups 4.00 3.05 0.95

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.71 2.15 0.56

34. He last time I met with other groups 3.57 2.56 1.01

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.71 3.44 0.27

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.71 2.98 0.73

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.57 3.94 0.63

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.29 3.98 0.31 ,

i

- ________ ______ _______ _____ ____ __ _______ ___ _ J

Table 51 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Industrial Safety & Hygiene .

1994 1993 Itegs._, 1S&H IS&H Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.00 3.08 -0.08

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.71 2.89 -0.18 __

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.58 3.29 0.29

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.43 2.98 0.45

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.86 3.18 0.68 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 4.29 3.68 0.61

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.71 3.02 0.69

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 4.00 2.80 1.20 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.71 3.25 0.46

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.51 3.56 -0.05

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.29 3.79 0.50

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.86 3.68 0.18

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.71 3.03 0.68 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.14 3.56 0.58

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.43 3.69 -0.26

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.14 4.14 0.00  ;

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.71 3.11 0.60 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.43 4.31 0.12 l 1

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.71 3.83 0.88

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.43 3.76 0.67 I

l

Table 52 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemical Operations.

1994 1993 Items Chm Ops Chm Ops Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.98 2.86 0.12

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.96 2.90 0.06

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.00 3.18 -0.18

26. Data use to imptove quality of work 2.75 2.66 0.09

30. Work tracked against schedule 2.84 3.03 -0.19

38. My group reviewr :! data on perf 3.00 2.64 0.36

43. We review graphs of performance 2.76 2.45 0.31

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.53 2.49 0.04 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.64 2.39 0.25

6. Last talked about quality of mv work 3.18 2.63 0.53  ;

14.1.ast talked about support for other grps 2.95 2.47 0.48

17. Supv is specific 3.34 3.20 0.14

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.53 3.30 0.23

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.49 3.26 0.23

35. Employces coached to help improve 2.96 3 01 -0.05 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.67 3.37 0.30

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.18 3.53 0.65

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.13 2.85 0.28

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.62 2.15 0.47 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.71 3.48 0.23

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3 40 3.43 -0.03  ;

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.27 3.77 0.50

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.02 2.71 0.31

46. Changes are made based on input 2.65 2.43 0.22 g

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.16 3.57 0.59

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.85 3.64 0.21

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supv 4.53 4.18 0.35 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.76 3.46 0.30

27. I meet with other groups 4 05 2.65 0.40

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.24 1.85 0.39

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.46 2.22 0.24

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.56 3.27 0.29

52. I ask other grps for suggestiam 2.80 2.72 0.08 _

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.22 3.60 0.62

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.96 3.54 0.42 l

l 1

I Table 52 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Chemical Operations.

i 1994 1993  ;

Items Chm Ops Chm Ops Change Consequences (recognition) ,

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.80 2.52 0.2R -  !

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.44 2.31 0.13

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.50 3.00 0.50

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.56 2.39 0.17

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.02 2.75 0.27 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.31 2.42 -0.11

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.89 2.85 0.04

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.75 2.51 0.24 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.93 2.65 0.28

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.40 2.64 -0.24

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.78 ) 3.64 0.14

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.71 3.46 0.25

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.87 2.74 1.13 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.93 3.66 0.27 ,

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.05 3.86 0.19

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.05 3.94 0.11 ,

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.67 2.96 0.71

19. I know how to get info I need 4.36 4.1 I 0.25

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.69 3.58 0.11  :

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.67 3.42 0.25 l

t i

)

Table 53 - Raw score cossparisons for Tech Services - Other Tech Services.

i 1994 1993 I Items Othr TS Othr TS g

%surement I

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 4.25 3.31 0.94 l

7. Quality of work objectively measured 4.00 3.35 0.65 l

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 4.38 3.29 1.09 l

26. Data use to improve quality of work 4.14 3.31 0.83 i

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.88 3.43 0.45

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.88 3.32 0.56 l

43. We review graphs of performance 3.88 3.09 0.79 l

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.50 3.34 0.16 -

Feedback ~

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.25 2.92 0. 5 l j

6. Last talked about quality of my work 4.13 3.54 09_

14. Last talked about support for other grps 4.25 3.24 1.01 i

17. Supv is specific 4.25 3.54 0.71 i

18. Supv discusses current performance 4.38 3.52 0.86

20. Fdbk on events I control 4.13 3.54 0.59 ,

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 3.75 3.01 0.74 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.63 4.03 0.60

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.75 4.50 0.25

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 4.38 3.80 0.58 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.88 3.17 0.71 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)  !

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 4.13 3.75 0.38 J

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.88 3.50 0.38 i

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.38 3.94 0.44 l

44. Emplovees are ask for their input 4.25 3.38 0.87 l

46. Changes are made based on input 3.88 3.06 0.82

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4 50 4.03 0.47

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.38 3.92 0.46

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.88 4.50 0.38 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 443 4.00 0.63

27. I meet with other groups 4.50 3.05 1.45  :

32. Meet with other grps to diseass sersice 2.88 2.15 0.73 l'

34. The last time I met with other groupe 3.50 2.56 0.94

37. When I ask for support from othe: ; . 3.88 3.44 0.44

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.75 2.98 0.77 i

55. Members of my group work as t team 4.38 3.94 0.44

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.50 3.98 0.52 2

i t

Table 53 - Raw score comparisons for Tech Services - Other Tech Services. .

1994 1993 Items Othr TS Othr TS Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Emplovees are recognized for a good job 3.75 3.08 0.67

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.50 2.89 0.61 ,

47. L.ast time I was told I was doing a good job 4.00 3.29 0.71

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.75 2.98 0.77

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 4.13 3.18 0.5A Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decir.sion has info 4.38 3.68 0.70

29. Best qualified get promoted 4.00 3.02 0.98

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.75 2.80 0.95 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.75 3.25 0.50

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 4.63 3.56 1.07

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.25 3.79 0.46

33. Supv is objective and constructive 4.63 3.68 0.95

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.63 3.03 1.60 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 4.13 3.56 0.57

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 3.69 0.31

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.38 4.14 0.24 i

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.50 3.11 0.39  !

19. I know how to get info I need 4.38 4.31 0.07 I

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 4.50 3.83 0.67

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.13 3.76 0.37 1

l l

Table 54 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Control. j 1994 1993 II'"'

2- . =--

Measurement '

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.42 3.57 -0.15

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.39 3.54 -0.15

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.13 3.80 -0.67 i

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.13 3.52 -0.39

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.26 3.34 -0.08

38. My group reviewed data on perf 333 3.13 0.17

43. We review graphs of performance 4.00 3.15 0.85 .

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.00 3.12 -0.12 Feedback

.3. , Other groups let me know about good work 3.06 3.38 -0.32

j. Last talked about quality of my work 3.55 3.61 -0.06

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.71 3.45 0.26

17. Supv is specific 3.84 3.71 0.13

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.55 3.69 -0.14

20. Fdbk on events I control 3 61 3.82 -0.21

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 3.16 3.01 0.15 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)  ;

16. Goals reflect needs of others 5.48 4.03 1.45

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.23 4.42 -0.19

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 3.53 3.69 -0.16 I

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.90 2.80 1.10 j Teamwork & Communication (Participation) l

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.71 3.71 0.00 )

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.84 3.66 0.18 l

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.13 4.37 -0.24 j

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.65 3.43 0.22 i

46. Changes are made based on input 3.16 3.25 -0.09 l

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.20 4.32 -0.12 {

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.00 4.11 -0.11 ]

59. I can diccuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.80 4.78 0.02 )

Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) I

21. We have effective relations with others 4.13 4.23 -0.10 )

27. I meet with other groups 3.73 3.82 -0.09

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.06 2.06 0.00

34. The last time ! met with other groups 2.65 2.92 -0.27

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.58 3.80 -0.22 )

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.33 2.97 0.36 I

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.10 4.34 -0.24

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.07 4.31 -0.24 1

Table 54 - Raw score compnasons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Control.

