A great place to work, pays handsomely!

The Great Place to Work Institute conducts a survey each year of employees to determine the 100 best companies to work for.

Whilst the article mostly referred to international organisations, in Australia Hewitt Associates conducted a similar survey for 199 organisations in 2008. The organisations that ranked within the top 9 generated twice as much revenue and almost four times the profit.

A strong case for Matching Agendas

In a recent Harvard Business Publishing article “How to counter resistance to change” Peter Bregman writes that “70% of all corporate change fails.” 

Who is accountable for the 70% failure rate here? How is it possible that, with all the prestigious business school graduates and MBA’s, corporate leaders still don’t get the message that employees’ agendas matter? Whose not listening? 

As a business leader are you prepared to listen up and take responsibility for changing the reality within your circle of influence, not just your own organization but those with whom you interact? Read the full article here, it has Matching Agendas written all over it!

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4059

Chicken and Egg Question answered … almost!

Does the organisation perform better because the employees are satisfied or are the employees satisfied when the organisation performs well?

Your company’s success, dare I say survivial, could well depend on your answer to this critical question.

When one observes how most organisations operate one could reasonably assume that the predominant belief expects the latter to be true; that is, if the organisation performs better the employees should be happier and thus perform better! But that isn’t really how it works in practice. 

In a paper published by Daniel Koys in December 2006 entitled “The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavious, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study.” he had this to say;

“Cross-lagged regression analyses show that employee attitudes and behaviors at Time 1 are related to organizational effectiveness at Time 2. Additional cross-lagged regression analyses show no significant relationship between organizational effectiveness at Time 1 and the employee attitudes and behaviors at Time 2. These results add to the evidence that HR outcomes influence business outcomes, rather than the other way around.“

What is your experience?  

You can view the abstract and purchase the research paper here:  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119928793/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

More benefits from “engaged workers” from Gallup

In an article entitled “What if the recession endures?”, Jennifer Robinson writes the following;

Engaged workers “significantly outperform disengaged workers. Gallup research has found that organizations with more than four engaged employees for every one actively disengaged employee saw 2.6 times more growth in earnings per share than did organizations with a ratio of slightly less than one engaged worker for every one actively disengaged worker.

The research also revealed that top-quartile (in engagement) business units have

• 12% higher customer advocacy, 
• 18% higher productivity, and 
• 12% higher profitability than bottom-quartile business units. 

Bottom-quartile business units, in contrast, have;

• 51% more inventory shrinkage, 
• 31% to 51% more turnover, and 
• 62% more accidents than business units in the top quartile. 

If employee satisfaction (ergo engagement) isn’t a high management priority on your agenda, isn’t it time you reconsidered? Talk to us about how!

You can find the full article here http://gmj.gallup.com/content/117226/Recession-Endures.aspx#1