DOT/FAA/AM-00/27

Katherine C. Naff

San Francisco State University

San Francisco, California 94132

Richard C. Thompson

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

August 2000

Final Report

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

The Impact of Teams on the

Climate for Diversity in

Government: The FAA Experience

Office of Aviation Medicine

Washington, D.C. 20591

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/FAA/AM-00/27

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

The Impact of Teams on the Climate for Diversity in Government:

The FAA Experience

August 2000

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Naff, K.C., and Thompson, R.C.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

P.O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, DC 20591

15. Supplemental Notes

Work was completed under assigned task number AM-B-00-HRR-516.

16. Abstract

This study examined the effect of teamwork on diversity-related perceptions of the FAA workforce. Recent

research suggests that one means of improving the diversity climate of an organization is through the

implementation of teams. To assess this conjecture in the FAA, three measures of diversity climate perceptions

were examined: employee perceptions of the agency’s success in elimination of hostile work environment

behaviors, success of the Model Work Environment plan, and personal support for the model work

environment vision. Teamwork and organization were examined, controlling for minority status, gender, age,

supervisory status, agency and job tenure, and work setting. The results suggest that working as a member of an

occupational work team is related to improved perceptions of the diversity climate, but organizational

differences do exist. Overall, it appears that the size of the relationship between teamwork and diversity climate

is influenced by the degree to which the survey measures focused on specific behaviors versus higher-level

judgements. Specifically, behaviorally focused measures showed a stronger relationship with teamwork than did

measures of support for the agency’s diversity climate vision.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Diversity. Teamwork, Model Work Environment Document is available to the public through

Organizational Climate the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 19

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1

THE IMPACT OF TEAMS ON THE CLIMATE FOR

DIVERSITY IN GOVERNMENT: THE FAA EXPERIENCE

The 1990s may well be remembered as the era of

organizational implosion. In the private sector, some

of the pressures that compelled companies to transform their organizational structures included increased competition in a global economy, escalated

customer demands, and accelerated advances in technology (Boyett & Conn, 1991; Bowman & Kogut,

1995; Nadler, Gerstein, & Shaw, 1992). At the same

time, public institutions faced declining confidence

in government and citizens’ simultaneous demands

for higher quality services and lower taxes. In response, public institutions sought ways to become

leaner, more decentralized, flexible and innovative

(Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Osborne & Plastrik,

1997; National Performance Review, 1993). Literature in both sectors asserts that changes in organizational structure should include, in many instances,

replacing traditional hierarchical work structures with

teams that oversee a “whole” part of the enterprise.

These changes in organizational structure should go

beyond using teams to solve organizational problems. Rather, the expectation is that organizations

will establish a culture that supports teams as the

central platform for accomplishing work (Mohrman,

Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995; Boyett & Conn, 1991;

Linden, 1994, Lawler, 1996; Hyde, 1997).

In addition to organizational structure change, the

workforce in both sectors is steadily becoming more

diverse, presenting employers with a second set of

challenges. An expanding body of literature emphasizes that organizations must successfully manage

diversity to gain the maximum potential contribution of their employees and to be competitive in

today’s environment (see, for example, Chemers,

Oskamp & Costanzo, 1995; Rice, 1996; Thomas,

1991, 1996; Fernandez, 1991, 1999; Cox, 1994;

Wilson, 1997; Norton & Fox, 1997). Public sector

institutions have additional reasons to ensure that people

of color and women are fully represented and included

at all levels of government. These reasons have to do

with the government’s particular obligation to ensure

that it is representative of the diversity of the nation

(Krislov, 1974; Krislov & Rosenbloom, 1981; Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).

The question asked in this paper is: What happens

to an organization when both increasing teamwork

and diversity occur? Team-based work structures

may have the potential to stimulate innovation and

empowerment, but they also require a great deal of

collaboration and mutual respect among co-workers

(Tolbert, Andrews & Simons, 1995). The philosophy underlying the growing diversity management

industry is that misunderstanding and conflict can

and often do arise in a work group comprised of

people from very different backgrounds. On the

other hand, a growing body of literature suggests that

ethnically diverse teams are often more creative and

innovative than homogenous ones (Rogelberg &

Rumery, 1996; Cox, 1994). For that inventiveness to

emerge, however, requires more than passive tolerance of one another. Perhaps more importantly, some

scholars have suggested that the converse is also

true—the establishment of diverse-cross functional

teams can foster a more inclusive environment for

women and people of color than exists in a traditional, functionally based work structure (Irvine &

Baker, 1995; Cox, 1994; Fernandez, 1999). This

paper examines this latter presumption with the responses to a survey of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees administered in 1997.

 The FAA and Diversity

The Federal Aviation Administration is the largest

agency within the Department of Transportation.

The FAA provides a safe, secure, and efficient global

aerospace system that contributes to national security

and to the promotion of U.S. aerospace safety. Overall, the FAA workforce is less diverse than the federal

workforce (see Table 1). Whereas women and minorities comprise 42% and 31% of the federal

workforce (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 1997), respectively,
2

the FAA workforce is 24% female and 18% minority.

However, minorities hold a larger share of senior pay

jobs in the FAA (21%) than in the federal workforce

(12%). Women hold about the same proportion of

senior pay jobs in the FAA as the federal workforce

(about 20%).

In the early 1990s, the FAA took aggressive action

to provide diversity training to all supervisors and

managers. A number of different approaches were

tried, and early on there was only limited coordination of these efforts. In 1994, steps were taken to

develop a coordinated approach to diversity. A senior

executive position was created to be the agency’s

“diversity advocate” and to oversee EEO and affirmative action responsibilities in the agency’s Office of

Civil Rights. A work group was created that developed a plan of action known as the “Model Work

Environment” (MWE). The purpose of that initiative was to create and maintain a productive and

hospitable work environment that reflects the nation’s

diversity (see Table 2.)

Since the MWE policy became official in 1996,

the FAA took a number of steps to ensure its implementation. These included mandating specific performance standards for supervisors, managers, and

executives; developing special efforts targeting underrepresentation, and revising the executive information system to include line of business demographics.