1994 1993 Items QC OC Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.94 3.34 -0.40 j

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.81 3.17 -0.36

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.42 3.83 -0.41

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 2.94 3.26 -0.32

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.87 3.16 -0.29 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.39 3.83 -0.44

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.90 3.24 -0.34

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.94 3.16 -0.22 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.81 3.00 -0.19

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.58 3.69 -0.11

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.97 4.09 -0.12

33. Supy is objective and constructive 3.87 3.98 -0.11

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.84 3.17 0.67 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.90 4.11 -0.21  :

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.97 4.40 -0.43 I

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 4.13 4.34 -0.21 1

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.26 4.02 -0.76 l

19. I know how to get info I need 4.42 4.54 -0.12

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 4.35 4.32 0.03

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.94 4.03 -0.09

i Table 55 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Assurance.

1994 1993 Items g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.07 3.35 -0.28 ,

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.07 3.32 -0.25

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.59 3.52 0.07 _

26. Data use to improve quality ofwort: 2.% 3.12 -0.16

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.26 3.58 -0.32 '

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.48 3.12 -0.64 j

43. We review graphs of performance 1.93 2.23 -0.30  ;

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 1.92 2.34 -0.42 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.00 2.84 0.16

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.04 3.74 -0.70

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.89 3.31 -0.42 ,

17. Supv is specific 3.5 3.39 0.11  :

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.12 3.45 -0.33 l

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.30 3.55 -0.25  ;

35. Employees coached to help irnprove 2.93 3.01 -0.08 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) 1,6. Goals reflect needs of others 3.33 3.78 -0.45 ,

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.11 4.29 -0.I8  !

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 3.15 3.52 -0.37

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.52 3.65 -0.13 ,

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.78 3.81 -0.03

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.78 3.51 0.27

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.81 3.94 -0.13

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.44 3.61 -0.17

46. Changes are made based on input 3.00 3.09 -0.09

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.85 4.27 -0.42

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.74 3.58 0.16

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.81 4.56 0.25 i Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) ,

21. We have effective relations with others 3.48 3.64 -0.16

27. I meet with other groups 3.19 3.26 -0.07

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.41 2.10 0.31

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.04 2.89 0.15

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.52 3.51 0.01  ;

52. I ask other grps for saggestions 3.30 3.35 -0.05  ;

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.74 3.87 -0.13 i

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.52 3.67 -0.15

Table 55 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Quality Assurance.

1994 1993 Items QA QA Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.22 3.25 -0.03

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.19 3.05 0.14

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.33 3.64 -0.31

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.26 3.19 0.07

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.33 3.47 -0.14 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.70 3.61 0.09

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.07 3.23 -0.16

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.00 3.10 -0.10 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.60 2.84 -0.24

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.30 3.03 0.27

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.74 3.65 0.09

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.63 3.38 0.25

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.22 3.00 1.22 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.41 3.29 0.12 f,. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.85 3.54 0.31

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.78 3.84 -0.06

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.89 3.16 -0.27

19. I know how to get info I need 4.37 4.09 0.28

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.96 3.77 0.19

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.78 3.75 0.03 i

l l

Table 56 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Other.  !

i 1994 1993 Items .. .___

NA - Othr NA - Othr g

Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.07 3.26 -0.19

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.07 3.48 -0.41

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.59 3.38 0.21

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.% 3.16 -0.20  ;

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.26 3.10 0.16

38. My group reviemi data on perf 2.48 2.95 -0.47

43. We review graphs of performance 1.93 2.47 -0.54 a5. Graphs & charts are meaningful 1.92 2.37 -0.45 .

Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.00 2.68 0.32 l

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.04 3.78 -0.74

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.89 3.42 -0.53

17. Supyis specific 3.14 3.53 -0.39

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.12 3.74 -0.62  ;

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.30 3.68 -0.38

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.93 3.,01 -0.08 Teamwork & Commuication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.33 3.88 -0.55

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.1 4.31 -0.21

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 3.15 3.64 -0.49  ;

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.52 3.11 0.41 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) i

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.78 3.79 -0.01

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.78 3.68 0.10 l

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.81 3.95 -0.14

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.44 3.15 0.29

46. Changes are made based on input 3.00 2.94 0.%

)

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.85 3.69 0.16

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.74 4.05 -0.31

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w r,upv 4.81 4.74 0.07 Teamwork & Communication (w othe. groups)

21. We have effective relations with o:hers 3.48 3.68 -0.20

27. I meet with other groups 3.19 3.57 -0.38

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2 41 2.80 -0.39

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.04 3.45 -0.41

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.52 3.58 -0.06

52. I ask o:her grps for suggestions 3.26 0.04 g 3.30

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.74 4.00 -0.26

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.52 3.95 -0.43

Table 56 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Assurance - Other.

1994 1993 Items NA - Othr NA - Othr Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.56 3.05 0.51

13. Recognition is given for support to other grpa 3.31 2.99 0.32

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.56 3.21 0.35

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.44 3.11 0.33 '

E Informed ofco-worker's performance 3.31 3.09 0.22 Consequences (compensatian)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 4.25 4.00 0.25

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.44 3.42 0.02

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.44 3.42 0.02 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.69 3.47 -0.78

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.88 3.38 0.50

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.94 3.89 0.05

33. Supv is objective and constructive 4.00 4.05 -0.05

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.50 2.69 1.81  !

Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.56 3.78 -0.22  !

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.69 3.84 0.35 l

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.25 4.00 0.25

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 2.94 3.21 -0.27

19. I know how to get info I need 4.56 4.11 0.45 l

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 4.31 4.48 -0.17 )

50. I can get resources to perform mvjob 4.19 3.90 0.29 __

l I

l

l l

Table 57 - Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Liscensing.

1994 1993 )

Items _ .

g g Change l S. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.93 3.29 -0.36

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.08 3.41 -0.33 l

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.18 3.00 0.18 l

26. Data use to imr rove quality of work 2.90 3.09 -0.19 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.80 3.75 0.05

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.20 2.85 0.35 l

43. We review graphs of perforngnce 2.62 2.48 0.14

46. Graphs & charts are meanidul 2.67 2.58 0.09 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.08 3.05 0.03

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.07 3.73 f -0.66 ,

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.98 3.38 -0.40

17. Supvis specific 3.33 3.74 -0.41 18 Supv discusses current performance 3.72 3.58 0.14

20. Fdbk on evc;its I control 3.59 3.56 0.03

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 3.18 3.01 0.17 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) .

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.78 3.95 -0.17

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.28 4.21 0.07

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 3.30 3.47 -0.17

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.08 2.84 0.24 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.73 3.39 0.34

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.45 3.37 0.08

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.85 3.78 0.07

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.50 3.16 0.34

46. Changes are made based on input 3.13 2.97 0.16

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.85 3.79 0.06

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.85 3.70 0.15

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supv 4.30 4.29 0.01 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.65 3.67 -0.02

27. I meet with other groups 3.38 3.37 0.01

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.59 2.12 0.47

34. He last time I met with other groups 2.98 2 F1 0.17

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.68 3 .6'.. 0.00

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.13 3.10 0.03

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.74 3.68 0.06  ;

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.77 3.87 -0.10

Table 57 - Raw score comparisons for fluclear Liscensing.

