Determines whether and in which ways the priorities of local government employees differ from those of their supervisors using data from employees in the Santa Clara County, California. Respondent profiles; Priorities of employees and supervisors among specific training topics for employees

Haas, Peter J

English

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State UniversitySJSU ScholarWorksFaculty Publications Political Science7-1-1991A Comparison of the Training Priorities of ClericalEmployees and Their SupervisorsPeter J. HaasSan Jose State University, peter.haas@gmail.comFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/pols_pubPart of the Political Science Commons, and the Public Administration CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in FacultyPublications by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.Recommended CitationPeter J. Haas. "A Comparison of the Training Priorities of Clerical Employees and Their Supervisors" Public Personnel Management(1991): 225-232.A Comparison of Train ing Priorities of Local Government Employees and Their Supervisors TI1e training needsofnon-supervisory pe rsonneL as they perceive them, have been overlooked both by local governments and lhc public personnellHerature. This article seeks to determine whe ther and in which ways the priorities of local government e mployees differ fro m those of their supervisors. Data from a s urvey of local government employees in Santa Clara County, California, are analyzed and suggest tha t whereas many employees view training <tS a means of acquiring technical s kills, their supervisors may be more att rac ted to the pote ntial for training in human developme nt. By Peter J. Haas Peter). HaM is Assistant Profes­sor or Political Science at Son jose State University, wh<'re he teaches in the Master of Public Administratlon program. I fe as presently rondutting a study of the eiiCCIS of turnover among top~level executives in Cahfor· nta state govemmenc Training programs in government agencies can be designed to serve a variety of functions. In the past, training was viewed primarily as a means of boosting the ski Us and job-related knowledge ofworkers so as to increase organizational output and efficiency. Contemporary managers have come to view training as contributing to a wide range of both organizational and individual needs.1 The term "training" now connotes a variety of technical, managerial, and even interpersonal skills ? Beyond enhancing the technical skills of employees, certain types of training may benefit a public agency by helping to make it more manage­able, instilling "organizationally appropriate" decisions and behaviors in the workforce? For the individual, training may pave the road for future promotions and career development, or may make the work experience more enjoyable. The recognition of the individual's interest in training reflects in part the influence of the "new" Public Administration of the 1960's and 1970's. As Nigro and Nigro remark in the influential text on the "new public personnel administration The mutuality of training as a benefit to both organization and the individual is a dominant theme of modern views of training which see it as a process aimed at changing behavior. The desired " new" behavior must be considered valuable to both the organization and the individual.4 A more recent article by Sylvia and Meier illustrates the extent to which the broader purposes of training have become universal in public management. They note that training is commonly believed to enhance Public Personnel Management Vol. 20 No.2 (Summer 1991} 225 worker job satisfaction and morale, in addition to enhancing the quality and quantity of worker output.5 Of course, not all types of training can or will contribute to every conceivable purpose. Some training is likely to contribute to worker productivity without enhancing employee satisfac­tion and morale, and vice versa. The day-to-day management of public agencies may tend to be less than keenly observant of the potential disparity between the very real organizational needs for training and its potential for serving broader purposes. The equaiiy real needs of individuals, especially, may be over­looked. The "organizational needs" to be fulfilled from training are gener­ally those catered to by the a ttitudes and actions of managers and supervisors, w ho may have their own priorities. Sylvia notes that "skills training for managers and supervisors receives a grea ter emphasis in government agencies than does the training of rank-and-file employees."6 Thus there is a very real potential for public organization decision makers to overlook the personal needs and priorities of rank and file employees when designing training policies. Klingner succinctly asserts tha t: Employees view [training] as a reward for high performance, a break from routine job duties, or a means of learning skills that will hasten a move to a more desirable position. Managers view it as a means of improving work unit productivity by increasing output . 