The agency also now includes items related to MWE

in the agency’s biennial employee attitude survey. In

fact, in response to the most recent survey (1997),

nearly two-thirds of FAA respondents said they

supported the FAA goals or principles related to the

MWE to a great or very great extent (Thompson et

al., 1999). The FAA, then, appears to have made

considerable progress in creating the environment

envisioned by the MWE initiative.

Teams in the Government

The notion that employee involvement can increase productivity, quality, and job satisfaction is

not new. Since the 1940s, companies have experimented with different forms of worker participation.

Efforts to emulate Japanese success in industry accelerated the adoption of quality circles and, later,

quality teams in U.S. industries (Levine, 1995).

During the 1970s and 1980s, experiments consistently showed that quality, innovation, customer

service, and performance were substantially improved

when employees had a greater role in organizational

decision-making. Meanwhile, during the 1980s, economic pressures to simplify organizational structures

and technological innovations that made it possible

to push decision-making to lower levels in organizations added even greater impetus to the move toward

“employee empowerment.” Management consultants

have confidently predicted that by 2002, “Teamwork

and cooperation will be the basis for creating value in

the new organization.” Supervisors will be replaced

by “enablers” who help employee teams manage interpersonal relationships and “technical support managers” who help them with technical problems (Boyett

& Conn, 1991, pp. 6-7).

Table 1.

Representation in the FAA in White-Collar Jobs by Race/Ethnicity and Gender,

FY 1998 (percent)

White

African

American Hispanic

Native

American

Asian Pacific

American

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

FG 1-8 12.7 55.6 2.7 16.7 1.8 5.7 0.4 1.7 0.7 2.0

FG 9-12 62.3 18.6 5.2 4.1 3.9 1.2 1.4 0.6 2.1 0.7

FG 13-15 68.1 15.0 4.9 3.0 3.8 0.9 1.4 0.4 2.1 0.5

SES 63.9 15.0 9.4 3.3 2.2 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.9 0.6

TOTAL 31,855 8,816 2,340 1,948 1,792 603 637 221 1016 323

Source: EEOC Form 568
3

In the federal government, the development of

teams to replace traditional hierarchical work structures is arguably more difficult than in the private

sector because of the laws and regulations that govern

human resource management across the government.

For example, hundreds of thousands of federal employees work within the general schedule system,

which requires that they be individually categorized

into one of several hundred narrow job classifications, paid according to a specific salary schedule,

and evaluated based on their individual performance.

When the National Performance Review (NPR) created “reinvention labs” and other mechanisms to

encourage agencies to experiment with better ways to

perform their work by granting them some exemptions from regulations, a number of federal agencies

used this authority to create self-managed work teams.

A leading example is the New York Regional

Benefits Office (NYBRO) of the Department of

Veterans Affairs, which took advantage of this flexibility to reorganize its entire claims processing system. The agency created six self-managed teams and

superceded the constraints of the classification system by collapsing 17 different position titles into

three. Measures of individual performance were

supplemented with measures of team performance.

The NYRBO then applied to the federal Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) under another program governing “experimental” human resource management systems for authority to replace the general

schedule pay system with one that combines skill-based

pay with a variable pay component linked to organizational outcomes (Alliance for Reinventing Government, 1999). At the Federal Aviation Administration,

a major impetus for this form of organizational restructuring grew out of a need to change some aspects

of its organizational culture.

Teams at the FAA

A 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) examining the FAA’s acquisition process blamed cost overruns ranging from 50 to 511%

and schedule delays averaging nearly four years on a

culture within the FAA that “did not reflect a strong

commitment to mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability” (GAO, 1996, p. 3). According to the GAO, the FAA, well aware of the

problems being caused by its “stovepipe” organization, had begun a reform effort in November 1994.

This effort, called the Integrated Product Development System, was based on using cross-functional,

integrated product teams.

Meanwhile, in Section 347 of the Department of

Transportation’s 1996 appropriation bill, the FAA

was directed to implement its own personnel management system. This change allowed the FAA to

implement many personnel practices outside of the

limitations imposed by OPM and existing personnel

statutes. In response, the FAA altered its personnel

management system with several specific goals in

mind. Primary goals included: 1) acquiring, developing, and deploying people where they were needed, 2)

developing more effective leadership and management, and 3) making the FAA a desirable place to

work. In support of these objectives was the desire to

develop human resource management systems that

support the achievement of these goals, as well as ones

that are efficient and adaptable (FAA office of Human

Table 2.

Definition of the Model Work Environment

MWE Vision Statement

A Model Work Environment is a productive and hospitable environment with at least four characteristics:

• All employees have the opportunity to develop their potential and contribute fully to the

organization;

• The contributions of all employees are supported and encouraged;

• Discrimination and harassment in the work place have been eliminated; and

• The nation’s diversity is reflected.

Source: FAA
4

Resources, 1996). Within this broad framework, the

FAA has increased the use of teams and teamwork

where appropriate.

Some of the work performed by FAA personnel

naturally lends itself to a team approach, while other

work does not. For example, much of the work

currently performed by air traffic controllers is individual in nature but requires cooperation and coordination among controllers in adjacent sectors. At a

higher level of analysis, controllers really function as

virtual teams, in that a given aircraft cannot complete

its travel from one destination to the next without the

coordination of a substantial number of controllers.

The FAA’s Research and Acquisition (ARA) organization, on the other hand, implemented specifically

designed cross-functional teams. ARA developed

teams to guide the development, testing, and final

purchase of new aviation systems used to support the

National Airspace System. The goal of these teams

was to significantly reduce the development time and

expense of large and complex purchases, as well as

improve the functionality of the final product.

Diversity and Teams

Considerable research has concluded that diversity influences on a team’s performance outcomes

(Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1993; Rogelberg &

Rumery, 1996; Watson, Johnson, & Merritt, 1998).

