Methodolgies compared

[Warren Young]

I'm a little loathe to ask this question but I'll bet there are others thinking it.

How do the various methodologies of EE compare?

I am not looking for the one truth and I appreciate this may not be a "fair" question in terms of commercial sensitivities but my questionis geuine as we are trying to establish some form of a benchmark, using 'different measures.'

I am familiar with the research on Drivers of Engagement that Corporate Executuve Boar have completed, and I am familiar with the Gallup approach. But I want to uderstand how the various solutions map against one another.

Any thoughts or assistance greatly appreciated.
- Warren

[Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D.]

It seems that we should be looking at what high quality and rigorous research in general is first vs. what's the best methodology for just employee engagement. Much of the research or work on employee engagement is focused on surveys conducted at one point in time, with very lose definitions of employee engagement. That worries me. With every consulting firm or every organization coming up with its own definition of "employee engagement" the quality of any of this work has to be in doubt. There seems to be way too many correlational studies, in the work that is data driven, limited or no use of control variables, and no real links to performance. The problems this can cause are complex and important. For example, in several longitudinal studies that I've conducted with colleagues, we have used control variables, linked individual data to individual outcomes, and found that increasing employee survey scores for certain subsets of people has a negative impact on employee performance. In other words, using the tools you mention above, some managers lower their performance by improving engagement. Think of the implications for balanced score cards. Then, the use of benchmarking is another problematic issue (in my opinion at least). We would never compare a firm's stock price today with that of their competitors from the last 4 years, but we do that with survey data and do not question it. Jac Fitz-Enz' latest work (and as someone who really made a living out of benchmarking at one point in time) suggests that benchmarking is useless today due to the high rate of change most organizations are undergoing. I guess the net for me is we need to question the "standard practices" much more than we have been to date.

[Lisa Wojtkowiak, SPHR]

Warren,

I work for Opinion Research Corporation in the Employee Engagement Practice. I have given presentations discussing the many differrent methodologies out there and I have first hand knowledge of 3 companies since I have worked for 3 of the best over the past 12 years. I have researched and found that all of the methodologies are good and offer value but companies should really explore the options available to best suit their needs/goals.

ORC has a very extensive benchmark database from conducting employee research for over 20 years. ORC also has drivers of engagement based on many different questions. Our approach, for drivers of engagement, is called Say, Stay and Strive. This approach provides data around employee advocacy, employee commitment and discretionary effort. Our database of over 200 questions can be accessed to provide clients a step ahead in the questionnair development phase. On the back end, ORC has detailed, real-time, online reporting as well as action planning tools to help clients implement the necessary change.

I would be willing to discuss the different methodologies that I have researched so please feel free to email me or call me directly to discuss. [e-mail] or 419-725-6152

[Jennifer Schulte]

Hello Warren,

I'm not sure if you have already seen this, but there was a study in 2006 from the Conference Board that was a meta-analysis of 12 different firms who measure or define employee engagement. They looked for the areas where these firms had common descriptions. I'll attach the study so you can view it!