Filed under: Uncategorized
The theme for this year’s SIOP conference in San Diego was IMPACT and it showcased the ways that industrial/organizational psychologists influence business around the world. We at Questar were proud to have the opportunity to showcase our employee engagement, 360 degree feedback, and exit survey solutions. Several members of Questar’s survey solutions team attended the conference to further our knowledge on the latest and greatest research in the field of industrial/organizational psychology.
In addition to exhibiting our products, Questar also engaged SIOP attendees in a promotion that gave them a chance to win either an iPad 2 or Nook. Those interested in playing the game were given a button containing a street name in San Diego. If participants found another attendee with a matching button, they would both win a prize! In order make it easier for participants to find a matching button, we hosted a networking social event at Buster’s Beach Bar in Seaport Village. The event was hugely successful and our team enjoyed the chance to network with current and aspiring industrial/organizational psychologists. In addition, one of the most exciting aspects of this event was that two conference attendees with matching buttons located each other and made an appearance at our social event to claim their iPads! Congratulations to Victoria Smoak and Hanna Pillion , who discovered that “Harbor Drive” was a lucky button via Twitter (participants could Tweet their street name with the tag #QuestarSIOP to see if a match was out there).
We also held a drawing for a pair of Nooks—congratulations to Simon Golden and Aimee King!
Some of the key discussions we attended include:
- “IGNITE: Imparting Survey Wisdom, Five Minutes at a Time”
- “Employee Engagement: Defining New Frontiers”
- “Contemporary Topics in Positive Organizational Climate and Culture Research”
- “360 Degree Feedback: An Essential Commodity for Leadership Development”
- “Comments on Comments: Best Practices for Open-Ended Survey Questions”
- “Post-survey Actions: New Directions for Implementing Change Efforts”
- “Staying Ahead of the Curve: Ingredients for Successful Survey Redesign”
The sessions provided great opportunities to stay abreast of best practices, learn from colleagues, and stimulate ideas for SIOP 2013 proposals. SIOP is also always a perfect opportunity to network, meet new friends, see old classmates, coworkers, and friends. We cannot wait for SIOP 2013 in Houston, Texas!
Amanda Harms | Associate Consultant
Filed under: Employee Communication, Employee Retention, Research, Talent Management
Millennials have become a topic of interest, since they are the newest population to enter the workforce. However, this interest is accompanied by many stereotypes about how Millennials differ from other generations and that they have different needs to be successful in the workplace. Much of the attention has been on the negative: some suggest that we are more narcissistic,1 have a loose work ethic,2 and need to get off our parents’ couches4 and take the next bus to North Dakota if we need work.
As a member of the Millennial generation, it can be annoying to be stereotyped as part of a group that is “going nowhere4” but expects to be promoted5 within a year. I definitely agree that there are many lazy people in my generation as well as individuals who expect instant success after graduation. However, there are many of us who are hardworking, yet realistic, and would like to be treated as individuals rather than members of a certain group that need extra care in order to be successful.
What does the scholarly research say about Millennials? Let’s start with a recent article cited often in the current blog-o-sphere.
Jean Twenge and colleauges at San Diego State University recently published an article on differences in values and opinions between Baby Boomers and Millennials.6 The study was conducted over the course of 40 years with a freshman survey for entering college students.
Their research concluded that Millennials entering college place higher value on wealth and fame than the Baby Boomers did when they were entering college in the 1960’s and 70’s. While much of the popular literature suggests Millennials are more socially conscious and intrinsically motivated, Twenge and her colleagues found the opposite to be true. Based on their findings, Millennials are actually more similar to Generation X, and less intrinsically motivated than the Baby Boomers were at the same age. Sidenote: Jean Twenge is the author of The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement and is often cited by columnists who believe Millennials have a major problem.
A caveat to these findings (that popular blogs and articles fail to mention) is that it is based on research conducted on college students and does not provide any evidence on how Millennials behave once they make it to the workplace. In a different study, Ng and colleagues7 found that college students closer to graduation have more realistic salary expectations than college freshmen. These findings indicate that the beliefs and values of young adults change throughout college hence it cannot be assumed that data gathered when they enter college will remain constant once they enter the workforce.