In many cases, ethnically diverse teams have been

found to be more creative and innovative than homogenous teams (Rogelberg & Rumery, 1996; Cox,

1994; American Management Association, 1998;

Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995). In one experimental study where teams were given a male-oriented

task, the quality of the decision reached increased as

the proportion of men increased; however, the team

that included one woman outperformed the others

(Rogelburg & Rumery, 1996).

Positive outcomes of diverse teams are by no means

guaranteed. The “similarity-attraction paradigm” suggests that individuals are more attracted to people like

themselves and less attracted to those who are different.

Consequently, a more diverse group is likely to be less

cohesive and to have a more negative climate (Mayo,

Meindl, & Pastor, 1996). Cohesiveness, in turn, affects

job satisfaction, absenteeism, attrition, and performance

(Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1993; Jackson et al., 1991).

Another axiom guiding research in this area is the

theory of relational demography, which proposes

that an individual’s demographic similarity or dissimilarity to the composition of his or her social unit

affects that person’s work-related attitudes and behavior (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui & O’Reilly,

1989). Following this theory, demographically distinct individuals who join an existing group are

handicapped because the social identities of all involved become more salient, which, in turn, triggers

stereotypes and more anxiety on both parts.

Raghurman and Garud (1996) identified three

mechanisms that propel the dynamics of diverse

groups—behaviors (exit and voice), affect (trust or

distrust) and perception (of equity or inequity). They

suggest that a group is likely to be more effective and

cohesive when they have diverse skills to bring to the

task at hand, but share common work-related values.

However, difficulties presented by a diversity in

values can be mitigated through the exercise of “voice”

and “exit.” Voice means providing forums for communication so team members can express concerns

and seek clarification. Exit means allowing a group to

regenerate itself through reconstituting its membership.

Structuring tasks to require interdependence is

also important in encouraging team cohesion. This

interdependence should be reinforced by mechanisms that affirm collective accountabilities and impel team leaders to fully develop team members, such

as appraisal and reward systems based on team, rather

than individual outcomes (Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez,

1993; Irvine & Baker, 1995; Kossek, Zonia, & Young,

1996; Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1994).

With attention to such mechanisms, some scholars have suggested that the establishment of diverse,

cross-functional teams may in fact foster, rather than

impede, the inclusion of minorities and women in

organizations. Social identity theory proposes that

people’s self-identification is determined, at least in

part, by their membership in groups (Riordan &

Shore, 1997). Two of the groups with which people

naturally identify are their racial, or ethnic group,

and their gender. It is for this reason that the inclusion of a demographically different person on a team,

particularly if he or she is the only member of that

demographic group on the team, can have the kinds

of adverse consequences described above.

Irvine and Baker (1995) argued that the development of teams, particularly cross-functional teams,

also has the potential to create new identity groups

with which people can identify so that their identification with their racial, ethnic or gender group becomes less important. This is, partly, because,
5

according to social contact theory, increased contact

among dissimilar groups can help to break down

stereotypes and generate greater attraction.

Membership on the same team would presumably

increase contact among its diverse members, particularly when work is structured to require interdependence (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Social contact

theories hold that greater contact among individuals

reduces individuals’ tendency to hold negative stereotypes about members of particular groups (Tolbert,

Andrews & Simons, 1995; Maluso, 1995). Irvine and

Baker (1995) proposed that diverse, cross-functional

teams can increase individuals’ attachment to the team

and organization and foster positive work group relations. Increased attachment and a positive work environment, in turn, augment those individuals’ own job

satisfaction, motivation, and performance, and lower

conflict and turnover. The organization, then, benefits

from increased productivity and a reduced financial

impairment that is associated with turnover.

Cox (1994) also suggests that reducing intra-group

conflict is a reason that many organizations are shifting

to team-based work structures; properly structured teams

can eliminate power imbalances systematically related

to gender and/or race/ethnicity that are the source of

much inter-group conflict. Thus, in addition to providing the benefits of organizational flexibility and innovation, the development of cross-functional teams may

also reduce inter-group conflict and provide new opportunities for women and minorities. The question asked

in the present paper is: What effect, if any, has the shift

to team-based work structures had on the climate for

diversity in the FAA?

METHOD

Survey Procedures and Participants

A survey was mailed to all full-time permanent and

temporary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

employees during October and November of 1997.

Surveys were mailed to the address used to distribute

each employee’s Statement of Earnings and Leave.

Approximately 48,900 surveys were distributed to

the FAA workforce. Of those, 25,004 usable surveys

were returned, yielding a response rate of 51%. The

survey was comprised of 119 items assessing organizational climate issues, 14 respondent demographic

items, and a section for respondent comments. The

survey is part of an ongoing assessment of the FAA’s

climate, initiated in 1984. (For more detail, see

Thompson et al., 1999).

Measures

Independent Variables. The topic of interest in this

study is respondents’ involvement in teams. Two variables were used to examine such involvement. The first

measure was respondents’ answers to an item on the

survey that asked them about the amount of time they

spend working in an occupational work team (see the

Appendix for details). They were asked to select one of

five options labeled from 0-5%, 5-25%, 25-50%, 50-

75%, or greater than 75%. From these, only the low (0-

5%) and high (75% or more) respondents were included

in the analysis to create a clearer distinction between

those who are very much involved in teams and those

who have little involvement (n=13,367).

The second variable, FAA organization, takes into

consideration differences in the type and coordination of work that occurs, based on occupational

specialty within the agency. Some FAA organizations

have made specific efforts to implement teams, and

teamwork, such as the integrated product teams in

Research and Acquisition described above. Others

organizations have naturally occurring occupational

work teams due to the nature of the work1

. In the

multivariate analyses that follow, an ordinal variable

(called “organization”) is created based on the proportion of the workforce in each organization that

reports working in an occupational work team. Very

small organizations were eliminated from the analyses

1

 Currently, there are six major lines of business in the FAA: Air Traffic Services (ATS), Regulation and Certification (AVR),

Research and Acquisition (ARA), Airports (ARP), Civil Aviation Security (ACS) and Commercial Space Transportation (AST).