7 or reducmg costs. Nigro and N igro add that: Unfortunately, too often administrators and trainers decide on h·aining needs w ithout bothering to consultw ith em ployees. Man­agement assumes that what it believes is logical and relevant will be so perceived by the trainees.8 If we accept these analyses of the varying perspectives of managers and employees toward training, a potential may exist for significant dis­agreements between the two groups about training policies. For an agency's training efforts to be optimally effective they should (arguably) both meet the employer's organizational needs and match the perceived needs of employees. Should the training offerings of an employer vary significantly from the preferences of employees, the best training can be a waste of time and money. While there are many reasons w hy the training priorities of organizations (i.e., of management) and their employees may become mismatched, in theory a middle ground exists which may maxi­mize the better interests of both parties. How accura te is I<Jingner's assessment of the views ofemployees and managers toward training? Klingner and others advocate the use of sur-Public Personnel Management Vol . 20 No.2 (Summer 1991) 226 veys to ascertain employee interest in training offerings.9 Yet little is known about how the views of the two groups differ. This article compares and analyzes the perspectives on training of local government s upervisory personnel with those of line employees. The study is intended to demon­s trate: (1) the potential utility of swveying to determine the training priorities of employees and supervisors; and (2) the significant differences found between the priorities of the two groups in a local government in California. The analysis is based on a pair of swveys administered to clerical employees and their supervisors in Santa Clara County Govern­ment in California . Results of the two surveys suggests that, surprisingly, supervisors placed a higher emphasis on training not directly linked to employees productivity, such as "human d evelopment training", than did employees, who tended to favor training in specific technical areas. Methodology and Respondent Profile A written swvey was distributed to all clerical employees and their supervisors in Santa Clara County; a total of 1,091 (of approximately 3,000 total) employees and 132 (of approximately 300 total) supervisors com­ple ted the swvey. The su rvey instruments were worded such that both the instrument for employees and tha t for supervisors queried respondents concerning their views on training offerings for employees. Note that the survey respondents were self-selected and the sa mples may or may not be inter representative of all clerical employees a nd their supervisors. Argu­able, the respondents in both s urveys may be those most interested in training issues. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the supervisors and the employees who responded to the respective swvey. The two groups are quite similar in many ways, suggesting that the two samples were well matched, Both the supervisor (94%) and the employee (90%) respondents were mostly women. A majority of both groups were white, including 55% of the employees and a larger proportion {78%) of the supervisors. A significant number of both groups were Hispanic. Gener­ally, the supervisors had more experience with the County; over 70% had worked for the County for more than seven years, compared to only 41% of the employees. Most of the supervisors had little orno college educa tion; the educational background of employees w as not obtained in the swvey. According to sourc_es at the County, few clerical employees have college experience or degrees. With res pect to job title area, the largest group represented among both supervisors and employees was General Clerical; 60% of the supervi­sor and 50 % of the employee respondents worked in this area. A good deal of simila rity between the two samples is found in other job title areas as A Comparison of Training Priorities 227 Table 1: Comparison of Respondent Characteristics, Clerical Employees and Supervisor Survey Samples N • 1032 clerical employees, 132 supervisors) *denotes significant difference (p .OS) between groups GENDER EXPERIENCE WITH COUNTY Employees SupeoliSQ[S EmRIQY!:!:S S!.!R~rvisQrs Female 90% 94% 0-2 years 23% 10%* Male ~ ~ 3-7 years 36% 8%* 100 100 7+ years 	 4.1.