1994 1993 Items Lisensa Lisens Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.13 2.92 0.21

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.00 2.72 0.28

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.44 3.17 0.27

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.05 2.93 0.12

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.23 2.53 0.70 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.25 3.86 -0.61

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.03 3.01 0.02

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.82 2.75 0.07 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.78 2.97 -0.19

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.56 3.40 0.16

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.60 3.82 -0.22

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.68 3.51 0.17

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.13 2.64 1.49 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.35 3.61 -0.26

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.90 3.48 0.42

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 3.90 3.92 -0.02

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 3.23 3.32 -0.09

19. I know how to get info I need 4.43 4.20 0.23

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.64 3.80 -0.16

50. I can get resourecs to per%rm myjob 3.75 3.52 0.23

l l

Table 58 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Mech Fluid Systems.

l 1

1994 1993 i Measurement

?"'  : = =

b WY W

5. Evalur.O wk based on cust requiremnts 2.85 2.84 0.01

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.18 2.80 0.38

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.34 3.20 0.14

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.75 2.88 -0.13

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.52 3.56 -0.04

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.34 2.43 0.91

43. We review graphs of performance 2.94 2.14 0.80

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.73 1 99 0.74 Feedback l

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.73 2.93 -0.20

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.09 2.88 0.21

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.39 2.99 0.40

17. Supv is specific 3.27 3.41 -0.14 l

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.75 3.56 0.19 l

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.42 3.48 -0.06 l

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.16 3.01 0.15  !

Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.88 3.28 0.60

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.53 4.20 0.33

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.15 2.97 0.18

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.33 2.32 0.01 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.73 3.64 0.09

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.45 3.52 -0.07

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.09 4.08 0.01

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.79 2.68 0.11

46. Changes are made based on input 2.70 2.75 -0.05

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.06 4.25 -0.19

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.97 3.92 0.05

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supv 4.70 4.57 0.13 Teamwurk & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.94 3.83 0.11

27. I meet w,ui other groups 3.82 3.84 -0.02

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.09 1.76 0.33

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.61 2.36 0.25

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.15 3.40 -0.25

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.88 3.00 -0.12

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.03 4.04 -0.01

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.94 3 84 0.10

Table 58 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Mech Fluid Systems.

1994 1993 Items Mech /Fid Mech /Fid Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.06 2.92 0.14

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.97 2.67 0.30

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.85 3.36 0.49

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 3.21 2.80 0.41

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.36 3.07 0.29 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.44 3.48 -0.04

29. Best qualified Let promoted 3.27 3.65 -0.38

42. Relationship between promotitm and perf 2.88 3.07 -0.19 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.91 2.88 0.03

23. First aciton is to help rather thsn punish 3.25 3.60 -0.35

31. i Arstand what I need to improve 3.76 3.64 0.12

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.91 3.72 0.19

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.55 2.97 0.58 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.40 3.28 0.12

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.58 4.32 0.26

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 3.67 3.51 0.16 ,

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.64 2.36 0.28

19. I know how to get info I need 4.15 4.04 0.11

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.97 3.84 0.13

50. I can get resources to perform rayjob 3.65 3.56 0.09 7

b

^

Table 59 - Raw score cosnparisons for Systems Engineering - Electrical /I & C.

19D 1993 Items _

Elet/IG Elet/I&C g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.00 2.79 0.21 l

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.88 3.00 -0.12 j

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.40 3.47 -0.07

26. Data use to improve quality ofwork 2.67 2.89 -0.22 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.64 3.25 0.39

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.17 2.20 -0.03

43. We review graphs of performance 2.48 2.20 0.28

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.28 2.11 0. F Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.84 2.51 0.33

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.48 2.89 -0.41 ,

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.56 2.99 -0.43 ['

17. Supv is specific _

3.08 3.27 -0.19

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.29 3.05 0.24

20. Fdbk on events ! control 3.28 3.29 -0.01

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.56 3.01 -0.45 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)  ;

16. Goals reficct needs of others 3.28 3.57 -0.29

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.00 4.03 -0.03

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.84 2.93 -0.09

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.36 2.35 0.01 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.56 3.50 0.06 i

22. I tell my supy about opp for ingmnt 3.40 3.35 0.05

36. My co-workers and I work as a tearn 3.92 3.93 -0.01

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.60 2.35 0.25

46. Changes are made based on input 2.64 2.49 0.15

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.48 3.68 -0.20

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.68 3.54 0.14

59. I can discuss nuct safety concern w supv 4.44 4.30 0.14 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.80 3.68 0.12

27. I meet with other groups 3.40 3.84 -0.44

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.56 1.93 0.63

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.88 2.38 0.50 ,

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.44 3.03 0.41

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.20 2.82 0.38

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.48 3.75 -0.27

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.96 3.53 0.43

Table 59 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Electrical /l & C.

1994 1993 Items Elet/I&C Elet/I&C Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Emplovces are recognized for a good job 2.88 2.53 0.35

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.64 2.52 0.12

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.16 3.17 -0.01

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.84 2.72 0.12

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.88 2.74 0.14 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.20 3.39 -0.19

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.12 3.11 0.01

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.88 2.88 0.00 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.72 2.50 0.22

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.84 2.89 -0.05

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.72 3.54 0.18

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.28 3.53 -0.25

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.83 2.43 1.40 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.20 3.07 0.13

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 3.71 0.29

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.72 3.82 -0.10

15. Training gives us skills to do our jobs 2.28 1.89 0.39

19. I know how to get info I need 4.08 3.96 0.12 -

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.40 3.71 -0.31

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.08 2.79 0.29 i t

I l

l

_ _ l

Table 60 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Reliability Engineering.

1994 1993 Measurement

_ _ ' S"5 - - .

. = = -

M **W i

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.16 2.87 0.29

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.16 3.04 0.12

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.88 3.57 0.31

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.24 3.03 0.21

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.36 3.19 0.17

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.60 2.56 1.04

43. We review graphs of performance 3.28 2.10 1.18

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.08 2.08 1.00 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.72 2.88 -0.16 I

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.32 3.32 0.00

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.79 2.64 1.15 ,

17. Supv is specific 3.08 3.21 -0.13

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.29 3.49 -0.20

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.00 3.56 -0.56

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.21 3.01 0.20 hamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.76 3.64 0 12

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.88 4.16 -0.28

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.20 3.56 -0.36

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.68 2.69 -0.01 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to umprove groups perf 3.40 3.96 -0.56

22. I tell my supy abcult opp for imprvmnt 3.32 3.64 -0.32

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.08 3.88 0.20 l

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.32 3.11 0.21

46. Changes are made based on input 3.00 3.06 -0.06

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.12 4.01 0.11 l 1

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.52 3.83 -0.31

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supv 4.36 4.65 -0.29 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) l

21. We have effective relations with others 3.76 3.92 -0.16 l

27. I meet with other groups 3.38 4.28 -0.90 l

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.00 2.57 -0.57 l

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.25 2.72 0.53 1

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.44 3.54 -0.10

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.04 3.32 -0.28

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.88 3.95 -0.07

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.96 3.84 0.12 l

i I

j

Table 60 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Reliability Engineering.

1994 1993 Items Rlbity Reactr E Change Consequences (recognition) l l1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.% 2.64 0.32

13. Recognition is given Pe support to other grps 2.88 2.59 0.29  ;

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.92 3.60 0.32  !

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.16 2.% 0.20

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.24 3.07 0.17 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.36 3.52 -0.16 l

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.12 3.25 -0.13 l

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.04 2.96 0.08 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf _. 3.04 2.59 0.45

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.25 3.80 -0.55

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.21 3.68 -0.47

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.79 3.70 0.09

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.60 2.70 0.90 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.40 3.51 -0.11

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.96 4.36 -0.40

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.00 3.44 0.56

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.44 3.20 0.24

19. I know how to get info I need 4.16 4.12 0.04

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.80 4.12 -0.32

50. I can get resources to perfonn myjob , 3.29 3.24 0.05 l

l l

1 l

l 1

l l

l l

1 I

I 1

l

Tatde 61 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Other.