In addition, there is an administrative organization called the Region and Center Operations (ARC) organization. Finally, there

are a host of staff offices that report directly to the FAA administrator, such as Civil Rights and Human Resources. Within each

of these larger organizations, there are subordinate offices. For example, within ATS there are two major organizations, Air

Traffic (AAT) and Airway Facilities (AAF). The former is comprised of air traffic controller specialists who ensure safety through

the separation or aircraft and the provision of flight information to pilots, the latter ensures safety by maintaining the

functionality of the geographically disperse ground based navigational systems. ATS makes up the largest organization within

the FAA, having about two-thirds of all FAA employees.
6

(n < 50). This resulted in eight organizations being

retained in the study. Respondents in the overall

sample who did not report an organization, and those

not in the low and high teamwork groups were

eliminated from the analyses (with the one exception

noted below).

Control Variables. Research has shown that a

number of factors may be related to diversity perceptions. Therefore, given the large sample size in the

present study, it seemed prudent to control for some

of these in the present study. First, considerable

research has shown that women and minorities are

more likely to perceive disparate treatment based on

sex or race than are men or are non-minorities, and

more likely to support efforts to end such disparities

(see, for example, United States Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB], 1992, 1996; Naff 1995a,

1995b). Therefore, measures of respondent minority

status (minority and non-minority) and gender were

included as covariates.

Respondent age is another relevant variable. Given

the increasing emphasis on teams and teamwork in

educational settings over the last few decades, younger

respondents may be more likely to be comfortable

with teamwork than older workers. In addition, college campuses are also increasingly diverse, so younger

workers may have more experience with diverse teams.

Age was measured using a categorical variable grouped

into approximately 10-year intervals.

Similarly, people with higher levels of education

are typically more accepting of diversity than those

with less education (Clayton & Crosby 1992).

Respondent’s level of education, as measured by six

categories ranging from high school to graduate education, was included as a covariate.

Tenure is important because when a person entered both the agency and their current job influences

how the respondent was socialized (Jackson, Stone &

Alvarez, 1993; although Riordan & Shore, 1997,

reported contrary findings). For example, in past

decades the FAA had a very different socialization

process for entry-level air traffic controllers, compared with the one being used currently (Broach,

1998). In addition, job tenure may be relevant in that

persons who change jobs more frequently or have

changed jobs recently, may be more likely to change

individualized work behaviors and be more willing to

work in a team. Tenure was measured by asking

respondents to indicate their number of years with

the FAA, and on their current job, respectively.

Research in the FAA (Thompson, Hilton, & Behn,

1997) has shown that, for many perceptual measures,

executives and managers tend to provide more positive responses, compared with first-line supervisors

and employees. Similarly, supervisors tend to report

more positive perceptions, compared with employees. Therefore, it was determined that supervisory

status should be taken into account.

Finally, opportunities to work in teams may be

affected by the type of facility or location where one

works. For example, it would be expected that in

facilities or locations with more employees, there

would be greater opportunities to work with a broader

array of persons. In addition, some types of work are

more likely to be addressed by teams, while others are

more likely to be handled by individuals. Therefore,

work setting was assessed by having the respondents

indicate whether they worked at a 1) field office or

facility, 2) the Washington headquarters, 3) regional

headquarters, or 4) one of the agency’s larger centers

(i.e., Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and the

William J. Hughs Technical Center).

Dependent Variables. Three dependent variables

served as proxy measures of the FAA diversity climate. Each measure is an index that combines responses to several survey items for which there are

high inter-item correlations. The items that comprise

each measure are presented in the Appendix. The first

two measures assess the perceived effectiveness of the

agency’s efforts to create a better climate for diversity.

The third measures respondents’ personal support

for these efforts.

The first dependent variable, eliminating a hostile

work environment, assesses the prevalence of inappropriate behaviors in the workplace. These items

were originally worded such that high scores reflected

an increased level of perceived inappropriate behavior. For this analysis, they have been re-coded so that

a high score represents low perceptions of inappropriate behavior. This measure provides an estimate of

the level of inappropriate behavior that occurs in the

respondent’s immediate work environment, with

items focused on behaviors occurring in that environment.

The second dependent variable is the perceived

level of success the FAA has had in creating an

agency-wide model work environment. These items

covered specific behaviors as well as the availability of

opportunities to participate in MWE activities. These

items are included in the Appendix. This measure
7

provides an estimate of the respondent’s perceptions

of agency success with diversity beyond the respondents immediate work environment. (See Table 2 for

a summary of the MWE goals.)

The third dependent variable is personal support for

the Model Work Environment. This measure assesses

the degree to which respondents support the principles

and goals of the agency diversity efforts. The items assess

the level of respondent support for programs and efforts

included under the diversity rubric.

RESULTS

Prior to examining the dependent variables, teamwork differences in the FAA organizations are briefly

summarized. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 3, with the organizations sorted in order from

highest to lowest percentage of the workforce who

indicated they spend 75% or more of their time as part

of a work team. The table shows that the organization

with the highest degree of teamwork (greatest proportion of respondents indicating 75% or more of time

spent in teams) is Air Traffic. The organization with the

lowest degree of teamwork is the Headquarters staff.

Interestingly, Air Traffic Services also has the third

largest portion of respondents indicating they spend less

than 5% of their time in work teams. A close examination of Table 3 also shows that the first four organizations have a bimodal distribution of high and low team

work. Specifically, the smallest percentage of respondents in these four organizations fall into the middle

category of 25 to 50% of time spent working in teams.

This result indicates extremes in the use of teamwork,

either high or low, for these four organizations. The last

four organizations, on the other hand, have less than

25% of their respondents spending 50% or more of

their time working in teams. This distribution of teamwork shows that there are organizational differences in

the use of teams and teamwork in the FAA.