% 8.1.%* 100 100 JOB TITLE AREA RACE EmpiQyees SupeOlisQrs  EmpiQyees 	 SIJPfOliSQ(S Courts 7% 	 8%* Hispanic 	 21% 15% Medical 10% 	 9%* White 	 55% 78%* Legal 5% 	 5%* Black 	 5% 3%* Financial 13% 	 8% Asian 	 6% 1%* Secretarial 11% 	 3% Filipino 	 5% 1%* General Clerical 50% 	 57% Other, N/A 	 9% 20£q* Misc. Specialized ~ 	 ~ 100 	 100 100 	 100 DEPARTMENT EmpiQYffS SuperlliSQ[S General Services 5% 3% Social Services 14% 20% Courts 17% 17% Finance 8% 7% Personnel 4% 7% Transportation 7% 3% Public Services 10% 12% Health 17% 18% Executive 5% 2% Sheriff 4% 5% Other/Misc. ~ ~ 100 100 228 Public Personnel M anagement Vol. 20 No.2 (Summer 1991) Table 2: Prio rities of Employees and Supervisors Among Specific Training Topics for Employees (N=1032 clerical employees. 132 supervisors) Columns do not add to 100% because respondents could choose an unlimited number of training topics. *denotes significant difference (p .05) between groups TECHNICAL SKILLS Ern!:ll!::lllf:e~ S!J!:lf:[~j~Q(S Beginning Computers 59% 51% Word Processing 58% 56% Supervisory Skills 50% 38%.. Business writing 43% 53%* Legal Offices/1 41% 22%* Advanced Computers 39% 31% General Offices/ 1 37% 57%* Accounting 32% 10%* Basic Bookkeeping 28% 7%* Medical Offices/1 27% 12%* Advanced typing 26% 18%* Telephone techniques 15% 73%* Shorthand 26% 5%* Beginning typing 8% 7%* Filing 5% 22%* {1/ denotes office terminology/procedures) PERSONNEL SYSTEM Ernpbyees Superviso(s How to prepare for exams 60% 75%* County Career Opportunities 56% 67%* How to prepare for interviews 52% 65%* How to apply for promotions 49% 50% How to deal with rejections 30% 47%* HUMAN DEVELOPMENT/INTERPERSONAL SKILLS EmQigyees SuoeO£isgcs Managing office stress 56% 82%* Communication skills 52% 70%* Assertiveness 46% 41%.. Worker/supvsor. relations 44% 60%* Interacting with the public 37% 71%* Time Management 35% 68%* A Comparison of Training Prio rities 229 well. The respondents of both samples were sp read evenly among the various County departments; the Departments of Health and Social Serv­ices and the Courts accounted for the majority of both groups. Training Priorities Compared Table 2 illustrates the strong overall support for training amon g bo th clerical employees and supervisors. Surprisingly, clerical supervisors were somewhat more supportive of a larger variety of h·aining topics. Of the 26 specific types of training given to respondents as potential offerings, sixteen were listed by a m ajority of clerical supervisors as desirable for their employees. By contrast, only eight training topics were of interest to a majority of the clerical employees. This finding apparently demonstra tes the commitment of responding supervisors to the idea of the impor tance of providing training for employees, but also suggests that supervisors perceive a good deal of need for training among their employees. Table 3: Priorities of Employees and Supervisors Among General Training Areas for Employees (N = 1032 clencal employees. 132 supervisors) *denotes significant d ifference (p .05) between groups "Given t he limited time for training, w hich general type of training is most im rtant to ou?" Emplo~ees Supeolisors Technical Skills 58% 4 1%* Interpersonal Skills 19% 56% Personnel System .2.3..% ~ 100 100 The single m os t remarkable d ifference between the priorities for training indicated by supervisors and those of their employees lies in the area of general training topics. Whereas Table 3 indicates tha t most (56%) supervisors placed a premium on training in the general a rea of interper­sonal skills, employees tended to be much more interested in the area of technical skills, with 58% of employee respondents indicating such a pref­erence. This difference would seem to support the contention tha t super­visors are quite sensitive to or are concerned w ith the interpersonal aspects of the workplace. They would rather enhance the human development of their subordina tes than promo te the employees' training in specific techni­cal skills. The preference indicated by s upervisors for training in interper­sonal skills may also reflec t p ti orities gained from the su pervisors' own training experience in this area, as San ta Clara County has irt recent years had a strong commitment to this type of training. Clerical supervisors may 230 Public Personnel Management Vol. 20 No.2 (Summer 1991) wish that their employees could share in the benefits they have gain ed from such training. There are also nota ble differences among the two gro ups' preferences in specific training topics. For example, clerical s upervisors as a group were much more concerned with topics tha t pertain to interaction with the world beyond the office: over seventy percent of the s upervisors indicated an interest in training for their employees in the areas of "Telephone Tech­niques" and "Interacting wiU1 the Public". Relatively few employees indi­cated an intPrest in thPse topics. Managers seemed more concerned with the organization's interaction with its env ironment, knowing that this rela tionship can be ins trumental to public support and coopera tion . Em­ployees are more content w ith their present skills in this area. For their part, employees indicated rela tively more interest than their supervisory counterparts in the areas of "Supervisory Skills" and comput­ers. Employees may perceive these topics as pathw ays to d esired promo­tions. Th ey were also more interes ted in building basic clerica l skills like shorthand, bookkeeping, and accounting, although a minority of employ­ees (and supervisors) indicated this interest. The p riorities of the two groups converge in many sp ecific training topics. Amon g the types of training for which a majority of bo th employees and supervisors indicated preference w ere: computers, word process ing, exam prepa ration, career o pportunities, interviewing skills, office stress management, and communication skills. Low or negligible s upport w as indicated by bo th groups for basic s kms like beginning ty ping and filing. Discussion Local governments ty pically face severe cons traints in the amount of resources which can be devoted to training ac tivities. This analysis has demons trated the potential value of s urveying personnel as a means of ascertaining the vary ing priorities of workers and superv isors. The results of the s urvey references here s uggest that s uch priorities may be a t leas t partially at odds. Specifically, in this ins tance supervisors were much more concerned with "human development skills" for their employees. Such training does no t directly affect the productivity of employees, yet supervisors seemed to a ttach great value on e nhancing the interpersonal interaction and indi­vid ual well-being of their employees. This fin ding runs counter to the contention that management conceives of training soley as a productivity booster. A Comparison of Training Priorities 231 Employees, however, did demons trate that their priority in training is to enhance the value of their labor through the acquisition of specific technical skills. They expressed a clear p reference for such training over both human development and interpersonal skills topics. Not es 1F. Nigro a nd L. Nigro, TI1eNew Public Personnel Administration, (ltsaca, IL:F.E. Peacock, 1976), 230. 2R. Sylvia,"An O rganiza tional Perspec ti ve on Tra ining and Development in th e Public Sector," in S. Hays and R. Kearney, cds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems am/ Prospects, (Engle wood Oirfs, N .J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 137-152. 3Nigro and Nigro, op.cil., p. 229. 4lbid., p. 230 5R. Sy lvia a nd K.C Meier,"An Organi7ational Perspective on Training anJ Developmen t in the Public Sector," in S. I lays and It Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems am/ Prospects, 2nd Ed., (Englewood C liffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, forthcoming). 6sylvia, op.cil., p. 142. 70. Klingner, Public Personnel Management: Contexts and Stmtcgies, (Englewood C liffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall), 244. ~i gro an d Nigro, op.cil., p. 232. 9Kiingner, op.cil., p. 249. References Klingner, Donald E., Publir Personnel M111111gcment: Contexts nntl Slmlegies. Englewood Cliffs, N.j.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. N igro, Felix and Nigro, Lloyd. The New Public Personnel Administration. ltsaca, fL: F.E. peacock, 1976. Sylvia, Ronald D. "An Orga ni za tional Perspcctiv£> on Trai ning and Developme nt in the Public Sector," in hays, Steven 11nd Kc11rney, Richard C, cds., Pnblic Personnel Administration: Prob­lems and Prospects. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983. Syl vi~, Rona ld D. and Meier, Kcnn~th C. "1\n Org:miz:~ tion:~l perspective on Tr11ining and Develop men t in the Pu blic St-cto r," in I lays, Steven And Keilrney, Rich11rd C., Public Personnel Administration: Problems 111111 Prospt•cls, 2n d cd. Engl('wood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren tice-Hall, forth­comin g. 232 Public Personnel Management Vol. 20 No.2 {Summer 1991) 

A Comparison of the Training Priorities of Clerical Employees and Their Supervisors

San Jose State University

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&amp;context=pols_pub

A Comparison of the Training Priorities of Clerical Employees and Their Supervisors

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State University