Researchers have also pointed out some of the differences that existed between Baby Boomers and previous generations, giving way to the idea that much of the differences we note between Millennials and older generations are simply age-related.8
- For example, Millennials are believed to have no organizational loyalty and are willing to move between organizations. Thus it has been concluded that job security is not a major factor in a Millennial’s decision on where to work. Is this a generational difference or just an age difference? Forty years ago, younger workers did not list job security as a reason for satisfaction and were more likely to move between jobs than older generations.8 Given that younger workers are less likely to have financial and family commitments, they are more likely to switch jobs. This seems to be a more rational explanation for why Millennials frequently move between organizations as opposed to the popular argument that we watched our parents get laid off and thus have no organizational loyalty.
- Boomers also wanted work that provided more meaning and autonomy. Sound familiar? Theories about meaningful work being the key to satisfaction have been around since the 1960’s and 1970’s, when some Boomers were beginning to enter the workforce. If we look at the classic motivation literature by Hackman and Oldham9, employees want meaningful work (significance, variety, and identification), autonomy, and knowledge of results. When these conditions are met employees will be intrinsically motivated to do their jobs. Based on the popular literature about Millennials, not much has changed (although the press would love for you to believe everything is changing).
Many of the other studies primarily focus on what Millennials want, and give reasons for why. For recruiting purposes, it is important to understand what today’s employee needs in order to be engaged at work. Ng and colleagues7 determined that the most important workplace attributes for Millennials were opportunities for advancement, good co-workers, quality supervisors, and training and development opportunities. Whether this significantly differs from what employees of other generations want is up in the air. Two issues exist: studies conducted today cannot control for the difference in age and experience among generations and studies conducted longitudinally (where all workers sampled were young) cannot control for the changing times. Thus, only speculations can be made on whether differences truly exist.
We can conclude that Millennials want many of the same workplace attributes that have been desired for years: meaningful work, autonomy, good co-workers, good supervisors, feedback, and advancement. As a Millennial employee, I have no problem voicing to my organization that these factors must be present. Perhaps that is what makes our generation different: we are not afraid to speak up about what we need to be engaged.
What are your thoughts on the Millennial generation?
Do you see any major differences between Millennial employees and other generations? Is it because of how they grew up, or a result of being young?
Amanda Harms | Associate Consultant
References:
- http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/05/navarrette.millennials.jobs/index.html
- http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-26/business/ct-biz-1226-millennials-20111226_1_millennials-new-poll-older-workers
- Erickson, T.J. (2009). Gen Y in the workforce. Harvard Business Review Case Study, February 2009.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html
- http://www.thelearningcafe.net/downloads/MillennialGeneration.pdf
- Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K., & Freeman, E.C. (2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966-2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Online First Publication, March 5, 2012.
- Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S.T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the Millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281-292.
- Wesner, M.S., & Miller, T. (2008). Boomers and Millennials have much in common. Organization Development Journal, 26, 89-96.
- Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
In Part I we examined three approaches for interpreting survey results. Only part of one of those levels/approaches is based on normative data:
- Personal standard along with knowledge of business
- Numeric guidelines to help interpret survey results
- Relative comparisons to history and normative data
Comparison of survey results to the overall scores of the parent company (or previous year’s trends) are fairly easy to obtain. Trends may be kept by your company in-house survey experts and/or can be generated by your survey vendor. What about external normative data? Where does it come from? There are three sources of normative data currently used by the majority of survey professionals. There are norms based upon a consulting firm’s book of business (Also Known As house norms), norms gathered through population sampling via market research, and norms obtained via membership in a consortium.
Norms from these different sources come with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. First we will briefly define these three sources of external benchmarking or more commonly known as norms.
1. Book of business. The survey vendor keeps the survey results of all of their clients and can aggregate the results by industry. This paints a compelling picture to prospective clients as the survey can be compared directly to other companies in the same industry.