1994 1993 Items g Othr PED g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.33 3.67 -0.34

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.67 3.14 0.53 l

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.33 3.19 -0.86 l

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.67 2.95 -0.28 l

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.75 3.28 0.47 l

36. My group reviewed data on perf 3.00 3.19 -0.19

43. We review graphs of performance 2.25 2.57 -0.32

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.67 2.67 0.00 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.25 2.91 0.34

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.50 3.52 -0.02

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.33 3.38 -0.05

17. Supv is specific 3.67 3.53 0.14

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.67 3.34 0.33

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.50 3.42 0.08

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.25 3.01 0.24 l Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.08 4.01 0.07

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.42 3.95 0.47

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.50 3.34 0.16 l 40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.67 2.24 0.43 Teamwork & Communication (Participation) i

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.25 3.53 -0.28

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.50 3.28 0.22

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.67 4.00 0.67

44. Emplovees are ask for their input 2.92 2.99 -0.07 l 46. Changes are made based on input 3.08 2.85 0.23 l 51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.33 3.81 0.52 l 54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.50 3.67 -0.17 l 59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.83 4.72 0.11 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups) l 21. We have effective relations with others 4.42 3.95 0.47

27. I meet with other groups 4.50 4.11 0.39

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.75 2.19 0.56

34. 'lhe last time I met with other groups 3.42 2.81 0.61

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.58 3.47 0.11

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.17 3.05 0.12

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.33 3.76 0.57 I

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.58 4.00 0.58 1

1<

Table 61 - Raw score comparisons for Systems Engineering - Other.

1994 1993 Items Othr Sys Othr PED Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.50 3.09 0 41

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.16 2.70 0.46

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.83 3.48 0.35

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.50 3.19 0.31

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.75 2.95 0.80 Corequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salay decission has info 3.83 3.43 0.40

29. Best qualified get prorroted 3.08 3.19 -0.11

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.08 3.00 0.08 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.25 3.04 0.21

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.75 3.57 0.18

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.83 4.01 -0.18

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.83 3.77 0.06

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.58 2.83 0.75 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.75 3.62 0.13

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.17 3.76 0.41

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.42 3.81 0.61

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.83 2.90 -0.07

19. I know how to get info I need 4.67 3.95 0.72

41. I can discuss develop need with supy 4.08 4.00 0.08

50. I can get resources to perform mvjob 4.17 3.39 0.78 4

i!

Table 62 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Mechanical / Civil.

1994 1993 Items Mech /Cyl Mech /Nuc Ch

- - Mane, Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.18 2.89 0.29

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.21 2.96 0.25

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.00 2.50 0.50

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.21 2.19 1.02

30. Work tracked against schedule 4.19 3.80 0.39 -

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.25 2A9 0.76

43. We review graphs of performance 3.39 1.95 1.44

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.07 2.19 0.88 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.04 2.62 0.42

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.89 3.04 -0.15

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.18 2.96 0.22 i 17. Supvis specific 3.21 3.58 -0.37

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.32 3.19 0.13 l 20. Fdbk on events I control 3.18 3.34 -0.16 i 35. Emplovees coached to help improve 2.96 3.01 -0.05 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reficct needs of others 3.70 3.73 -0.03 ;

( 28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.18 4.38 -0.20

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.43 2.62 0.81

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.82 2.21 0.61 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.61 3.61 0.00

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.39 3.30 0.09

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.14 3.77 0.37

44. Employees are nsk for their input 3.61 2.53 1.08

46. Changes are made based on input 2.93 2.38 0.55

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.04 3.89 0.15

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.79 3.77 0.02

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.54 4.70 -0.16 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.89 3.57 0.32

27. I meet with other groups 3.78 3.31 0.47

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.78 2.31 0.47

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.26 2.64 0.62

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.79 3.49 0.30

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.93 3.04 -0.11

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.93 3.66 0.27

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.07 3.69 0.38 l

l l

Table 62 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Mechanical / Civil.

1994 1993 Items Mech /Cyl Mech /Nuc Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are re-nind for a good job 2.86 3.00 -0.14

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.82 2.83 -0.01

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.36 3.27 0.09 i

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.18 3.04 0.14 j

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.18 3.22 -0.04 Consequences (compensation) i

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.32 3.04 0.28

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.00 3.01 -0.01 ,

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.82 2.53 0.29  ;

Consequences (correction)  !

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.00 2.57 0.43

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3..'. 8 3.12 0.46

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.68 3.54 0.14

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.35 3.52 -0.17

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.71 2.18 1.53 Trainina & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.57 3.12 0.45

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.68 3.84 -0.16

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 3.93 4.04 -0.11 i

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.21 2.42 0.79

19. I know how to get info I need 4.21 4.19 0.02 .

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.82 3.65 0.17 !

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.61 2.89 0.72 i

Y I

i t

l

Table 63 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Electrical /I & C.

i 1994 1993 Items Elet/IAC Elet/I&C Chan

= --.-

m mesummede em Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 2.95 2.89 0.06

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.91 2.89 0.02

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.41 2.42 -0.01

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.64 2.31 0.33

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.68 3.47 0.21 [

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.48 2.05 0.43 '

43. We review graphs of performance 2.64 2.00 0.64

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.55 2.26 0.29 Feedback j

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.77 2.64 0.13

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.77 2.26 0.51

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.86 2.62 0.24

17. Supv is specific 3.14 3.05 0.09 '

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.64 3.37 0.27

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.36 3.52 -0.16  ;

35. Emplovees coached to help improve 2.77 3.01 -0.24 i Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.18 3.47 -0.2 I~

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.82 4.16 -0.34 {

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.00 2.95 0.05  !

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.23 2.26 -0.03 ,

Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.73 3.53 0.20

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.36 3.36 0.00

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.82 4 31 -0.49

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.95 2.25 0.70 .

46. Changes are made based on input 2.41 2.04 0.37

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.77 4.11 -0.34

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.77 3.63 0.14

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supy 4.59 4.47 0.12 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.59 3.89 -0.30

27. I meet with other groups 3.00 3.20 -0.20

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 1.86 2.10 -0.24

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.45 2.11 0.34

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.27 3.26 0.01

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.09 3.05 0.04

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.59 4.20 -0.61 l

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.95 3.88 0.07 l

Table 63 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Electrical /I & C.

I 1994 1993 Items Elet/IAC Elet/l&C Change Consequences (recognition) )

11. Emplovces are recognized for a good job 2.55 2.63 -0.08 l

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.64 2.62 0.02 l

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.45 2.68 0.77 l

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.77 3.06 -0.29

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.00 2.99 0.01 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.68 3.00 -0.32

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.50 2.79 -0.29

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.27 2.20 0.07 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.68 3.00 -0.32

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.58 3.10 0.48

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.50 3.53 -0.03

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.18 3.89 -0.71

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.14 2.20 0.94 Training & Development -;

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.77 3.63 0.14

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 4.27 -0.27

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.27 4.05 0.22

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.50 2.11 0.39

19. I know how to get info I need 4.32 4.32 0.00

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.32 3.53 -0.21

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.50 3.27 0.23

l l

i Table 64 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Design Support.

1994 1993 Items g g g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.15 2.85 0.3

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.42 2.71 0.71

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.31 2.61 0.70

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.85 2.57 0.28

. 30. Work tracked against schedule 3.25 2.89 0.36  !

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.40 2.56 0.84

43. We review graphs of performance 3.45 3.00 0.45

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.10 3.00 0.10 l Feedback l i

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.20 2.72 0.48

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.16 2.77 0.39

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.70 2.23 0.47

17. Supvis specific 3.47 3.01 0.46

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.53 2.96 0.57

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.56 2.95 0.61

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.20 3.01 0.19 Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.65 3.24 0.41

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.50 3.95 0.55

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.30 2.77 0.53

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.90 2.24 0.66 Teamwork & Cor.nmunication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.85 3.71 0.14

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.60 3.52 0.08

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.50 3.62 0.88

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.35 2.67 0.68

46. Changes are made based on input 2.95 2.23 0.72

51. My group is encouraged to help ca ot!.er 4.05 3.48 0.57

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.90 3.18 0.72

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supy 4.70 4.15 0.55 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.95 3.65 0.30

27. I meet with other groups 4.00 3.34 0.66

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.37 1.87 0.50  ;

34. The last time i met with other groups 2.45 2.75 -0.30 '

37. When I ask for support from other grps 4.10 3.57 0.53

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.20 2.81 0.39

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.50 3.52 0.98

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.25 3.71 0.54 l

Table 64 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Design Support.

