|
|||
|
|
|
Using Surveys to Help Drive Change
An employee survey is only valuable to the extent that it leads to changes in organizational culture and improved business performance. Here are a set of practices -- some long-established, others just emerging -- that help top-performing companies achieve the desired return on their surveys.
Many large companies today routinely survey their employees, but far fewer have "cracked the code" that translates survey insights into actions that can materially affect their performance. Indeed, in some companies employees don't even believe leaders are likely to take any action at all in response to survey findings. In a recent New York-based Towers Watson study of more than 1 million U.S. employees from more than 200 companies, only 60 percent said they think leaders will act on problems identified by an employee survey. And this wasn't an abstract question -- it was asked as part of an employee survey. Yet, clearly, some companies do get great value from a survey process. In that same study, we separately examined financially high-performing companies, defined as those with above-average ROIC and/or net profit for their industry. For this select group of 18 companies, a significantly higher 72 percent of employees believe leaders will act on survey findings. What separates these companies from the others? In our long experience working with some of the world's leading companies on employee surveys and action planning, we've identified a set of practices -- some long-established, others just emerging -- that help top-performing companies achieve the desired return on their survey work. Put the Right Foundation in Place It's surprising how often fundamental elements of an effective survey design and analytic process are given short shrift. These items almost shouldn't bear repeating -- or show up on our "list" -- that's how basic these are to the process: * Develop survey questions tied directly to the company's business strategy and broader human capital agenda. * Use current and highly relevant external benchmarks for interpretation and context. * Provide timely and actionable reports to each manager that prioritizes his or her key issues. * Develop valid measures of employee-engagement levels and drivers. While these elements alone are not sufficient to ensure meaningful results and genuine change, those outcomes are not possible without these survey building blocks. From that core, the following practices can make a real difference to your organization in achieving measurable value from employee surveys. Prove the Value Most business leaders believe the work environment has an impact on the bottom line, but their belief is typically more philosophical than practical. Because they rarely see the literal connections, the path to action can appear unclear or weak. That's why an effective survey process often includes statistical-linkage analysis, in which employee-survey results are tied to whatever specific set of critical metrics the company tracks. These can include profit, revenue, safety incidents, customer loyalty or an array of other business-relevant measures. The power in this kind of analysis -- translating opinion into impact -- cannot be overstated as a means to motivate action and ensure those actions will yield the right outcomes. In a study Towers Watson recently conducted for a global retail company, we were able to quantify how a set of employee perceptions -- in this case, about teamwork and management -- affected employees' overall customer orientation and how that orientation, in turn, impacted store performance. The specifics of this model can even be translated into a very precise statement about the impact of the internal work environment on external business outcomes, which can guide better decisions about required investments in, or changes to, workplace programs to drive better business outcomes. The statistics in this model are beta-weights, which represents the strength of the relationship among the factors being measured. In this situation, the model predicts that a 10-percent increase in teamwork and management, as measured by employee perceptions, would drive a 3.7-percent improvement in actual sales vs. goal. From a practical perspective, the key, then, was for the company to identify what specific actions would create the more collaborative and supportive climate required to enhanced sales effectiveness. Results such as these, which demonstrate the bottom-line impact of employee behavior, are extremely powerful in capturing leaders' attention and helping them to commit to and prioritize follow-up actions. In this situation, for instance, substantial investments to support team building at the store level were well justified given the impact on performance.
Perhaps the best affirmation of the value of this approach is that some companies now concentrate their data analysis and reporting to management only on those survey questions that have been identified through linkage analysis to make the greatest difference to performance. Secure Executive Leadership Commitment As with any large-scale initiative, visible leadership commitment is essential for a successful post-survey process. Traditionally, this meant having the CEO sign a cover letter to request participation, view the results, and perhaps send out a high-level recap of the findings and priorities to all employees. Today, this is no longer enough. Executive leadership must be actively involved in prioritizing the companywide issues and agree as a team on a high-level change strategy and accompanying action plan. Leaders must truly own the process, as well as one or more companywide issues, to ensure that follow-up actions are implemented successfully. One approach to achieve this level of involvement is to reframe the typical executive results briefing as a two-part process. Part one is about understanding the data, especially the critical linkages most relevant to the company's needs. Part two is, then, about explicitly converting the insights generated during the initial phase into clear and specific action plans. This approach helps increase a sense of accountability for a set of well-defined (and mutually agreed-upon) actions. Equally important, it ensures that the momentum generated during the initial data discussion is sustained and that the pivotal insights that emerged are converted into meaningful action. A second approach that leverages executives' strong interest in building leadership capability is to use the post-survey action agenda as a hands-on learning opportunity for high-potentials within the company. These individuals can dig into the survey findings to help develop a plan to address issues that are complex and not easily resolved and determine how best to present their approach to the executive team. Companies that have involved high-potential employees in this way have found it extremely valuable in helping these potential future leaders understand in a pragmatic way the importance of employee engagement in running the business. Both of these approaches have the advantage of being relatively simple, but highly effective in keeping critical insights from the survey on the executive agenda long enough to create significant change. Focus the Effort One emerging best practice for improving survey effectiveness is to aim follow-up actions more precisely where they are needed, rather than across the organization at large. This means making action plans required only for employee units or teams that score poorly in key areas, but not for other groups where survey results reveal a generally healthy, productive work environment. In fact, the latter circumstance may be relevant for the majority of groups inside the company. That is, survey results may not uncover any special challenges or issues or require new actions beyond those already occurring in the normal course of business. In such cases, it may make sense to position post-survey action planning as optional, rather than proceed through a pre-determined process for process sake. Segmenting the post-survey action process in this way is not for every organization. Indeed, for some, it may seem heretical -- going against a heavily ingrained notion of continuous improvement. But for other organizations, it may be exactly what's needed because it allows a concentrated focus on groups most in need of attention. This helps HR business partners focus their efforts (and often limited resources) on supporting a smaller number of the most critical groups, which helps increase their overall effectiveness. Typically accompanying this type of segmentation is an equivalent focus on the employee groups scoring highest in certain areas to serve as best-in-class examples and share their practices with others in the organization. Evolve Accountability Al Capone once famously quipped, "You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word." The relevance? Mere encouragement is not sufficient to ensure managers will act on survey results. They need to be held accountable for doing so -- and that can be easier said than done. For example, many companies attempt to drive accountability by tying survey results to managers' bonuses. While this can be a very effective approach, it must be done thoughtfully as there are a number of pitfalls. For example, should a manager's score be judged in absolute terms, or relative to a benchmark? If the latter, how does one chose which external or internal standard is most appropriate? Further, how does one factor in improvement over time in survey scores? Should a manager whose engagement score moved from 50 percent to 60 percent in one year be more or less rewarded than a manager whose score remained at 75 percent over the same period? One large logistics company we work with uses a combination of historical and normative-survey scores, together with executive leadership input, to set threshold, target and stretch goals for different payout levels. Typically some combination of criteria, together with room for subjective judgment, is required. An entirely different approach that we believe is usually more effective is to tie variable compensation not to the scores themselves, but rather to key steps in the process of acting on the findings. This could include sharing results with employees, prioritizing issues, developing action plans and executing interventions. This approach rewards what truly matters and avoids the potential problem of managers who focus on fixing the survey scores more than the underlying issues. Another challenge in driving accountability stems from using online-survey action-planning tools. While these tools can be of significant value, they can also be overly complicated and burdensome, requiring managers -- and HR -- to learn and master yet another software tool, creating yet another potential barrier. Whenever possible, it is better to use the same tools and processes that are used for all other business-goal setting and performance management, if such a system exists. In cases where survey-specific action planning tools are used, one key to success is to emphasize the benefit to the user of using the tool beyond compliance. One good example is providing access to an online library of best-practice suggestions for following-up on survey findings. Build HR Capability Although the business must own the employee-survey process, human resource professionals play a vital partnership role. Surveys expose HR colleagues to new challenges and, if leveraged properly, can help build a broad range of strategic consulting skills -- from interpreting and prioritizing results to communicating with employees and, perhaps most importantly, to helping leaders understand the root causes that underlie the findings and how to address those causes. Some form of advanced training is typically required to prepare the HR community for an effective survey roll-out, but to capture the true value of the survey process, training must move beyond the simple nuts-and-bolts of understanding how to read results. HR managers often need to improve their skills in: * Evaluating the levels and drivers of employee engagement in their organization and the impact of engagement on employee productivity and performance (through customized-linkage analysis). * Helping their business partners see and use the power of "engage-able moments." * Working directly with senior leaders on understanding and confronting (often delicate) issues they might otherwise avoid. This type of training is essential in helping HR take on a more formal role as a change agent, a best practice that is emerging at high-performing companies that use surveys to drive real change. High-performing companies also use such practical tactics as hosting quarterly conference calls with HR managers to discuss progress, tackle issues and share internal best practices. This helps leverage the HR business-partner community and sustain real momentum around survey action-planning and implementation. Commit to a Continuing Process A final practice among those companies that achieve the best outcomes from surveys is a long-term commitment to measuring and acting on employee input. One-off surveys rarely produce sustainable change. But when the survey process becomes a routine part of doing business -- when ongoing measurement is expected and steady progress over time is valued -- a company essentially creates a virtuous cycle that produces lasting change. By demonstrating a deep commitment to the survey process -- regardless of economic cycles of other business changes -- high-performing companies gain credibility accrued over time with their employees. A Final Word A common warning in the employee-survey business is, "If you're not going to act on the results, don't do a survey at all." The challenge with heeding this advice is that companies rarely appreciate the challenges involved in the action phase when they're in the midst of launching the far simpler survey-deployment process. The latter requires the coordinated actions of a large community of stakeholders, while the former can come down to a relatively small group inside the company. It's often only when that small group begins the action phase that it meets with relative indifference, or even resistance, from colleagues. The fact remains, however, that a survey is only valuable to the extent that it leads to changes in organizational culture and improved business performance. The practices we've described can help ensure that happens. Adam Zuckerman leads the Towers Watson Organizational Surveys & Insights practice for the North America, working with clients to better understand and improve their organizational cultures and leading projects for global clients across diverse industries. He uses tailored organizational surveys to uncover linkages between corporate culture, employee engagement, and business performance.Both he and Jennifer Meder have frequently been quoted in mass media, business and human resources publications. Meder is a consulting director in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Regions for Towers Watson's Organizational Surveys & Insights practice. She has been a leader in Towers Watson's ongoing research efforts to determine how and which human capital practices impact financial performance, and is an expert on employee attraction, engagement and retention. September 16, 2011 Copyright 2011© LRP Publications |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2012 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||