2. Population sampling. Similar to polling, a targeted group of participants which meets your requirements is sampled. These requirements would typically be based on industry (i.e., banking, retail) or possibly a mix of industries to capture your unique company flavor. Essentially, the answers of several hundred employed adults are a proxy to estimate the larger industry norms.
3. Consortia. Multiple organizations contribute their survey data into an aggregate survey database. As long as the items are the same, a very large database can be developed. Companies with more than a pre-specified number of employees are eligible for membership and can receive data from other members. The Mayflower Group is an example of a consortium which is fairly well known.
What Are the Pros and Cons of Each?
External benchmarks are to have an idea of what is happening in your industry, not just to keep up with the Jones. Which type of norms works the best for me? The answer, as always, is “it depends.” Let’s explore the pros and the cons of utilizing each type of normative data.
Book of Business
|
PROS |
CONS |
| Typically based on a very large participant base | If survey is customized, you may not obtain results for several of your items |
| Shares a common methodology with the same company always executing the survey | You may not get many participants for a particular industry (i.e., there are not many norms to compare for Mixed Martial Arts companies) |
| Identical items used for all surveys allowing for consistency across all organizations | Potential bias due to the fact the data is for clients for that consulting firm only i.e., may not be representative due to fees or geographic location |
| Can corner the market on a specific industry i.e., One vendor does surveys for 3/4 of the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) companies | Order of items may be different on each survey which could introduce bias from order effects |
| Results for some items may be >5 years old |
Population Sampling
|
PROS |
CONS |
| Up-to-date norms can be gathered simultaneously with the employee survey | Participants may not be invested in the survey because they are participating in market research |
| Items will match exactly to your employee survey | May be difficult to find participants from a very narrow/specific industry in market research panels |
| Relatively inexpensive method for gathering real time data if you use standard industries | Participants are not “on the clock” and may view the survey items differently than your employees |
| Representative based on national population | Survey vendors are unable to “corner the market” on specific industry (such as banking or retail) |
| Independent of the survey firm’s dataset | Small sample size (possibly 400-1,000) from market research may cause concern that the sample is not adequate to make comparisons to their employees |
Consortium Norms
|
PROS |
CONS |
| If standards of item content are enforced, there will be stability of question wording over time. | Each company may ask questions in customized ways, thereby eliminating direct comparisons |
| Often similar industries will band together allowing for deep comparisons in that industry | Consortium norms are not an option for small to midsize companies as membership requirements stipulate a large number of employees i.e., 7,500 |
| Typically large companies with large datasets are involved with consortia providing a robust dataset | There is usually no unifying theory to the items once aggregated, as they come from different vendors and companies |
| Reporting capabilities due to large similar datasets can drill down to deeper divisions/departments | Items are not grouped the same across organizations with potential order effects bias |
| Direct comparisons to other specific companies, including competitors, not just industries | Items can come from a census, a quarterly (or monthly) pulse survey, or other measures – data collection may not be known. |
There is no “right answer” for which types of norms are the best. The advantages and disadvantages of each must considered and the selection of the method should be based on what works best for your organization. Cost, time, and availability may dictate to a certain degree which types (if any) of norms you choose to use.
So where does this leave us?
Is data collected prior to the recession still useful as normative data? By the same token, do people respond differently to market research surveys than surveys for one’s employer? Does it matter if your norms are collected on an industry slightly different than your own? Are firms in your industry even that similar to your organization? If you score below the norm, does that mean you will lose all your top talent? If you score above the norm, does that mean you are doing great? The answer to all of these questions may be “not necessarily.” There is no clear answer to these questions. We bring them up because these are the issues to be taken into consideration before making generalizations about your data in comparison to the norm.
Norms add value to those who interpret survey results, regardless if they are internal stakeholders or external consultants. However, it is the responsibility of all to know what goes into the “witches’ brew,” the relative validity of that information based on when it was collected (and on whom), as well as how to communicate that to others.