1994 1993 Items Dsan Sup EngSup Change Consequences (recognition)

11. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.95 2.81 0.14

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.89 2.17 0.72

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.35 2.76 0.59

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.95 2.38 0.57

56. Informed of co worker's performance 2.90 2.71 0.19 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.45 3.00 0.45

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.05 2.53 0.52

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.74 2.28 0.46 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.95 2.52 0.43

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.90 3.19 0.71

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.26 3.15 1.11

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.90 2.95 0.95

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.20 2.58 1.62 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.50 2.90 0.60

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 3.52 0.48 i

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.50 4.05 0.45

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.40 1.91 0.49

19. I know how to get info I need 4.60 4.38 0.22

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.85 3.56 0.29

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.65 3.10 0.55 l

l l

1 Table 65 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Other.

1994 1993 Items DE Othr DE Othr Chanee m .~: 8 Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.25 2.84 0.41

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.92 2.% -0.04

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.42 3.21 -0.79

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.75 2.47 0.28

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.33 3.60 -0.27

38. My group reviewed data on perf 4.00 2.20 1.80

43. We review graphs of performance 3.33 2.34 0.99

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.75 2.16 0.59 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.58 2.80 -0.22

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.92 2.52 0.40 l 14. Imt talked about support for other grps 3.25 2.41 0.84

17. Supvis specific 2.75 3.17 -0.42

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.42 3.3) 0.11

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.56 3.2u 0.30

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.17 3.01 0.16 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.67 3.37 0.30

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.25 3.68 0.57 3_,9. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.92 3.12 -0.20

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.75 2.28 0.47 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.83 3.74 0.09

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.67 3.31 0.36

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.42 3.95 0.53

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.67 2.68 0.99

46. Changes are made based on input 3.08 2.61 0.47

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 3.83 3.74 0.09

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.92 3.53 0.39 ,

59. I can discuss nuel safety concem w supv 4.75 4.59 0.16 l' Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.75 3.78 -0.03

27. I meet with other groups 3.67 3.53 0.14

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.33 1.73 0.60

34. He last time I met with other groups 2.83 2.11 0.72

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.17 3.26 -0.09

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.92 2.84 0.08

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.58 3.90 -0.32 I 58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.58 3.74 -0.16 I

l - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - -

Table 65 - Raw score comparisons for Design Engineering - Other.

1994 1993 Items DE Othr DE Othr Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 2.92 2 79 0.13

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.00 2.62 0.38

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.17 2.80 0.37

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 2.58 2.84 -0.26

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.58 2.99 -0.41 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes sainy decission has info 3.00 3.12 -0.12

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.08 3.01 0.07

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.92 2.61 0.31 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.42 2.74 -0.32

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.25 3.27 -0.02

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.25 3.79 -0.54

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.58 3.43 0.15

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.58 2.62 0.%

Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.42 3.42 0.00

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.83 3.47 0.36

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.33 4.31 0.02

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 2.75 2.47 0.28

19. I know how to get info I need 4.67 4.37 0.30 4l. I can discuss develop need with supy 3.67 3.73 -0.06 l50. I can get resources to perform myjob 4.00 3.05 0.95 l

l l

l l

Table 66 . Raw score comparisons for Nuclear Fuels and Analysis.

1994 1993 Measurement

.. ..  :=

__. =_ :_

- = W

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requirenmts 3.38 2.87 0.51

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.33 3.04 0.29

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3 22 3.57 -0.35

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.% 3.03 -0.07

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.70 3.19 0.51

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.48 2.56 -0.08

43. We review graphs of performance 2.17 2.10 0.07

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.26 2.08 0.18 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.88 2.88 0.00

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.04 3.32 -0.28

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.25 2.64 0.61

17. Supy is specific 3.74 3.21 0.53

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.71 3.49 0.22

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.83 3.56 0.27

35. Ernployees coached to help improve 3.26 3.01 0.25 Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.88 3.64 0.24

28. Members encouraged b high perf 4.26 4.16 0.10

39. Set challenging vet realistic goc.ls 3.52 3.56 -0.04 1

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.18 2.69 0.49 Teamwork & Communication (Participulon)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups pe-r 3.% 3.96 0.00

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.78 3.64 0.14

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.% 3.88 0.08 I

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.61 3.11 0.50

46. Changes are made based on input 3.26 3.06 0.20

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.00 4.01 -0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.87 3.83 0.04 j

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supy 4.70 4.65 0.05 l Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.17 3.92 0.25

27. I meet with other groups 3.30 4.28 -0.98 j

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 2.30 2.57 -0.27

34. The last time I met with other groups  ?.65 2.72 -0.07 3 I

4 37. When I a,tk for support from other grps 3.74 3.54 0.20

52. I ask othS EdEs for suggestions 3.30 3.32 -0.02

55. Members ofmy group work as a team 3.83 3.95 -0.12

58. We maintair, working relations w other gps 4.02 3.84 0.18

l Table 66 - Raw score comparisons for Nudear Fuels and Analysis.

1994 1993 Items N Fuels Change -

Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.08 2.64 0.44

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.88 2.59 0.29

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.57 3.60 -0.03

48. Individuals receive recognitiot for a goodjob 3.04 2.96 0.08

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.87 3.07 -0.20 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.61 3.52 0.09

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.17 3.25 -0.08

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.83 2.96 -0.13 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctin of poor perf 3.04 2.59 0.45

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.74 3.80 -0.06

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.96 3.68 0.28

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.74 3.70 0.04

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 4.04 2.70 1.34 Training & Developme.it

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.63 3.51 0.12

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 4.36 -0.36_

10. I know exactly how to do my job well 3.92 3.44 0.48

,15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.25 3.20 0.05

19. I know how to get info I need 4.46 4.12 0.34

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.96 4.12 -0.16

50. I can get resources to perform my job 'J.70 3.24 0.46

Table 67 - Raw score comparisons for Engineering Support.

1994 1993

- ,. . . _. Items _

En Su E gn- Sup Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.61 2.85 0.76

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.22 2.71 0.51

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.22 ,

2.61 0.61

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.17 1 2.57 0.60

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.83 2.89 0.94

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.31 2.56 0.75

43. We review graphs of perfonnance 2.92 3.00 -0.08

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.09 3.00 0.09 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.33 2.72 0.61

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.91 2.77 0.14

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.14 2.23 0.91

17. Supv is specific 3.38 3.01 0.37

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.67 2.% 0.71

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.64 2.95 0.69

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.11 3.01 0.10 Teamwork & Communication (zoal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs ofothers 3.83 3.24 0.59

28. Members encouraged to hir,h perf 4.33 3.95 0.38

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.67 2.77 0.90 l

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.83 2.24 0.59 l Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.50 3.71 -0.21

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.36 3.52 -0.16 1

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.28 3.62 0.66 l

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.53 2.67 0.86

46. Changes are made based on input 3.14 2.23 0.91

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.25 3.48 0.77 l 54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 4.08 3.18 0.90 l

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supv 4.49 4.15 0.34 l

Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)  ;

21. We have effective relations with others 4.08 3.65 0.43 l

27. I meet with other groups 3.75 3.34 0.41

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.94 1.87 1.07

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.03 2.75 0.28

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.64 3.57 0.07

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.53 2.81 0.72

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.17 3.52 0.65

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.98 3.71 0.27

Table 67 - Raw score comparisons for Engineering Support.

1994 1993 Items Eng Sup Eng Sun Change Consequences (recognition) i i 1. Emplovces are recognized for a good job 3.19 2.81 0.38

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.22 2.17 1.05

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.71 2.76 0.95

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.17 2.38 0.79

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.25 2.71 0.54 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.48 3.00 0.48

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.22 2.53 0.69

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.19 2.28 0.91 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.06 2.52 0.54

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.61 3.19 0.42

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.98 3 15 0.83

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.91 2.95 0.96

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.94 2.58 1.36 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.89 2.90 0.99

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.25 3.52 -0.27

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.25 4.05 0.20

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.31 1.91 1.40

19. I know how to get info I need 4.28 4.38 -0.10

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.89 3.56 0.33

50. I can get resources to perform myjob 3.75 3.10 0.65

Table 68 - Raw score comparisons for Engineering Programs.