Analysis of the Control Variables

Prior to examining the impact of teamwork on

perceptions of diversity, analyses were conducted to

determine the degree of correlation among the covariates

and the dependent variables. These analyses are summarized in Table 4. The table shows there are small, but

statistically significant correlations between each of the

dependent variables and the covariates, except for one.

The results of this analysis suggest that non-minorities

reported higher scores for eliminating a hostile work

environment and MWE success, and lower scores on

personal support for MWE. Similarly, males reported

higher scores for eliminating a hostile work environment, and lower scores for MWE success and personal

support for MWE. Level of education has the strongest

relationship with personal support for MWE, suggesting that higher levels of education are related to greater

support. Overall, the positive correlations indicate respondents with higher levels of education, who are

older, and are a supervisor or manager are more positive

for each of the three dependent variables. FAA tenure is

not related to perceptions of eliminating a hostile work

environment and is negatively related to perceptions of

MWE success and personal support for MWE. This

result suggests respondents who have been with the

agency longer are less supportive of these efforts. Job

Table 3.

Percentage of the Organization’s Workforce involved in Teamwork

L % ess than 5% 5 0 to 25 2 5 5 to 5 5 % 0 to 7 75 to 100

% n % n %N% n % n

A 2 ir Traffic 3 0 4. 3 0 57 1 3 2. 1 0 25 8 1 . 8 5 3 1 4 3. 1 3 41 3 9 2. 337

R 0 esearch and Acquisition 1 1 9. 1 4 7 1 7 7. 1 3 5 1 0 3. 1 1 2 2 0 1. 1 3 9 2 4 9. 26

A 7 dministration 2 5 4. 4 0 4 1 3 9. 3 9 4 1 0 3. 2 0 5 1 7 7. 3 3 0 2 6 5. 45

A 3 irway Facilities 2 3 9. 1 8 69 1 3 9. 1 6 14 1 1 5. 9 6 0 1 9 6. 9 6 5 1 4 8. 107

R 2 egulation and Certification 3 7 0. 9 5 3 2 7 2. 6 3 9 1 6 7. 5 4 3 1 8 6. 5 7 0 1 5 3. 42

A 8 irports 3 0 1. 1 2 0 2 6 4. 7 5 1 8 8. 5 1 1 8 2. 3 4 1 2 3. 4

S 8 ecurity 3 6 7. 1 8 9 2 8 0. 1 0 0 1 3 6. 8 5 1 5 4. 7 0 1 7 1. 5

H 3 eadquarters Staff 4 7 3. 1 2 0 2 0 0. 5 8 1 4 3. 3 6 1 1 2. 3 1 1 5 0. 2
8

tenure is negatively correlated with each of the dependent variables, suggesting that respondents with less

tenure on their current job are more supportive of the

MWE and perceive more improvement in the elimination of a hostile work environment. Finally, work

setting correlations suggest that respondents in field

offices and facilities are less likely to endorse each of the

three dependent variables, compared with those in a

headquarters or center setting. Overall, these results

suggest that there is a benefit in controlling for these

demographic variables.

Analysis of the Dependent Variables

To examine the overall effect of teamwork and

organization on the diversity measures, and control

for other factors that may affect attitudes about

diversity, a multivariate analysis of covariance

(MANCOVA) was conducted. The dependent variables were the three climate measures of diversity.

The independent variables were level of teamwork

(low and high) and the organization (ordered from

highest proportion of workforce spending 75% or

more of their time doing teamwork to lowest proportion of the workforce in that category). The remaining

variables were entered as covariates. Using Pillai’s criteria as the statistical criteria, the analysis indicated an

overall effect of teamwork and organization on perceptions of the three dependent variables, F(24, 30669) =

64.13, p < .001. Given the significant overall

MANCOVA, the interaction and main effects were

examined. There was a significant overall teamwork by

organization interaction, F(21, 30669) = 2.35, p <

.001. In addition, there was an overall significant

main effect of organization, F(21, 30669) = 26.99, p

< .001, and a significant main effect of teamwork,

F(3, 10221) = 9.52, p < .001. These results indicate

that, for at least one of the dependent variables, there

are significant differences based on teamwork and

organization. Given the significant overall test and

the overall significant interaction and main effects,

step-down analyses were conducted for each of the

dependent variables. These analyses are discussed

next.

Eliminating a Hostile Work Environment. The

first dependent variable examined was respondent

perceptions of how effectively the FAA had eliminated inappropriate behaviors in the workplace. That

variable is called eliminating a hostile work environment. To examine this dependent variable in isolation, a step-down analysis of covariance was

conducted. For this analysis, all of the covariates

discussed above were included, and the main effect of

teamwork and organization, plus the teamwork by

organization interaction were examined. The results

of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. The table

shows that the covariates are significant, with the

exception of work setting, indicating that there are

differences in perceptions of the agency’s ability to

eliminate inappropriate behavior based on various

demographic characteristics. Table 5 also shows,

however, that there was a significant main effect of

teamwork and a significant main effect of organization. The teamwork-organization interaction,

Table 4.

Correlations Among the Covariates and Dependent Variables

Covariates Dependent Variables

Eliminating a

Hostile Work

Environment

MWE

Success

Personal

Support for

MWE

Minority 0.079* 0.027* -0.054*

Gender 0.085* -0.045* -0.138*

Education 0.029* 0.021* 0.071*

Age 0.116* 0.127* 0.065*

Supervisory Status 0.178* 0.171* 0.180*

FAA Tenure -0.010 -0.100* -0.035*

Job Tenure -0.106* -0.213* -0.166*

Work Setting 0.089* 0.204* 0.110*

* p < .05
9

however, was not significant. This suggests that

perceptions of the FAA’s success at eliminating inappropriate behavior does vary among its component

organizations and is affected by the use of teamwork.

The main effects are summarized in Figure 1,

which graphs the adjusted means for the eliminating

a hostile work environment measure. Post hoc comparisons show that, when collapsing across the organization variable, the low teamwork respondents

report lower levels of eliminating a hostile work

environment compared to the higher teamwork respondents. When collapsing across teamwork, the

post hoc analyses reveals that Air Traffic and Security

had the lowest scores, while the Headquarters staff,

Airports, and Administration organizations had the

highest scores. The main effect of organization suggests there are organizational differences in perceptions of eliminating a model work environment. The

Table 5.