Finally, there are other aspects to consider when interpreting survey results such as trending data, numeric guidelines, and your own knowledge of your business which was discussed in Part I. We would contend that those who are using the results of surveys should put most of their interpretation efforts into those areas, while normative data should be secondary or even tertiary to your interpretation.
For more information on norms, see:
Macey, W.H., & Eldridge, L. (2006). National norms vs. consortium data: What do they tell us? In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies and applications (pp. 352-376). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul Thoresen | Account Manager and Consultant
Filed under: Uncategorized
It seems there is an importance to normative data (more commonly called norms) for survey results. Clients want norms, leaders demand them, and people in general ask how you “scored” against the norm. Did your company score 3 points above, 5 points below, or 15 points higher than the industry standard?
What does it all mean? Normative comparisons are available (typically for a fee) from a consulting firm. Is it just a batch of witches’ brew sold by consulting firms to increase the profit margin? Or is it an important piece in understanding how to provide meaningful insights into the results of a survey?
Norms are indeed helpful. They can certainly provide perspective and help recipients of survey results to put those results in context. Instead of a “keeping up with the Joneses approach”, norms can be used to help in interpretation and to help understand data – for example if employee engagement is lower than expected, or to assist in understanding which dimension scores are high in relation to expectations.
At Questar, we have found that many of our clients like the addition of norms to their survey, which we provide as an optional add-on service. However like many tools, it is possible to over-rely and over-interpret based on normative data. We advocate a 3 pronged approach to interpreting survey results:
- Personal standard along with knowledge of business
- Numeric guidelines to help interpret survey results
- Relative comparisons to history and normative data
- Internal comparisons such as within company trends over time
- External comparisons such as looking at norms
Let’s look at each of those in slightly more detail.
1. Your own results come first – always analyze survey results in context. Although a survey expert can help to provide guidelines and assistance in interpreting data, ultimately the key stakeholders are those who can best determine why a score may be lower or higher in a defined business unit or department. For example, perhaps an opportunity is identified around a lack of training. Those in that unit may know that budgets were frozen, or that no one requested training last year, or that training was arranged and then fell through. Those outside the company are unlikely to know these explanations without very detailed briefing. The owners of the survey may also be in the best position to put the survey results in alignment with business objectives and outcomes. Finally, a leader may decide that they want to raise the bar, change cut scores or level the playing field based on in-depth knowledge of their company culture and performance.
2. When interpreting survey results we encourage people to look for meaningful differences (i.e., more than 5 percentage points) as this can help keep people focused on practical differences. There are many different ways to tabulate and present survey results. Some may look at averages/means, medians, simple frequencies, Top 2 Box (i.e., combining Agree with Strongly Agree), sophisticated modeling (to include regression and Structural Equation Modeling), and combinations of all of the above. The Top 2 Box approach can also be displayed as the “favorable” responses. For example, if 45% select “Agree” to an item, and another 22% indicate “Strongly Agree” to an item, the score would be “67% Favorable.”
We will use this to illustrate the “5 percentage points” numeric guideline. For example, if the company’s score for overall engagement is 70%, and one division has a score of 67%, this is not necessarily cause for alarm. Questar also provides numeric guidelines based on best practices and each client’s dataset to help gauge what is a relative strength and what is a relative opportunity. For example, the items may be considered strengths at 70% favorable, and opportunities may be those items scoring under 50% favorable.
3. We typically recommend that people who receive survey results look at history first (the scores available from previous survey administrations), before comparing themselves to norms. If several years of data are available this allows an even better insight into trends. Another form of relative comparison is to compare a division/department to the overall company.
And finally we have norms, which allow you to compare your results to a vendor’s book of business or an estimate of the population. There are several ways in which norm data can be collected, but at Questar we provide norms from a random sample of employed adults in similar industries. These allow for a current snapshot of the state of engagement in the country based on predetermined parameters such as specific industry(s). Stay tuned for a more detailed breakdown of norms in “Part II: Norms, huh… What are they good for? Absolutely something.” Here we will provide insight into the different types of norms, providing information on the various pros and cons to the different collection methods.