1994 1993 Items Eng Prg Pint Prg Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.05 3.02 0.03

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.04 3.07 -0.03

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.11 3.70 -0.59

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.25 2.83 0.42

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.91 3.48 0.43

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.10 2.89 0.21

43. We review graphs of performance 2.33 2.79 -0.46

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.14 2.71 -0.57 Feedback -

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.50 2.83 -0.33 -

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.01 2.89 -0.88

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.57 2.72 -0.15

17. Supv is specific 3.47 3.30 0.17

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.72 3.35 0.37 .

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.35 3.56 -0.21

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 3.24 3.01 0.23 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.71 3.83 -0.12

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.33 4.21 0.12

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.95 3.22 -0.27

40. Involved in settmg Dept / Division goals 2.95 2.87 0.08 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.55 3.46 0.09

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.22 3.39 -0.17 -

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.19 4.22 -0.03

44. Employees are ask for their input 2.77 3.01 -0.24

46. Changes are made based on input 2.76 2.82 -0.06

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.86 3.87 -0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.86 3.83 0.03 l

59.

9 I can discuss nucl safety co,cern w supv 4.57 4.68 -0.11 l Teamwork & Comraunication (w other groups) .

21. We have effective relations with others 4.14 3.93 0.21

27. I meet with other groups 3.50 3.72 -0.22

32. Meet with other grps to discuss sersice 2.45 2.18 0.27

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.45 2.66 -0.21

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.45 3.48 -0.03

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.57 2.89 -0.32

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.86 3.89 -0.03

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.18 3.93 0.25 i

1 wm.

Table 68 - Raw score comparisons for Engineering Programs.

1994 1993 Items Eng Prg rhc Prg Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Emplovces are recognized for a good job 2.90 2.68 0.22

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.71 2.73 -0.02

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.36 3.28 0.08

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 3.41 2.70 0.71 g .

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.05 2.81 0.24 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.60 3.68 -0.08

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.10 3.27 -0.17

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.05 2.95 0.10 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.10 2.80 0.30

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.53 3.46 0.07

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.95 3.91 0.04

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.63 3.77 -0.14

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.90 3.02 0.88 i Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to do job 3.41 3.54 -0.13 -

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.00 3.63 0.37

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.23 3.95 6.28 l 15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.18 3.05 0.13

19. I know how to get info I need 4.55 4.07 0.48

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.76 3.97 -0.21

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.59 3.46 0.13

+

1 l

l l __

l Table 69 - Raw score comparisons for Purchasing, Contracts and Inventory.

1994 1993 Ite ns PCI NPMM Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.50 3.31 0.19

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.32 3.23 0.09

~

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.07 3.02 0.05

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.16 3.28 -0.12

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.55 3.64 -0.09 ,

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.77 3.60 0.17

43. We review graphs of performance 3.77 3.38 0.39

46. Graphs & charts are n.caningful 3.50 3.38 0.12 '

Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.18 2.74 0.44

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.07 3.07 0.00

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.41 3.11 0.30

17. Supv is specific 3.52 3.55 -0.03

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.70 3.55 0.15

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.47 3.45 0.02

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.93 3.01 -0.08 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.05 3.81 0.24

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.25 4.12 0.13 ,

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.52 3.58 -0.06 .

40. Involved in setting Dep'/ Division goals 2.89 2.79 0.10 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.43 3.33 0.10

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 3.34 3.13 0.21

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.07 4.15 -0.08

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.27 3.09 0.18

46. Changes are made based on input 2.77 2.87 -0.10

51. My group is encouraged to help ca other 4.09 4.01 0.08

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.70 3.69 0.01

59. I can discuss nucl safety concem w supv 4.25 4.45 -0.20 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.98 3.87 0.11

27. I meet with other groups 3.28 3.00 0.28

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.21 2.10 0.11

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.95 2.17 0.78

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.50 3.42 0.08

$2. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.25 3.05 0.20

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.00 3.88 0.12

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.91 3.88 0.03

'W Table 69 - Raw score comparisons for Purchasing, Contracts and Inventory.

1994 1993 Items PCI NPMM Change -

Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.68 2.76 -0.08

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.82 2.66 0.16

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.73 3.55 0.18

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.82 2.67 0.15

56. Infonned of co-worker's performance 3.02 2.80, 0.22 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.30 3.42 -0.12

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.82 2.64 0.18

42. Relationshir, between promotion and perf 2.68 2.64 0.04 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.73 2.72 0.01

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.52 3.26 0.26

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.68 3.97 -0.29

33. Supy is objective and constructive 3.36 3.65 -0.29

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.89 2.83 1.06 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.32 3.63 -0.31

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.66 3.45 0.21

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.30 4.14 0.16

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.07 2.93 0.14

19. I know how to get info I need 4.59 4.33 0.26

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.80 3.61 0.19

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.95 3.84 0.1 I s

nim...._

i Table 70 - Raw score comparisons for Warehouse.

1994 1993 Items Warchs Warchs Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.27 4.17 -0.9

7. Quality of work objectively measured 2.73 3.35 -0.62 ,

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 2.90 3.08 -0.18

26. Data use to improve quality of work 2.83 3.03 -0.20

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.55 3.28 0.27

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.77 3.08 0.69

43. We review graphs of performance 3.47 2.97 0.50

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 3.50 3.27 0.23 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 2.43 3.04 -0.6;

6. Last talked about quality of my work 2.67 2.73 -0.06

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.53 3.03 -0.50

17. Supv is specific 2.80 3.36 -0.56

18. Supv discusses current performance 2.97 2.92 0.05

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.30 3.12 0.18

35. Employees coached to help improve 2.77 3.01 -0.24 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.77 3.92 -0.15 zo. Members encouraged to high perf 3.80 4.43 -0.63

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 2.77 3.32 -0.55

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.63 2.88 -0.25 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.83 3.88 -0.05

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.34 3.67 -0.33

36. My co-workers and I wo k as a team 4.07 4.40 -0.33

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.00 2.53 0.47

46. Changes are made based on input 2.60 2.91 -0.31

51. My grour is encouraged to help ea other 3.70 4.17 -0.47

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.23 3.64 -0.41

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 3.90 4.52 -0.62 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.50 3.71 -0.21

27. I meet with other groups 2.70 3.44 -0.74

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 1.93 1.67 0.26

34. The last time I met with other groups 2.13 2.33 -0.20

37. When I ask for support from other grps 2.90 3.59 -0.69

52. I ask other grps for ruggestions 2.87 3.28 -0.41

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.33 4.24 -0.91

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.57 4.04 -0.47

Table 70 - Raw score comparisons for Warehouse.

1994 1993 Items Warchs Warchs Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.30 2.64 -0.34

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.17 2.79 -0.62

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 2.90 2.84 0.06 4

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 2.40 2 76 -0.36

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 2.40 2.99 -0.59 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 2.23 2.64 -0.41

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.20 2.85 -0.65 .

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 1.87 2.56 -0.69 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 2.40 2.76 -0.36

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.57 2.83 -0.26

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.73 3.68 0.05

33. Supv is objective and constructive 2.93 2.96 -0.03

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.20 2.53 0.67 Training & Development

4. Supv craure skiti to dojob 3.10 3.45 -0.35

8. Supv anderstand tea aspects of work 2.73 3.24 -0.51

10. I know exactly how ta do my job well 4.47 4.24 0.23

15. Training gives us skil.s to do ourjobs 3.27 3.56 -0.29

19. I know how to get in?o I need 4.50 4.28 0.22

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 2.77 3.76 -0.99

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.60 3.72 -0.12 (1

w-.

I Table 71 - Raw score comparisons for Ebasco.