ANOVA Summary Table for Analysis of Eliminating a Hostile Work Environment

Covariates

Sums of

Squares Df

Mean

Squares F p

Minority Status 55.29 1 55.29 79.50 .000

Gender 90.97 1 90.97 130.81 .000

Education 9.04 1 9.04 13.00 .000

Age 31.98 1 31.98 45.99 .000

Supervisory Status 167.49 1 167.49 240.84 .000

FAA tenure 13.47 1 13.47 19.37 .000

Job Tenure 22.66 1 22.66 32.59 .000

Work Setting 1.89 1 1.89 2.71 .100

Independent Variables

Teamwork 2.72 1 2.72 3.92 .048

Organization 98.47 7 14.07 20.23 .000

Teamwork by

Organization

7.98 7 1.14 1.64 .119

Error 6850.17 9850 .70

1

2

3

4

5

Air Traffic

Research and Acquisition

Administration

Airway Facilities

Regulation and Certification

Airports

Security

Headquarters Staff

Low

High

Figure 1. Adjusted Means for Eliminating a Hostile Work Environment, Comparing Low and High Levels

of Teamwork for each Organization
10

absence of a significant interaction indicates that

there are no combined effects of teamwork and organization on perceptions of eliminating a hostile work

environment.

Model Work Environment Success. The next

dependent variable assessed was the respondents’

perceptions of the success of the agency’s model work

environment effort. Again, a step-down ANCOVA

was conducted in the same manner as described

previously. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6. The only covariate to not reach

significance was work setting; there was a significant

main effect of teamwork and organization, but the

interaction was not significant.

The main effects are summarized in Figure 2,

which presents a graph of the adjusted means for

perceptions of model work environment success.

Post hoc comparisons show that when collapsing

across organizations, the low teamwork scores for

this variable were lower, compared with the high

teamwork respondents, supporting the contention

that teamwork contributes to improved perceptions

Table 6.

ANOVA Summary Table for Analysis of Model Work Environment Success

Covariates

Sums of

Squares Df

Mean

Squares F p

Minority Status 7.56 1 7.56 9.21 .002

Gender 122.99 1 122.99 149.79 .000

Education 3.40 1 3.40 4.15 .042

Age 28.57 1 28.57 34.79 .000

Supervisory Status 205.74 1 205.74 250.57 .000

FAA tenure 7.14 1 7.14 8.69 .003

Job Tenure 59.94 1 59.94 73.00 .000

Work Setting .08 1 .08 .10 .749

Independent Variables

Teamwork 13.23 1 13.23 16.11 .000

Organization 48.57 7 6.94 8.45 .000

Teamwork by

Organization

11.19 7 1.60 1.95 .058

Error 8087.65 9850 .821

1

2

3

4

5

Air Traffic

Research and Acquisition

Administration

Airway Facilities

Regulation and Certification

Airports

Security

Headquarters Staff

Low

High

Figure 2. Adjusted Means for Model Work Environment Success Comparing Low and High Levels of

Teamwork for each Organization
11

of diversity. When collapsing across teamwork, the

post hoc analyses revealed that Air Traffic had the

lowest scores, while the Regulation and Certification

and Airports organizations had the highest scores.

Again, the results indicate statistically significant

differences in perceptions of MWE success across the

organizations.

Model Work Environment Support. The final

dependent variable examined was the respondents

reported level of personal support for the agency’s

model work environment effort. Again, a step-down

ANCOVA was conducted in the same manner as

noted above. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7. In this analysis, all of the covariates

were significant, with the exception of work setting,

which approached significance. In addition, there

was a significant main effect of organization and a

significant main effect of teamwork. The interaction,

however, was not significant. This pattern of results

suggests that the respondents’ perceptions of model

work environment success differ based on the organization in which they work, and teamwork, but not

the joint effect of the two independent variables.

Table 7.

ANOVA Summary Table for Analysis of Support for the Model Work Environment

Covariates

Sums of

Squares Df

Mean

Squares F p

Minority Status 6.72 1 6.72 8.17 .004

Gender 126.20 1 126.20 153.34 .000

Education 3.87 1 3.87 4.71 .030

Age 31.70 1 31.70 38.51 .000

Supervisory Status 211.95 1 211.95 257.54 .000

FAA tenure 6.57 1 6.57 7.98 .005

Job Tenure 64.08 1 64.08 77.86 .000

Work Setting 2.97 1 2.97 3.61 .058

Independent Variables

Teamwork 13.78 1 13.78 16.75 .000

Organization 45.57 7 6.51 7.91 .000

Teamwork by

Organization

9.51 7 1.36 1.65 .116

Error 8643.70 10503 .82

1

2

3

4

5

Air Traffic

Research and Acquisition

Administration

Airway Facilities

Regulation and Certification

Airports

Security

Headquarters Staff

Low

High

Figure 3. Adjusted Means for Model Work Environment Support Comparing Low and High Levels of

Teamwork for each Organization
12

The adjusted means comparing the low and high

teamwork groups for each of the organizations are

presented in Figure 3. An examination of the figure

and the post hoc analysis reveals that high teamwork

respondents have a higher level of support for the

Model Work Environment, compared with low teamwork respondents. In addition, the post hoc analysis

reveals that Air Traffic and Research and Acquisition

have the lowest scores on this measure, and the other

organizations generally do not differ from each other.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study lend some support to the

proposition that involvement in work teams leads to

a better diversity climate (as measured by employees’

assessment of that climate) and greater levels of

support for diversity-related initiatives. Teamwork

seems to have the strongest relationship with attitudes in support of initiatives to create a better

climate for diversity (in this case, the MWE). There

is a weaker relationship between perceptions of inappropriate behavior and teamwork. This would suggest that the positive impact that teamwork has had

on the diversity climate is largely centered in changing people’s attitudes, rather than changing their

behavior. Nevertheless, it is clear from this analysis

that the choice of dependent variable is important

when considering how improvement in a diversity

climate is to be assessed.

The results also show that the relationship between teamwork and improvement in diversity is

imperfect. For example, the Air Traffic organization

has the lowest overall scores for each of the three

dependent variables, yet, they have the highest selfrating of teamwork. Had teamwork provided the

primary influence, the scores for Air Traffic would be

the highest overall instead of the lowest. One possible

explanation for this apparent inconsistency is the

relatively homogeneous nature of the Air Traffic

workforce, which is primarily non-minority male. As

such, they probably are less likely to perceive hostility

in the work environment, and are therefore less likely

to see the need for efforts designed to improve that

environment. However, it should also be noted that

in previous surveys of attitudes and perceptions in the

FAA, respondents in the Air Traffic organization

generally report less positive attitudes and perceptions (with respect to job satisfaction) than members

of other organizations. This finding suggests that

future research should also take into account the

organizational culture that can play a significant

mediating role in the relationship between teamwork

and the diversity climate.

The study also confirmed findings from previous

research indicating that there are a number of other

important demographic variables related to perceptions of diversity. In the correlation analysis, minority status, gender, education, age, supervisory status,

organization tenure, job tenure, and work setting

were related to the dependent variables, and in a

predictable fashion. In the ANCOVA’s, however,

work setting did not emerge as a significant covariate.

This suggests that, whether individuals work in a

field location, headquarters, or other location does

not contribute to the predictability of their attitudes

toward diversity, controlling for the other factors.

Overall, the effect of including the control variables

in the models results suggests that the influence of

organizational and individual differences on diversity perceptions is complex.

This study also points out some difficulties in

conducting this type of research in a field setting.

Specifically, due to the structure of the FAA, the

numbers of employees who comprise the workforce

in the various organizations vary substantially, as

reflected in Table 3. In addition, the larger organizations also tend to be more geographically dispersed

and to have a larger number of field facilities. While

differences in sample size can be statistically controlled to some extent, this study did not control for

employment in the various smaller work units and

field facilities that make up the larger organizations.

In addition, the large sample size in some of the

organizations contributed to finding statistically significant results, while the effect sizes suggest the

findings are of limited practical significance. Future

research should take these factors into account.

While the effect of teamwork on the climate for

diversity, as measured by this survey, was not a

striking one, the results did support the proposition

that there is a relationship between work arrangements and employees’ attitudes. Given the increasing

diversification of the workforce and the growing

interest in shifting to team-based work structures,

this analysis has made an important contribution in

examining the link between the two.
13

REFERENCES

Alliance for Reinventing Government (1999). NPR

Reinvention Laboratory Information, Department

of Veterans Affairs. Internet reference: http://

www.alliance.napawash.org

American Management Association. (1998). Senior

Management Teams: Profiles and Performance,

Management Review, 87, 37-44.

Bowman, E., & Kogut, B. (1995). Redesigning the Firm.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Boyett, J.H., & Conn, H.P. (1991). Workplace 2000:

The Revolution Reshaping American Business. New

York: Dutton.

Broach, D. (1998). Recovery of the FAA Air Traffic

Control Specialist Workforce, 1981-1992. (DOT/

FAA/AM-98/23) Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine (NTIS ADA340406).

Chemers, M.M., Oskamp S., & Costanzo, M.A. (1995)

Diversity in Organizations: New Perspectives for a

Changing Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Clayton, S.D., & Crosby, F.J. (1992). Justice, Gender,

and Affirmative Action. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Federal Aviation Administration Office of Human Resources Management (1996). People Systems in the

FAA: A New Look [Brochure]. Washington, DC:

Author.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). A Solid

Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital. Washington, DC: Federal Glass

Ceiling Commission.

Fernandez, J.P. (1991). Managing a Diverse Workforce:

Regaining the Competitive Edge. Lexington, MA:

D.C. Heath and Company.

Fernandez, J.P. (1999). Race, Gender & Rhetoric. New

York: McGraw Hill.

Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1994). Diverse Teams at

Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Hyde, A.C. (1997). Managing Change—Changing

Management: Rethinking the Roles of Public

Executives, The Public Manager, 26, 7-12.

Irvine, D., & Baker, G.R. (1995). The Impact of CrossFunctional Teamwork on Workforce Integration,

The International Journal of Conflict Management,

6, 171-91.

Jackson, S.E., May, K.E., & Whitney, K. (1995).

Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in

Decision-Making Teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E.

Salas and Associates (Eds) Team Effectiveness and

Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass, pp. 205-61.

Jackson, S.E., Stone, V.K., & Alvarez, E.B. (1993).

Socialization Amidst Diversity: The Impact of

Demographics on Work Team Old-timers and

Newcomers, In Research in Organizational Behavior, L.L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.) Vol.

15. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 45-109.

Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M.,

Julin, J.A., & Peyronin, K. (1991). Some Differences Make a Difference: Individual Dissimilarity and Group Heterogeneity as Correlates of

Recruitment, Promotions, and Turnover, Journal

of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-89.

Kossek, A.E., Zonia, S.C., & Young, W. (1996). The

Limitations of Organizational Demography: Can

Diversity Climate Be Enhanced in the Absence of

Teamwork? In M.N. Ruderman, M.W. HughesJames, and S.E. Jackson (Eds). Selected Research

on Work Team Diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association: 121-52.

Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krislov, S, & Rosenbloom, D.H. (1981). Representative

Bureaucracy and the American Political System.

New York: Praeger Publishers.

Lawler, E.E. (1996). From the Ground Up: Six Principles

for Building the New Logic Corporation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
14

Levine, D.L. (1995). Reinventing the Workplace: How

Business and Employees Can Both Win. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Linden, R.M. (1994). Seamless Government: A Practical

Guide to Re-Engineering in the Public Sector. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Maluso, D. (1995). Shaking Hands With a Clenched

Fist: Interpersonal Racism. In B. Lott and D.

Maluso (Eds) The Social Psychology of Interpersonal Discrimination. New York: Guilford Press:

pp. 50-79.

Mayo, M.C., Meindl, J.R., & Pastor, J. (1996). The

Cost of Leading Diversity: Effects of Group Diversity on Leaders’ Perceptions. In M. N.

Ruderman, M. W. Hughes-James and S. E. Jackson, (Eds.) Selected Research on Work Team Diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association, pp. 9-32.

Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G., & Mohrman, A.M.

(1995). Designing Team-Based Organizations. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Nadler, D.A., Gerstein, M.S., & Shaw, R.B. (1992).

Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing

Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Naff, K.C. (1995a). Subjective vs. Objective Discrimination in Government: Adding to the Picture of

Barriers to the Advancement of Women, Political

Research Quarterly, 48, 535-57

Naff, K.C. (1995b). Perceptions of Discrimination:

Moving Beyond the Numbers of Representative

Bureaucracy, Policy Studies Journal, 23, 483-98.

National Performance Review. (1993). From Red Tape

to Results: Creating a Government That Works

Better and Costs Less, Washington, DC: Office of

the Vice President.

Norton, J.R., & Fox, R.E. (1997). The Change Equation: Capitalizing on Diversity for Effective Organizational Change. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Osborne, D., & Plastrick, P. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

 Pettigrew, T.F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the

Organizational Context for Black American Inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78.

Raghurman, S., & Garud, R. (1996). The Vicious and

Virtuous Facets of Workforce Diversity, In M.N.

Ruderman, M.W. Hughes-James and S.E. Jackson, (Eds) Selected Research on Work Team Diversity, Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association, pp. 155-78.

Rice, M.F. (1996). Diversity and Public Organizations:

Theory, Issues, and Perspectives. Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt.

Riordan, C.M., & Shore, L.M. (1997). Demographic

Diversity and Employee Attitudes: An Empirical

Examination of Relational Demography Within

Work Units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,

342-58.

Rogelberg, S.G., & Rumery, S.M. (1996). Gender

Diversity, Team Decision Quality, Time on Task,

and Interpersonal Cohesion, Small Group Research,27, 79-90.

Thomas, R.R. (1991). Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by

Managing Diversity. New York: AMACOM.

Thomas, R.R. (1996). Redefining Diversity. New York:

AMACOM.

Thompson, R.C., Hilton, T.F., & Behn, L. (1997).

Baseline Assessment of the National Association of

Air Traffic Specialist/Federal Aviation Administration Partnership (DOT/FAA/AM-97/12). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration

(NTIS ADA3267532)

Thompson, R.C., Hilton, T.F., Twohig, P., Pagnini,

C., Park, H., King, S.J., Malone, M.T., Thompson, D., & Thompson, J. (1999). Results of the

1997 Employee Attitude Survey (AAM520/99/1).

CAMI Memorandum Report. Oklahoma City,

OK: Civil Aeromedical Institute.

Tolbert, P.S., Andrews, A.O., & Simons, T. (1995).

The Effects of Group Proportions on Group

Dynamics, In S.E. Jackson and M.N. Ruderman

(Eds) Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association, pp.

131-60.
15

Tsui, A.S., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1989). Beyond Simple

Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Academy of Management Journal ,32, 402-23.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(1997). Annual Report on the Employment of Minorities, Women, and People With Disabilities in

the Federal Government for the Fiscal Year Ending

1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1996). Aviation Acquisition: A Comprehensive Strategy is Needed for

Cultural Change at FAA. Washington, DC: U.S.

General Accounting Office. GAO/RCED-96-159

(August).

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1992). A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass Ceiling in the

Federal Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Merit

Systems Protection Board (October).

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1996). Fair and

Equitable Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

Watson, W.E., Johnson, L., & Merrit, D. (1998).

Team Orientation, Self-Orientation, and Diversity in Task Groups. Group and Organization

Management, 23, 161-88.

Wilson, T. (1997). Diversity at Work: The Business Case

for Equity. New York: Wiley.
16
A1

APPENDIX A

Items Comprising the Study Measures

Independent Variables

Teamwork:

Definition: An OCCUPATIONAL WORK TEAM is a group of more than two people who are viewed by

coworkers as members of a permanent team, and who collaborate to solve technical and other everyday work

problems.

Using the above definition, when performing in your main occupational specialty (e.g., controlling air

traffic, flying, repairing equipment, inspecting aircraft), what percent of your time do you work as a

member of an occupational work team?

¡ 5% or less ¡ 5 - 25% ¡ 25 – 50% ¡ 50 - 75% ¡ 75 - 100%

Dependent Variables

Eliminating a Hostile Work Environment

Complaints about discrimination and harassment are not taken seriously by management where I work.

Sexual harassment is a problem in my workplace.

Jokes about women, people of color, etc. are common in my workplace.

To be a “part of the crowd” in my workplace, I have to go along with jokes about people of color, women, etc.

Model Work Environment Success

To what extent has the FAA done a good job:

...creating an environment where discrimination is not tolerated?

...creating an environment where sexual harassment is not tolerated?

...creating a productive and hospitable place to work?

...creating an environment where all employees have the opportunity to broaden their knowledge of the FAA

(e.g., town hall meetings, attending briefings)?

...creating an environment where all employees have the opportunity to participate in developmental activities

(e.g., details, training, task forces, special assignments)?

...creating an environment where all employees get the chance to fully contribute to meeting their organization’s

mission?

Model Work Environment Support

To what extent do you support FAA goals or principles related to:

...Model Work Environment? - Maintaining a productive and hospitable place to work.

...Affirmative Action? - Remedying under-representation due to past discrimination.

...Equal Employment Opportunity? - Protecting employees and applicants against discrimination.

...Prevention of Sexual Harassment? - Zero tolerance for sexually motivated, unwelcome acts that interfere with

work performance.

...Non-Discrimination? - No discrimination on the basis of any characteristics not related to job performance.
A2