Paul Thoresen | Account Management & Consulting Services
Our latest weekly newsletter reminded me of the upcoming blood drive being organized in the company. On reading about it my initial response was that this is a great way for the organization to involve employees in its efforts to give back to the community. It led me to wonder whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives like this one affect employee attitudes and if they do, how?
Before I delve into the possible impact of these initiatives on employee attitudes, it might be worthwhile to gain an understanding of what CSR is. There are several terms used interchangeably in the business literature to describe CSR, for example, corporate citizenship; corporate social performance; sustainable development. Whilst there may not be a consensus on a single definition for CSR, in essence it means treating all the stakeholders of an organization in an ethical or responsible manner.3, 5 The stakeholders could be any group that is affected by the corporate policies and practices of the organization, for instance, employees, their families, investors, consumers, and local communities. CSR has four dimensions: 2
- Economic – The responsibility of the firm to conduct business in a profitable manner.
- Legal – The firm’s responsibility to follow laws.
- Ethical – The organization’s obligation to be morally responsible.
- Discretionary – Organizational activities that demonstrate care and concern, for example, making contributions to charities and other altruistic activities.
Most of the studies on CSR have adopted a utilitarian perspective and have examined outcomes such as business performance and consumer loyalty. Very few studies have explored the influence of these initiatives on employee attitudes. In a study that examined the impact of external CSR (implying philanthropy and community contributions) on organizational commitment, the authors found a positive relationship between the two. Using the social identity theory to explain these findings, the authors suggest that employees will feel a sense of pride in being associated with an organization that has a positive external reputation.1
In a separate study the author found that employees’ perceptions of economic, legal and discretionary citizenship positively influenced engagement. Additionally, engagement was indirectly affected by corporate citizenship through its influence on organizational trust. The author explains these findings in the context of attachment theory, which suggests that humans are inclined to create and sustain lasting bonds, and when established, these bonds influence individuals’ work behavior. Therefore, when employees have ties with their organizations, corporate citizenship will influence employees’ engagement and trust.4
Whilst the bulk of CSR literature focuses on its impact on profits or consumers, recent research has revealed that they also influence employee attitudes. Employee opinion surveys typically include items that tap into sense of pride in working for an organization or items on values and ethics in the organization. I would imagine that CSR initiatives would positively influence employees’ responses to these items that drive engagement and commitment. It may also be worthwhile to include a question in the survey that is specifically focused on these initiatives. In the future it would be interesting to explore whether employee attitudes like engagement and commitment influence the relationship between CSR, profitability, and customer satisfaction.
Finally, in difficult economic times organizations may resort to cutting down or even totally eliminating CSR initiatives. Organizations that resort to these means are only focusing on short term profits and have clearly not integrated their CSR strategy with the organization’s vision and long term strategy. Working for an organization that continues to invest its resources in CSR initiatives even during tough economic times gives me a clear message that my organization truly believes in the value created by these initiatives. It not only instills a sense of pride but also inspires me to participate in the blood drive.
What CSR initiatives does your organization engage in? How do employees respond to these initiatives? Do you measure its impact on employee attitudes? What are your thoughts/findings?
Jaya Pathak | Senior Consultant
References:
- Brammer, S., Andrew, M., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1701-1719.
- Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
- Hopkins, M. (2003). The planetary Bargain. Earthscan: U.K.
- Lin, C. P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 517-531.
- Wan-Jan, W. S. (2006). Defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 176-184.
Filed under: Employee Engagement
Empowered employees are engaged employees. There are several ways organizations can empower their employees. One way is for the organization to insure that employees have the resources and tools to do their job. This includes access to people, technology and information. Information most useful to employees is about products, policies and procedures as well as about performance. An employee excels in their performance not only when resources are provided but also when goals and expectations are made clear and feedback is provided on an ongoing basis.