1994 1993 j Items Ebasco_

Ebasco g Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.51 3.39 0.12 l

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.80 3.56 0.24 1

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.34 3.23 0.1 I

)

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.31 3.32 -0.01

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.97 3.81 0.16

38. My group reviewed data on perf 3.24 2.78 0.46 )

43. We review graphs of performance 2.63 2.01 0.62

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.61 2.49 0.12 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.10 3.09 0.01

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.33 3.36 -0.03

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.39 3.06 0.33

17. Supv is specific 3.78 3.58 0.20

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.59 3.51 0.08

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.78 3.67 0.11

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.59 3.01 0.58 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 4.00 3.63 0.37

28. Members encouraged to high perf 4.32 4.19 0.13

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.66 3.52 0.14

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.90 2.42 0.48 Teamwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.74 3.57 0.17

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.61 3.26 0.35

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.41 4.43 -0.02

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.04 2.74 0.30 46 , Changes are made based on input 2.84 2.73 0.11

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.18 4.17 0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.46 3.70 -0.24

59. I can discuss nuci safety concem w supv 4.32 4.22 0.10 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 4.22 4.13 0.09

27. I meet with other groups 3.84 3.11 0.73

32. Meet with other grps to discuss senice 3.12 2.29 0.83

34. The last time I met with other groups 3.39 2.75 0.64

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.84 3.80 0.04

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.32 2.96 0.36

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.22 4.26 -0.04

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 4.18 3.97 0.21 l

1 1

Table 71 - Raw score comparisons for Ebasco.

l l l 1994 1993 Items Ebasco Ebasco Change Consequences (recognition)

I 1. Employees are recognized for a good job 3.10 3.12 -0.02

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 3.10 2.86 0.24

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.80 3.55 0.25

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.96 2.88 0.08

56. Informed ofco-worker's performance 2.92 2.77 0.15 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 3.39 3.00 0.39

29. Best qualified get promoted 3.08 2.89 0.19 l

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.94 2.68 0.26 Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correcta of poor perf 3.73 3.58 0.15

23. First acitonf , : help rather than punish 3.65 3.70 -0.05

31. Understand ..;iat I need to improve 4.20 4.00 0.20

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.55 3.58 -0.03

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.98 2.81 1.17 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.88 4.03 -0.15

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.63 4.01 -0.38

10. I know exactly how to do a.7y job well 4.59 4.39 0.20

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.75 3.87 -0.12

19. I know how to get info I need 4.66 4.45 0.21 . '

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.65 3.59 0.06

50. I can get resourr s to perform my job 4.04 3.84 0,.20 A

Table 72 - Raw score comparisons for Wackenhut.

4 1994 1993 Items Wcknht Wcknht Change Measurement l 5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.07 3.18 -0.11 l 7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.00 3.11 -0.11

24. Collect data to ar:icipate problems 2.94 2.88 0.06

26. Data use to impr6ve cuality of work 3.04 2.96 0.08

30. Work tracked against schedule 2.92 2.89 0.03

38. My group reviewed data on perf 2.73 2.64 0.09

43. We review graphs of performance 2.12 2.39 -0.27

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.63 3.00 -0.37 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about gocd work 2.66 2.62 0.04

6. Last talked about quality of my work 4.03 2.85 1.18

14. Last talked about support for other grps 2.80 2.55 0.25

17. Supv ir ,pecific 3.30 3.20 0.10

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.11 3.09 0.02

~

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.31 3.29 0.02

35. Emplovces coached to help improve 2.95 3.ul -0.06 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting)

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.51 3.53 -0.02

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.87 4.01 -0.14

39. Set challenging vet realistic goals 3.09 3.14 -0.05

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 2.57 2.42 0.15 Te tmwork & Communication (Participation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.43 3.44 -0.01

22. I tell my supy about opp for imprvmnt 3.30 3.26 0.04

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 4.10 3.92 0.18

44. Employ.n are ask for their input 2.94 3.07 -0.13

46. Changes are made based on input 2.53 2.49 0.04

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 3.75 3.76 -0.01

54. My supv listens to suggestions from grp 3.42 3.35 0.07

59. I can discuss nuci safety concern w supv 3.63 3.56 0.07 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.47 3.21 0.26

27. I meet with other groups 2.33 2.30 0.03

32. Meet with other grps to discuss sersice 1.73 1.69 0.04

34. The last time I met with other groups 1.84 1.86 -0.02

37. When I ask for support from other grps 2.96 2.99 -0.03

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 2.60 2.76 -0.16

55. Members of my group work as a team 3.95 3.76 0.19 .

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.34 3.31 0.03

.. __..____m_________m. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - - . _ - - . _ _ _ . - _ - . . _ _ - _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - -

Table 72 - Raw score comparisons for Wackenhut.

1994 1993 Items Wcknht Wcknht Change Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a good job 2.84 2.66 0.18

13. Recognition is given for support to other grps 2.72 2.63 0.09

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.06 3.03 0.03

48. Individuals receive recognition for a good job 2.12 2.55 0.17

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.07 2.92 0.15 Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salary decission has info 2.72 3,04 -0.32 l 29. Best qualified get promoted 2.14 2.38 -0.24 l 42. Relationship between promotion and perf 2.24 2.41 -0.17

! Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor perf 3.10 3.34 -0.24 (

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 2.51 2.39 0.12

31. Understand what I need to improve 3.72 3.73 -0.01

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.07 2.98 0.09

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.13 2.18 0.95 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.47 3.39 0.08

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 3.81 3.81 0.00

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.41 4.16 0.25

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.90 3.55 0.35

19. I know how to get info I need 4.38 4.26 0.12

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 3.24 3.12 0.12

50. I can get resources to perform my job 3.64 3.57 0.07 e

Table 73 - Raw score comparisons for Other Contractors.

1994 1993 Items Othr Cntr Othr Cntr Change Measurement

5. Evaluate wk based on cust requiremnts 3.56 3.26 0.3

7. Quality of work objectively measured 3.58 3.42 0.16 1

24. Collect data to anticipate problems 3.31 3.23 0.08

26. Data use to improve quality of work 3.35 3.17 0.18 1

30. Work tracked against schedule 3.69 3.66 0.03

38. My group reviewed data on perf ' ": 3.06 0.6_2

43. We review graphs of performance 2.52 2.61 -0.09

46. Graphs & charts are meaningful 2.74 2.91 -0.17 Feedback

3. Other groups let me know about good work 3.45 3.30 0.15 ,

6. Last talked about quality of my work 3.92 3.47 0.45 t

14. Last talked about support for other grps 3.55 3.17 0.38

17. Supv is specific 3.94 3.58 0.36

18. Supv discusses current performance 3.79 3.67 0.12

20. Fdbk on events I control 3.73 3.65 0.08

35. Employees coached to help improve 3.44 3.01 0.43 Teamwork & Communication (goal setting) ,

16. Goals reflect needs of others 3.68 3.59 0.09 ,

28. Members encouraged to high perf 3.95 4.10 -0.15

39. Set challenging yet realistic goals 3.57 3.36 0.21

40. Involved in setting Dept / Division goals 3.11 2.42 0.69 Teamwork & CommunicationjParticipation)

9. I volunteer ideas to improve groups perf 3.49 3.55 -0.06

22. I tell my supv about opp for imprvmnt 0.08

36. My co-workers and I work as a team 3.36 4.27 3.28 4.12 0.15

/

44. Employees are ask for their input 3.13 3.14 -0.01

46. Changes are made based on input 2.98 2.81 0.17

51. My group is encouraged to help ea other 4.16 3.95 0.21

54. My supy listens to suggestions from grp 3.90 3.83 0.07

59. I can discuss nucl safety concern w supv 4.16 4.43 -0.27 Teamwork & Communication (w other groups)

21. We have effective relations with others 3.87 3.77 0.10

27. I meet with other groups 3.38 3.42 -0.04

32. Meet with other grps to discuss service 2.60 2.27 0.33

34. De last time I met with other groups 2.95 2.58 0.37

37. When I ask for support from other grps 3.53 3.64 -0.11

52. I ask other grps for suggestions 3.18 3.00 0.18

55. Members of my group work as a team 4.13 3.92 0.21

58. We maintain working relations w other gps 3.80 3.71 0.09 n

Table 73 - Raw score comparisons for Other Contractors.