Another factor that has a direct impact on engagement is when employees are empowered and equipped to develop their careers. Career development goes beyond taking a class, going to a conference or sitting in on some webinars. It requires both the employee having a good understanding of their skills, interests and goals and the manager knowing what resources are available to foster those goals. The secret to creating a sustainable career development plan begins with a conversation between the employee and manager, where both parties take equal responsibility. This occurs by equipping the employee with a deeper level of self awareness and helping them to be able to articulate this to their manager. This also occurs when managers are coached on how to offer guidance on how to help the employee outline specific career goals. When employees feel that they have options within an organization and that their career development is being supported, overall engagement goes up and it’s a win win for both the employee and the organization.
Karen Kodzik | President and Owner
Career Management Consultant
Have you ever heard someone say they are “at the end of their rope with work?” Maybe they say they “weren’t meant to be a social worker/teacher/(insert job here).” As much as we think such statements may be exaggerations about a bad day at work, it is likely that the person in question may be experiencing a real syndrome that can take a huge toll on their mental health: burnout. While burnout may seem like something that an individual can “snap out of,” it is more like a “downward spiral”, that can lead to a person exiting the organization or field of work altogether.
2007 research by NIOSH reports that anywhere from 26% to 40% of American workers find their job extremely stressful. In addition, one-fourth of Americans feel that their job is the number one stressor in their lives.4
Defining Burnout
Burnout is an internal, defensive response to demanding occupational situations and pressures. It contains three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy. Emotional exhaustion is the feeling of being “used up” at the end of the work day, and the most personal aspect of burnout. Cynicism is taking a distant attitude towards the people one works with—either coworkers or customers. Finally, reduced professional efficacy is the feeling the individual has about the work. An individual may feel that he/she is not good at his/her work, or not “cut out” for the line of work that he/she is in.2
Preventing Burnout
According to NIOSH, there are several reasons employees can slip into a state of burnout. It can result from factors such as heavy workload, their supervisor’s management style, lack of coworker support, uncertainty about expectations, lack of job security, and working in dangerous environments.4 Preventing burnout means ensuring that all of these factors are working optimally.
Countless articles have been published regarding potential interventions for burnout. Because burned out employees could be costly for an organization (lost work time, health-related costs, customer loss due to poor service), the best approach is prevention.
For those that work in professions highly susceptible to burnout (e.g. human service fields), one approach may be to involve the employees in a focus group discussion about ways to potentially reduce burnout. In a particular study of this kind, employees who were in a social work setting came up with some suggestions on how they could reduce their burnout. Employees came up with the following solutions, and the combination of these interventions resulted in reduced emotional exhaustion in the employees: 1
- Health Club Benefits: Health club membership was offered to employees if they agreed to use it twice a week. The goal was to promote a healthy lifestyle by improving fitness which in turn would improve wellbeing.
- Better Training: Employees were provided with incentives to attend training sessions outside of work (on paid time). To avoid the potential for these sessions “feeling like more work,” one lucky attendee would win a prize.
- Decision Making Involvement: Employees were asked to actively participate in goal-setting for the organization’s future priorities and offerings. They also had a chance to meet and speak with the decision makers at the organization.
- Constructive Feedback Sessions: Employees felt that more information about their performance would be helpful in reducing the stress they felt at their jobs. They wanted to receive both positive and critical feedback and have a chance to express their concerns with their supervisors.
- Reorganized Work Schedules: Employees expressed a desire for different work schedules to optimize their personal time. This point is relevant for employees who work part-time or short shifts: their desire was to get their hours all at once rather than having to leave and return in order to get their needed hours.
The researchers did not test each of these interventions separately, so there is no data to determine if any of the particular interventions were more effective than others. However, they did find that the intervention that contained all of the above was successful.
NIOSH offers similar suggestions for preventing or reducing burnout. Ensuring frequent rest periods/breaks, allowing employees to participate in decision making, recognizing employees for a job well done, and providing development opportunities were all cited as ways to promote a healthy workplace.4
According to research, employees can be either burned out, engaged, or somewhere in between3. We use several strategies to improve engagement, which are similar to the above burnout interventions. Thus, many firms may consider adopting burnout prevention into their engagement strategy, if they haven’t done so already.
If it seems that burnout is already affecting some of your employees, we suggest using the services of licensed clinical psychologists. Burnout is a serious issue that can lead to very negative outcomes that could require counseling. If your organization has an Employee Assistance Plan (EAP), ensure that it includes information on how employees can find help through counseling or other services.
Burnout can be a costly problem for organizations and their people. Careful attention and prevention should be considered by human resources initiatives in all organizations in order to ensure the continued health of employees and their workplaces.
Amanda Harms | Associate Consultant
References:
- Innstrand S.T., Espnes G.A., & Mykletun R. (2004). Job stress, burnout and job satisfaction: an intervention study for staff working with people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 119–26.
- Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Maslach, C. Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
- Stress…At Work. NIOSH Publications and Products. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/
Wigisource, a wholesaler of widgets, decided to roll out a new flexible working program. They decided the program would include many facets, including the ability to work from home at least once a month and core hours being the biggest components. Wigisource hoped the program would increase engagement and, in turn, lead to improved widget sales.
About six months after implementation, Chris Friend, a human resources representative, announced the engagement scores had increased from the previous year. Next, Sally Saleson, head of sales, announced sales increased during the quarter following the flex rollout.
The CEO, Pat Sample, was pleased. He was happy to find that the program worked and encouraged all employees to take part in the program.
When rolling out an initiative – whether it be flexible work, casual Fridays, or free coffee – many organizations like to look for subsequent improvements in company performance metrics and then declare their initiative a success.
But truly understanding the effectiveness of any program requires careful measurement. While Wigisource did provide hard data showing that positive outcomes occurred after the program, they were not as diligent as they could have been. A critical eye should have many questions:
- How could they be sure everyone took advantage of the program?
- If they did take advantage, how often did they use it?
-Did they take advantage of both working from home and the flexible schedule?
-Does it really affect these outcomes that quickly?
-How do we know it was flexible work that impacted engagement and not something else?
Conduct a Survey
While there are many ways to collect this information (observation, focus groups, looking at outcomes alone), the easiest is to conduct a survey. A survey is a fairly inexpensive and a fairly fast way to find out this information.
If you are evaluating the success of a flexible work program, here are a couple of staple questions to include. (All items can assume an agreement scale: strongly agree to strongly disagree.)
-I participated in the flexible working program offered at COMPANY this year.
-I worked from home at least one day every month.
-I adjusted my work schedule to better fit my needs.
Correlate to Engagement
As you evaluate the results, look for a connection between positive answers on these questions and positive answers on engagement questions. In addition, see if there is a connection between these questions and your productivity measures.
In the Wigisource example, the productivity measure was increased sales. The expectation would be that better salespeople have higher scores on the flexible working questions.
You may also wish to ask some other questions directly related to flex work that also relate to potential desired outcomes. Sample questions include:
-I would continue to work at Wigisource without the flexible working program.
-I feel the flex work program has helped me balance personal and work responsibilities.
Evaluate for Cause and Effect
While including these items certainly provides better information than looking at outcomes alone, it is possible to go a step further, using advanced statistical analysis.
While we know that flexible work had an impact on engagement and productivity, how important was it compared to other aspects in the workplace? What else might have been going on at Wigisource? Were people feeling more recognized by their bosses for hard work? Were they having a lot of fun with their co-workers? Did they find that their work was more challenging?
This is where the importance of the engagement survey itself comes in. A well-balanced engagement survey should include more than just general questions about engagement. It should ask about the work environment, the manager, the company image, the work itself, as well as any programs rolled out such as flex programs. These are all things that can impact engagement.
In an ideal world, a company would take great lengths to make all of those things better for employees. However, understanding what impacts engagement most will yield the best engagement results. This is done through a process called Key Driver Analysis. A Key Driver Analysis will examine all of the different questions on a survey expected to impact engagement, and provide insight as to which ones are the most important.
Should the items pertaining to use of the flexible work program come out near the top, you can finally rest easy knowing that your program has made significant impact. If it hasn’t, you may wish to revisit your flexibility consultant to determine how you might add more value to the program.
How has your company measured the impact of flexibility? What types of questions would you ask?
Amanda Harms | Associate Consultant
Questar’s research partner, LifemeetsWork, is a consulting firm that helps organizations improve performance through flexible work. If you are interested in adopting flexibility initiatives in your organization, contact Teresa Hopke, Senior Vice President of Client Relations, at thopke@lifemeetswork.com.
Filed under: Employee Development, Employee Retention, Executive Leadership, Leadership Development
No matter the size of your company, company leaders should be continually striving to build up a positive company culture that is consistent with the company’s mission and values. However, as businesses everywhere are growing from national organizations into global entities, building up a consistent company culture becomes much more difficult. With expanding companies, it is natural to acquire remote employees and open up new locations overseas, and the last thing you want is for those satellite employees to feel out of sync with the company’s vision and future goals. In addition, you also don’t want your overseas employees to feel like outcasts.
When it comes to company culture I think author of Fit In! The Unofficial Guide to Corporate Culture, Mark Williams, says it best, “not everything that happens in a business is based on visible, objective, and formal rules”. Something I’m sure we’ve all experienced are those unwritten rules that lie between the lines of your company handbook. They cover those little things from where you sit in a meeting to how you should address your manager. It’s these things that help define the environment of a company. Gaining a good understand of a company’s polices and “unwritten rules” can be tough enough on its own but add another location and these challenges become amplified. But all hope is not lost, there are ways to make your employees feel more aligned with your company’s vision. After all, it’s a strong company culture that will keep turnover rates low, productivity high, and employee morale up whether it be in your corporate headquarters or half way around the world.
The Challenge
Opening multiple offices can be a logical step when facing company growth and it can also be a tremendous opportunity. One loss however in separating employees is the loss of personal interaction. A lot of company culture is built up through those conversations by the water cooler, friendly chit-chat in the hallways, or in office humor through games played among co-workers. These are all little pieces that make up what type of culture is present within your company.
These personal interactions also help set a strong foundation of good relationships and trust on which to collaborate to find solutions to work-related problems. So with multiple locations, finding ways for your employees to stay in touch can be one of your biggest challenges.
The Solution
Companies that have unified cultures, no matter how many office locations they may have, have one common trait; they are effective communicators. They value their employees’ opinions and therefore work hard to keep lines of communication constantly open. They also put effort into recognizing individual accomplishments. While the traditional company barbeque or office party may not work for those multi-location companies, there are many other methods to integrate other lines of communication and togetherness. A company blog for instance is a great way to reach your customers, but it’s also a great way to keep all of your employees in the loop about what is going on in different locations. Company reports, newsletters, or daily emails are other great ways to inform all company employees about featured company customers, a funny company story, or shine some light on what your company truly values.
At Questar, we can speak first hand on this topic having remote employees in our UK office. We work hard to make sure all of our employee feel like they’re part of a clear company mission and goal. We have found the greatest way to combat any downfalls of geographic distance is communication, communication, communication. We hold monthly, weekly, and even daily, depending on department, meetings through Skype with our satellite co-workers. This ensures that no matter what project is being worked on, everyone is aware of what has happened, what is currently being worked on, and what needs to still be accomplished in the future. Through this practice, a Questar client can call any one of our employees within that project team to get their questions answered. These meetings also help foster friendly camaraderie amongst groups. Although many of us have never met our UK colleagues in person, they are included in long-running jokes and have become close friends to employees in the US office.
Another connection between offices we make here at Questar is our company quarterly newsletter. Within this form of communication, we always showcase activities and progress made by teams in both locations. When we have companywide meetings in our US office our UK co-workers are present through our online meeting center so they are able to see and hear in real time what is being covered by our company executives.
These are just a few examples of the ways Questar is working to bridge the gap so global business doesn’t feel quite so global. We would love to hear what your company does to enhance its company culture either within one office or one hundred.
Stephanie Peterson | Strategic Communications and Marketing Coordinator