1994 1993 i

Items Othr Cntr Othr Cntr Chg Consequences (recognition)

I1. Employees are recognized for a goodjob 3.30 3.22 0.08

13. Recognition is given for support to o'her grps 2.98 2.91 0.07 .

47. Last time I was told I was doing a good job 3.95 3.96 -0.01

48. Individuals receive recognition for a goodjob 3.35 3.11 0.24

56. Informed of co-worker's performance 3.22 3.10 0.12 l

Consequences (compensation)

25. Person who makes salarv decission has info 3.50 2.99 0.51

29. Best qualified get promoted 2.87 2.98 -0.11

42. Relationship between promotion and perf 3.01 2.92 0.09 '_

Consequences (correction)

12. Prompt correctn of poor nerf 3.33 3.09 0.24

23. First aciton is to help rather than punish 3.50 3.40 0.10

31. Understand what I need to improve 4.19 3.95 0.24

33. Supv is objective and constructive 3.73 3.74 -0.01

49. Embarrassment and humiliation used 3.67 2.38 1.29 Training & Development

4. Supv ensure skills to dojob 3.86 3.96 -0.10

8. Supv understand tech aspects of work 4.13 4.20 -0.07

10. I know exactly how to do myjob well 4.40 4.17 0.23

15. Training gives us skills to do ourjobs 3.58 3.21 0.37

19. I know how to get info I need 5.00 4.28 0.72

41. I can discuss develop need with supv 5.00 3.82 1.18

$0. I can get resources to perform my job 3.00 3.81 -0.81

Table 74 - Frequency data for item 60,"IfI had a nuclear safety or quality related concern, I would first go to."

Supervisor Mgmt. SPR Emp. Cone. NRC Executive 19 1 0 0 0 95 % 5% 0% 0% 0%

' ~

Plant Projects & Programs 27 0 0 3 0 90 % 0% 0% 10 % 0%

Records Management 45 0 1 3 0 91.8 % 0% 2% 6% 0%

Administration 34 0 1 7 5 72 % 0% 2% 14.9 % 10.6 %

Nuclear Info. Systems 32 1 1 1 0 91.4 % 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 0%

Nuclear Training 5 0 0 0 1 83.3 % 0% 0% 0% 16.6 %

Operations Training 42 0 1 1 0 t 95.4 % 0% 2.2% 2.2% 0%

StaffTraining 20 0 0 1 0 95.2 % 0% 0% 4.7% 0%

Accreditation 14 1 2 1 0 77.7 % 5.5% 11.1 % 5.5% 0%

Other Nuclear Training 17 0 3 1 1 77.2 % 0% 13.6 % 4.5% 4.5%

Planning, Assmt., & Controls 28 2 0 0 2 - --

87.5 % 6.25 % 0% 0% 6.2% l Human Resources Nuclear 30 1 0 6 1 78.9 % 2.6% 0% 15.7% 2.6%

Site Facilities 39 2 2 0 0 90.7% 4.6% 4.6% 0% 0%

Industry Relations 4 0 1 0 0 80% 0% 20 % 0% 0%

Nuclear Generation - Outage 21 1 0 1 0 91.3 % 4.3% 0% 4.3% 0%

A k

Table 74 - Frequency data for item 60,"IfI had a nuclear safety or quality related concern, I would first go to."

Supervisor Mgmt. SPR Emp. Conc. NRC Maint. Supp. 54 2 1 1 1 91.5 % 3.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

Ops. Supt. 42 4 1 0 0 89.3 % 8.5% 2.1% 0% 0%

MSSD 10 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Unit 1 - Mech. Maint. 35 1 0 0 0 97.22 % 2.7% 0% 0% 0%

Elect. Maint. 37 0 1 0 2 92.5 % 0% 2.5% 0% 5%

I & C Maint. 35 3 2 1 3 79.5 % 68% 4.5% 2.2% 6.8%

Work Control 44 0 1 1 0 95.6 % 0% 2.1% 2.1% 0%

Unit i Ops. 62 1 0 1 2 93.9 % 1.5% 0% 1.5% 3%

Other 3 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Unit 2 43 1 1 4 2 ,

Mechanical Maintenance 84.3 % 1.9% 1.9% 7.8% 3.9%

Elect. Maint. 32 0 1 0 2 91.4 % 0% 2.8% 0% 5.7%

I & C M aint. 40 1 2 1 7 78.4 % 1.9% 3.9% 1.9% 13.7 %

Work Control 55 0 2 5 0 88.7 % 0% 3.2% 8% 0%

Unit 2 Ops. 42 2 1 1 1 89.3 % 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Nuclear Security 12 1 1 0 2 75 % 6.2% 6.2% 0% 12.5 %

Table 74 - Frequency data for item 60,"If I had a nuclear safety or quality

related concern,I would first go to."

Supervisor Mgmt. SPR Emp. Conc. NRC Chemistry 26 2 3 1 0 81.2 % 6.2% 9.3% 3.1% 0%

Health Physics 55 1 2 2 2

, 88.7 % 1.6% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%

l Met Lab 32 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

EfIluent Waste Mgmt. ;_,. 12 0 0 1 1 4

l y.7%_.

0% 0% 7.1% 7.1%

IS & H I O O O O 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Tech. Serv. - Chem. Ops. 52 0 1 0 1 96.3 % 0% 1.8% 0% 1.8%

Other Tech. Services 8 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Other Nuclear Gen. Mgmt. 3 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Quality Control 28 0 2 0 0 93.3 % 0% 6.6% 0% 0% g Quality Assurance 24 0 2 0 0 92.3 % 0% 7.6% 0% 0%

Other 14 0 0 1 0 93.3 % 0% 0% 6.6% 0%

Nuclear Licensing 32 2 2 2 1 82 % 5.1% 5.1% 5.13 % 2.5%

Nuclear Engineering - Systems Mech. Fluid Systems. 30 0 1 1 0 93.7 % 0% 3.1% 3.1% 0%

Elect./I & C 21 0 3 0 0 87.5 % 0% 12.5 % 0% 0%

Reliability Eng. 22 1 0 1 0 91.6 % 4.1% 0% 4.1% 0%

Other Syst. Engineering 12 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 74 - Frequency data for item 60,"IfI had a nuclear safety or quality

related concern, I would first go to."

Supervisor Mgmt. SPR Emp. Conc. NRC -

Nuclear Engineering - Design Mechanical / Civil 26 0 1 0 1

~

92.8 % 0% 3.5% 0% 3.5%

Elect /I & C 20 0 1 0 1 90.9 % 0% 4.5% 0% 4.5%

Design Support 21 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

l Other 12 0 0 0 0

~~ ~

100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Nuclear Fuel & Analysis 22 0 0 1 0 95.6 % 0% 0% 4.3% 0%

Engineering Support 32 1 0 2 0 91.4 % 2.8% 0% 5.7% 0%

Engineering Programs 22 0 0 0 0 100 % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Purch., Contracts & Inv. 40 0 0 2 1 93 % 0% 0% 4.6% 2.3% ,

Warehouse 24 0 3 2 0 82.7 % 0% 10.3 % 6.9% 0%

~

Ebasco 46 1 1 3 0 90.2 % 1.9% 1.9% 5.8% 0%

Sun Services 24 1 0 5 3 \

72.7 % 3% 0% 15.1 % 9%

Wackenhut 127 3 6 7 9 83.5 % 1.9% 3.9% 4.6% 5.9%

Other Contractor 60 5 4 16 4 78.2 % 3.7% 3% -

12 % 3%

G i

l l

__ ._-___ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _