Employee Survey Results Report
Frye Research & Consulting
Austin, Texas- Turtle Mountain Bend
Phone: -
Fax: -
E-mail:-
COMPANY A VALUE SURVEY
Results and Recommendations
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
COMPANY A Value Survey
Results and Recommendations
Contents
Overview......................................................................................................... 2
Survey Data Source ....................................................................................... 2
Questionnaire Concepts .................................................................................. 5
Report Organization ....................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................. 6
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (All Completed Interviews) ........................................ 7
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (by Region/Function) .............................................. 11
General Results / Non-North America Regions ................................................. 11
Overall Mean / Value Statements Index .......................................................... 11
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (by Composite Index) ............................................. 15
North American Region / Alternate Composite Index Results ............................. 20
Company Image .......................................................................................... 20
Employee Interaction ................................................................................... 21
Leader Image ............................................................................................. 22
Conclusions / Recommendations ...................................................................... 24
Recommendations ....................................................................................... 25
1
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
OVERVIEW
The following report provides research findings and tabulations based on survey results
from a questionnaire distributed to COMPANY A employees in the four distinct regions
where COMPANY A operates. These include Asia/Pacific; Europe, Middle East and
Africa; Latin America; and North America.
The survey also allowed for segmenting according to function, including: Finance;
Human Resources; Information Technology; Manufacturing; Marketing; Sales; Supply
Chain; and Other.
Survey Data Source
The survey was completed fully by 298 employees, representing a 68% response
rate. This rate is based simply on the number of completed interviews divided by the
number of employees at the time the survey was administered. For the purposes of
this report, a completed interview is defined as instances where the employee
answered all 19 closed-ended questions1. The majority of completed interviews were
conducted through a web-based instrument (204) with the remainder being
completed manually. In addition to the closed-ended questions measuring level of
agreement, each respondent had an opportunity to provide a textual response
explaining why they answered the way they did to the level of agreement item or to
provide input on COMPANY A policy with regard to each item. Table 1 provides
general metrics regarding response rate and mode.
Table 1: Overall Survey Results / Response Rate
Item
Measure
Total Employees at Time of Survey
438
Total Partial & Completed Surveys
312
Completed Interviews
298
Web-Based
204
Manual
94
Overall Response Rate
68%
Table 2 (page 3) provides more detail with regard to the percentage of individuals
who provided textual responses to the open-ended questions following each of the
19 value items, including the last question allowing for more general input on
improving COMPANY A as a place of employment. Table 3 (page 4) provides this
information by Function.
1
See Appendix for the complete questionnaire.
2
Overall Response Rate
Q4: Look Forward
Q6: Best Products
Q8: Benefit Consumers
Q10: Integrity
Q12: Mutual Respect
Q14: Avoid Rumors
Q16: Maturity
Q18: COMPANY A Adapt
Q20: New Approaches
Q22: Outside Job Duty
Q24: Leader Position Emp
Q26: Clear Communication
Q28: Emp Understand Roles
Q30: Team Collaboration
Q32: Constructive Action
Q34: Employees Listen
Q36: Comfort in Challenging
Q38: Engaging Environment
Q40: Open/Honest Leaders
Overall Results
Enthusiasm
Professionalism
Flexibility
3
Teamwork
APAC-
EMEA-
LATAM-
NA-
Total-
Overall: Change / Improve
Completed Interviews
Region
Total Employees
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Table 2: Overall Response Rate by Region & Open-Ended Response Rate
Communication
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Table 3: Overall Response Rate by Function & Open-Ended Response Rate
Q28: Emp Understand Roles
Q30: Team Collaboration
Q32: Constructive Action
Q34: Employees Listen
Q36: Comfort in Challenging
Q38: Engaging Environment
Q40: Open/Honest Leaders
24
21
28
34
90
14
0
14
14
14
14
0
14
14
29
0
29
71
0
33
0
33
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
33
67
11
10
10
11
14
10
6
14
6
6
10
4
11
40
8
8
8
8
17
8
8
0
17
8
0
8
8
0
50
Q16: Maturity
24
Q14: Avoid Rumors
31
Q12: Mutual Respect
17
Q10: Integrity
28
Q8: Benefit Consumers
28
Q6: Best Products
28
Q4: Look Forward
14
Overall Response Rate
17
Completed Interviews
Q26: Clear Communication
Overall: Change / Improve
Communication
Q24: Leader Position Emp
Teamwork
Q22: Outside Job Duty
Flexibility
Q20: New Approaches
Professionalism
Total Employees
Region
Enthusiasm
Q18: COMPANY A Adapt
Overall Results
Finance
45
29
64
55
28
14
24
34
24
28
HR
15
7
47
29
29
14
14
14
14
14
IT
11
3
27
33
0
0
33
33
0
33
Manufacturing
199
124
62
27
14
4
10
15
8
Marketing
21
12
57
17
8
25
0
0
Sales
73
47
64
38
30
13
19
17
11
13
21
11
13
21
9
11
17
0
4
15
15
6
64
Supply Chain
46
23
50
26
13
9
13
13
9
13
22
13
13
17
17
13
9
4
13
9
9
13
70
Other
20
29
N/A
32
32
14
18
32
18
18
25
21
18
18
18
11
21
7
7
14
11
7
79
24
N/A
29
21
21
13
21
21
25
21
13
21
25
17
8
8
13
8
13
8
4
71
298
68
32
20
10
14
18
12
15
16
12
15
18
13
9
15
8
8
12
9
12
58
Not Specified
Total
438
4
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Questionnaire Concepts
The COMPANY A Value Survey consists of 19 questions consisting of value
statements in which the respondent can choose between six (6) options: Strongly
Disagree; Moderately Disagree; Slightly Disagree; Slightly Agree; Moderately Agree;
and Strongly Agree. The 19 items are categorized into five different values:
Enthusiasm, Professionalism, Flexibility, Teamwork, and Communication. These
values are those employed by COMPANY A in evaluating employee performance.
There is an additional open-ended question at the conclusion of the survey which
simply asks, Is there anything else you think COMPANY A should change to make it a
better place to work?
After each of the 19 closed-ended questions, an opportunity is provided to each
respondent to comment on the score provided to explain your score or describe what
COMPANY A should do differently.
Report Organization
This report is organized into four distinct sections, as follows:
I.
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (All Completed Interviews)
II.
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (By Region/Function)
III.
Analysis of Attitudinal Items (By Composite Index)
IV.
Conclusions / Recommendations
An appendix consisting of the survey instrument (questionnaire), detailed tables of
responses across each item by Region and Function, mean scores (based on a scale of
1-6), and composite index scores is provided for under separate c over.
5
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Methodology
Data collected from the COMPANY A Value Survey was analyzed using the following
methodology. Survey responses were evaluated for validity and completeness. Cases in
which the respondent did not complete every answer were not included in the final
data set to be analyzed. Response sets, or cases in which every question was answered
identically were also evaluated. There were four cases in wh ich this was the case;
however, it was determined, relative to the total number of completed interviews, that
this would not have any discernible effect on the results so they have not been
removed.
In addition to the above tasks, cases were evaluated based on known logic; for
instance, the number of employees by region was compared to the total number of
employees by region 2. This was to ensure that there were not more cases (either
partial or completed interviews) than the number of employees. For each of the 19
closed-ended agree/disagree questions, it was ensured that no invalid responses were
contained in the data file (e.g. no number less than 1 or greater than 6).
General descriptive statistics, such as mean (average), standard deviation, and
frequency distributions were generated for each of the 19 closed -ended questions. As
described in more detail in later sections, means were evaluated to determine any
significant differences between different variables (including region, function, and to a
much lesser extent, leader status) 3.
In addition to the individual 19 items found in the survey, composite indices were
created based on averaging across a number of items. This was done for the original
value-based indices (i.e. Enthusiasm, Professionalism, e tc.) as well as for an alternate
pairing consisting of more items and as indicated on Page 14, a more reliable index.
Reliability of each index provides an indication of how well the overall index measures
on a conceptual level. This will be covered in more detail in section 4.
2
This analytical task was performed on the original data file of 312 cases.
Analysis according to leader status was restricted to descriptive analyses only as
there were only 25 cases identified as leaders, too small a sub-sample to allow for
any significance testing.
3
6
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDINAL ITEMS (ALL COMPLETED INTERVIEWS)
This chapter provides general research findings related to all 298 completed
interviews. There are two main parts to this section; the first is a general analysis of
each item according to the percentage of respondents who agreed and those who
disagreed. Agreement/Disagreement was based on those who answered Strongly,
Moderately, or Slightly Agree and those who answered Strongly, Moderately, or
Slightly Disagree, respectively.
Table 3 (page 5) provides overall results according to percent agree/disagree. The
results provide mixed reviews on the general health of the COMPANY A workforce.
On the positive side, it is clear that COMPANY A employees generally agree with the
statements related to the position COMPANY A holds within the industry, at least as
perceived by its employees. The item with the highest level of agreement among
COMPANY A employees is COMPANY A products benefit consumers. Next in terms of
agreement is the statement COMPANY A products are the best in the industry. These
items were also found to have the highest percentage of strong agreement; 37 and
29 percent respectively.
Nevertheless, the items with the highest levels of disagreement are generally items
related to the image and perception of employees towards company leadership. In
particular, the lowest rated item in terms of agreement was COMPANY A employees
feel comfortable challenging the points of view of company leadership. Interestingly,
this item was also the lowest rated in terms of agreement among respondents
identified as being in leadership positions.
Table 4 (page 6) provides the mean scores and standard deviations generated for
each of the 19 closed-ended items. The mean simply represents the average across
all 298 respondents for each item, on a scale of 1 through 6. In this case, the 1
represents Strongly Disagree and the 6 represents Strongly Agree. The standard
deviation represents the extent to which there is relative agreement or disagreement
across all employees; a standard deviation of 0 indicates all respondents answered
exactly the same. Therefore, standard deviations closest to 0 represent those items
in which there is relative agreement among the respondents, while higher scores
represent items in which there is relative disagreement (or put another way, where a
sub-set of respondents strongly disagree and another sub-set strongly agrees).
Not surprisingly, mean scores generally follow results as indicated in Table 3, with
high scores generated among items noted above and lower scores, again, generated
for items related to the perception of leadership. The standard deviation scores
7
indicate relative agreement about the perception of COMPANY A as a company
among employees, while the highest standard deviation indicates the item COMPANY
A employees refrain from gossip or disseminating rumors that could be harmful to
the company or its employees. This result could also be due to something inherent in
the item language itself that may be problematic from a survey research standpoint.
There is a difference between gossip or disseminating rumors and engaging in such
activity that could be harmful to the company or its employees. The second clause of
this item is problematic in the sense that it carries some affect or emotional
response. It is possible that respondents perceive the meaning of this statement
differently, and that is influencing the level of disagreement.
There are a few areas of concern indicated by the individual item results. Issues
related to communication are an area that needs improvement. Issues related to the
dissemination of rumors or gossip underpins this result – based on these results, it
appears in many cases that employees are basing their information on second-hand
information provided by other employees. This information is likely wrong, but in the
absence of transparent information from management this is the only logical result.
The other main area of concern, related in some manner to the above – is the value
labor feels is placed upon them by management. Other items that received highest
levels of disagreement are those which test employee’s level of agreement as it
relates to the role of leadership. The last three items on Table 3, while embedded in
the Communication value construct, all deal in some way with how COMPANY A
employees engage with leadership and are either conferred with regarding policy or
feel valued in their opinion. Clearly they do not. The fact that the company values
were developed without any engagement with employees only serves to underscore
their perception. Both of these issues will be discussed in further detail throughout
the rest of the report and in the recommendations section.
8
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Table 3: Overall Results / Percent Agree & Disagree and Rank (Based on Percent Disagree)
Percent
Percent
Rank
Agree
Disagree
(Disagree)
COMPANY A employees look forward to coming to work every day and enjoy the work they do
74
26
5
COMPANY A products are the best in the industry
93
7
18
COMPANY A products benefit consumers
96
4
19
COMPANY A employees consistently demonstrate a high level of integrity and honesty
87
13
12
77
23
7
67
33
2
COMPANY A employees demonstrate maturity and good judgment under stress or in difficult conditions
87
13
12
As a whole, COMPANY A adapts well and quickly to changing business conditions and goals
85
15
11
COMPANY A and its employees are willing to try new approaches and ideas
87
13
12
90
10
15
Leaders at COMPANY A put their employees in the position to be successful
74
26
5
Leaders at COMPANY A clearly and consistently communicate the goals and objectives of all initiatives
77
23
7
COMPANY A employees understand their roles on their teams
91
9
16
Teams at COMPANY A work collaboratively
82
17
10
COMPANY A employees act in a constructive manner
92
8
17
COMPANY A employees listen carefully and respect the opinions of others
80
20
9
COMPANY A employees feel comfortable challenging the points of view of company leadership
55
45
1
COMPANY A fosters an environment that allows colleagues to be heard and understood
73
27
4
COMPANY A leadership is open and honest with employees
71
29
3
Item
COMPANY A employees treat each other with respect and dignity in all forms of interaction, contributing to an atmosphere of
cooperation and a healthy workplace environment
COMPANY A employees refrain from gossip or disseminating rumors that could be harmful to the company or its
employees
COMPANY A employees are willing to do whatever it takes to make the company successful, even if that means taking action
outside of their job descriptions
9
Table 4: Overall Results / Mean, Standard Deviation and Rank (Based on Standard Deviation)
Item
Mean Score
Standard
Rank
Deviation
(Std Dev)
COMPANY A employees look forward to coming to work every day and enjoy the work they do
4.24
1.21
8
COMPANY A products are the best in the industry
4.95
0.94
17
COMPANY A products benefit consumers
5.11
0.84
19
COMPANY A employees consistently demonstrate a high level of integrity and honesty
4.73
1.04
14
4.37
1.22
6
4.14
1.49
1
COMPANY A employees demonstrate maturity and good judgment under stress or in difficult conditions
4.60
1.05
11
As a whole, COMPANY A adapts well and quickly to changing business conditions and goals
4.55
1.17
9
COMPANY A and its employees are willing to try new approaches and ideas
4.70
1.02
15
4.84
1.05
11
Leaders at COMPANY A put their employees in the position to be successful
4.14
1.31
3
Leaders at COMPANY A clearly and consistently communicate the goals and objectives of all initiatives
4.26
1.23
5
COMPANY A employees understand their roles on their teams
4.86
0.96
16
Teams at COMPANY A work collaboratively
4.49
1.10
10
COMPANY A employees act in a constructive manner
4.74
0.86
18
COMPANY A employees listen carefully and respect the opinions of others
4.35
1.05
11
COMPANY A employees feel comfortable challenging the points of view of company leadership
3.62
1.36
2
COMPANY A fosters an environment that allows colleagues to be heard and understood
4.12
1.22
6
COMPANY A leadership is open and honest with employees
4.13
1.31
3
COMPANY A employees treat each other with respect and dignity in all forms of interaction, contributing to an atmosphere of
cooperation and a healthy workplace environment
COMPANY A employees refrain from gossip or disseminating rumors that could be harmful to the company or its
employees
COMPANY A employees are willing to do whatever it takes to make the company successful, even if that means taking action
outside of their job descriptions
10
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDINAL ITEMS (BY REGION/FUNCTION)
This section provides some information related to survey results as they relate to each
of the four COMPANY A regions. The first part of this section focuses on the regions
outside of North America in terms of the most important findi ngs. One reason for this is
that the majority of the remainder of this report will focus almost exclusively on North
America.
This is the case for two reasons – one, along with the EAME region, North America
contains the largest number of employees, and t wo, as described below, the North
America region by far had the highest percentage of respondents registering their
disagreement with the value statements contained in the survey.
Of the 19 value statements, the North America region respondents had the hi ghest
disagreement of any region on 14 of the value statements, compared to 4, 3, and 1 for
Latin America; Europe, Middle East, and Africa; and Asia Pacific, respectively.
General Results / Non-North America Regions
The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) and Latin America in general had higher scores
relative to overall (across all regions) means on nearly all of the value statements. In
the APAC region, none of the scores were significantly lower than the overall means.
In Latin America, there were only two items which scored significantly lower means
then overall means; these include COMPANY A employees are willing to do whatever
it takes to make the company successful, even if that means taking action outside of
their job descriptions; and COMPANY A employees understand their roles on their
teams.
In terms of next lowest scores, the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region
exhibited significantly lower than overall means on 6 of the 19 value statements, as
follows:
COMPANY A products are the best in the industry
COMPANY A products benefit consumers
COMPANY A employees treat each other with respect and dignity in all forms
of interaction, contributing to an atmosphere of cooperation and a healthy
workplace environment
COMPANY A employees act in a constructive manner
COMPANY A employees listen carefully and respect the opinions of others
COMPANY A employees feel comfortable challenging the points of view of
company leadership
Overall Mean / Value Statements Index
Examining the overall mean (i.e. the average score on a scale of 6 across all 19 value
statements) for the different regions provides one with evidence of how strongly the
company values at COMPANY A resonate with its employees. By charting the results, we
11
have a visual representation of where each region stands in relation to the others on
this metric. From a statistical point of view, one can also calculate what is termed an
upper and lower bound. In most applications, this is also referred to as the confi dence
interval, generally around some statistic (mean, sum, etc.); in this case, the confidence
interval would be around the mean score across all 19 value statements. The
confidence interval also allows one to determine whether there are significant
differences between regions. Where the mean of one region is below the lower bound
of another region’s confidence interval, the result is said to be significant. Confidence
intervals can be based on different confidence levels; in our case, this is a 95%
confidence interval, common in most research exercises such as this value survey. In
simple terms, the 95% refers to the percent level of confidence one has in stating that
the differences are not due to chance.
Figure 1 below indicates the differences between the four regions with regard to the
overall average across all 19 value statements. Note that the scale has been reduced
from 0-6 in order to more easily view these relationships across the four different
regions.
Figure 1: Overall Composite Mean by Region-
5.22
-
4.60
4.45
4.40
-
APAC
EMEA
Lower Bound
LATAM
Mean
NA
Upper Bound
The relative size of the bounds is based on the sample size obtained from each of the
regions, which is why APAC and LATAM have relatively large bounds and EMEA and NA
have smaller bounds. Figure 1 clearly shows that the APAC region scored significantly
higher than any of the other three regions. In terms of establishing a priority in terms
of regions needing improvement (based on the results of this value survey), this would
include 1) North America; 2) Europe, Middle East, and Africa; 3) Latin America; and 4)
Asia-Pacific. While it is difficult to observe in Figure 1, The 4.32 score registered among
those self-reporting from the North America region is significantly different from both
12
the Latin American and Asia-Pacific scores. It is not significantly different from the
Europe, Middle East and Africa score of 4.45.
The remainder of this report will focus almost entirely on the North American region.
Prior to that, the next few pages provide some high -level information regarding results
according to job function 4. This was a self-selected question and was also optional;
about 8 percent of the respondents represented in the data file used in this analysis did
not specify a function 5. In terms of overall means across all 19 value statements,
respondents in Manufacturing scored lower than all respondents (across all functions).
The overall mean for all 19 items among those who selected Manufacturing as their
function was 4.27, compared to an overall mean of 4.47 for all employees. The highest
mean by function (4.73) was found among employees who selected Sales.
Figure 2 indicates differences in means across the four function categories as organized
in this report. Note again the scale has been modified to view more easily the
relationships.
Figure 2: Overall Composite Mean by Function-
4.70
4.61
4.60
4.50
4.46
4.40
4.30
4.27
4.20
4.10
Manufacturing
Sales
Lower Bound
Finance
Mean
All Other
Upper Bound
As noted previously, the relative size of the bou nds around the mean are due primarily
to sample size, as the number of respondents (high to low) according to function were
Manufacturing (124), All Other (98), Sales (47), and Finance (29).
4
Due to small sample sizes, job function was collapsed into the following four
categories: Manufacturing, Sales, Finance, and All Other.
5
It should be noted that 13 respondents selected Latin America and Manufacturing,
which is not logical; it is presumed these employees are based in Mexico and likely
identify more with Latin America than North America. The data has not been revised.
13
Manufacturing respondents, on average scored significantly lower than Sales or other
respondents not in Sales or Finance. While the average for Manufacturing respondents
was lower than that for Finance (4.27 cf. 4.46), this difference is not significant 6.
Manufacturing respondents scored significantly lower than all re spondents on 14 of the
19 value statements. Among respondents in the Sales and All Other categories, there
was no item in which these respondents scored significantly lower than that for all
employees.
Finance employees scored significantly lower on 6 of the 19 value statements. There
were three items in which both Finance and Manufacturing employees scored
significantly lower, including:
COMPANY A employees consistently demonstrate a high level of integrity and
honesty
COMPANY A employees treat each other with respect and dignity in all forms of
interaction, contributing to an atmosphere of cooperation and a healthy
workplace environment
COMPANY A employees understand their roles on their teams
6
Note: When differences are described as “not significant”, it simply means that the
mean for one group does not fall outside of the bounds of another group. When this
occurs, the two means are – in a statistical sense – equal.
14
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDINAL ITEMS (BY COMPOSITE INDEX)
In this section, we delve a bit further into the data set to reveal patterns with regard
to the underlying value statements. Within the survey instrument, the five value
measures are tested, including Enthusiasm, Professionalism, Flexibility, Teamwork,
and Communication. Since an awareness question is not included in the survey
instrument measuring whether employees know these are the five values, there is no
way to know whether COMPANY A should make a greater effort to educate its
workforce. It is assumed that new employees are required to participate in an
orientation session which may highlight these value components.
It is common practice among survey researchers to analyze attitudinal data to group
items into higher level components. For instance, combining a number of different
items that have what is termed high internal correlation into factors. This is generally
achieved by factor analysis if the latent factors are not known beforehand. In the
case of the COMPANY A Value Survey, these combinations are explicit – in the case
of the five value families noted above, but could also be further collapsed into three
higher-level components.
Different groupings of items were analyzed using established statistical techniques 7
to ensure that these groupings provided a good indicator of some higher level
component. For instance, if we combine the questions under the heading
Enthusiasm, is there a high enough level of inter-item correlation to ensure that a
composite measure (i.e. an average of the first three questions) provides a reliable
indication of that value measure.
7
For this exercise, a procedure entitled Cronbach’s Alpha was used to evaluate the
reliability of composite indices to be used in this report. The results of this procedure
provide an indication of how reliable the composite index is in capturing the
underlying concept (i.e. enthusiasm, teamwork, etc.).
15
Table 5 below provides reliability statistics for the explicit groupings found in the
survey instrument.
Table 5: Explicit Groupings and Cronbach Alpha Results
Item
Cronbach Alpha
Number of Items
Questions
Enthusiasm
3
3, 5, and 7
0.57
Professionalism
4
9, 11, 13, and 15
0.78
Flexibility
3
17, 19, and 21
0.69
Teamwork
5
23, 25, 27, 29, and 31
0.80
Communication
4
33, 35, 37, and 39
0.81
(Standardized)
Note: Cronbach Alpha standardized values used in evaluation. A statistical rule-of-thumb
suggests a Cronbach Alpha score above 0.7 is an acceptable threshold for using a composite
index.
According to Table 5, 3 of the underlying constructs pass the rule-of-thumb indicated
in the table note; however, for the purposes of this report, the items in the survey
have been organized into three different groupings which (based on statistical
results) provide better measures.
By analyzing the individual items across the explicit groupings, it is possible to
establish slightly different groupings and test the inter-item correlation with the
underlying concepts. Also, generally speaking, composite indices with larger number
of items have higher correlation values.
Therefore, the 19 items have been re-organized into three different groupings which
attempt to measure the following concepts: Company Image, Employee Interaction,
and Leader Image. These concepts are defined as follows:
Company Image: these items are related in their content to the employee’s
perception of COMPANY A and its position within the industry.
Employee Interaction: these items are related in their content to employee’s
perception of dominant COMPANY A employee traits, or the extent to which
teams are functional.
Leader Image: these items generally identify leadership (as a group) and
relate to employee’s perception of company leadership and its relation to
employees.
16
Before presenting the alternate composite results, the following chart provides the
survey results of the composite indices which correspond to the company values:
Enthusiasm, Professionalism, Flexibility, Teamwork, and Communication.
Figure 3: Composite Means by Region-
-
APAC
EMEA
LATAM
NA
Enthusiasm
5.25
4.70
5.00
4.71
Professionalism
5.48
4.42
4.72
4.27
Flexibility
5.00
4.80
4.62
4.53
Teamwork
5.28
4.51
4.56
4.35
Communication
5.05
3.94
4.56
3.88
Professionalism
Flexibility
Enthusiasm
Teamwork
Communication
Figure 4: Composite Means by Function-
-
MFG
SALES
FIN
ALL OTHER
Enthusiasm
4.56
4.91
4.93
4.92
Professionalism
4.13
5.04
4.38
4.63
Flexibility
4.58
4.74
4.77
4.81
Teamwork
4.35
4.73
4.40
4.61
Communication
3.86
4.28
4.03
4.19
Professionalism
Flexibility
Enthusiasm
17
Teamwork
Communication
Table 6 provides the re-organized composite groupings and their statistical
evaluation.
Table 6: Alternative Groupings and Cronbach Alpha Results
Item
Cronbach Alpha
Number of Items
Questions
Company Image
6
3, 5, 7, 17, 19, and 21
0.74
Employee Interaction
8
9, 11, 13, 15, 27, 29, 31, and 33
0.88
Leader Image
5
23, 25, 35, 37, and 39
0.86
(Standardized)
Note: Cronbach Alpha standardized values used in evaluation; See Table 7 (next page) for
items.
As is evident in Table 6, the standardized inter-item correlation with the underlying
concepts is higher than that achieved by the highest scores displayed in Table 5.
These conceptual level groupings will then be used to evaluate differences within
regions and functions, focusing primarily on the North America region. It should be
noted that, in many applications of this statistical technique, the results will indicate
which items within each grouping (if deleted) would yield a higher Cronbach score.
With regard to the three concepts above, it was found that deleting any of the items
would actually result in a lower score; therefore, the groupings were left intact.
Additional variables were created based on the three concepts above, average scores
across the items indicated above were generated and results analyzed.
Mean scores for all employees indicated the following: Company Image composite
index achieved a mean overall score of 4.73 on the six-point scale; Employee
Interaction achieved a 4.54 score and Leader Image achieved a score of 4.05. All
three were significant; in other words, Company Image was significantly higher than
Employee Interaction; Employee Interaction was significantly higher than Leader
Image, meaning Leader Image received the lowest scores overall. In terms of region,
the North America region scored significantly lower on all three measures. Within the
North American region, respondents scored 4.62, 4.42, and 3.79 on Company
Image, Employee Interaction and Leader Image, respectively. The Leader Image
score among North America employees was significantly lower than either Company
Image or Employee Interaction. The Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions scored
significantly higher on all three composites; while the Europe, Middle East and Africa
region scored lower on all three, none of these were significant. We now turn our
focus towards the North America region.
18
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
Table 7: Alternative Grouping of Items into Conceptual Categories
Company Image
COMPANY A employees look forward to coming to work every day and enjoy the work they
do
COMPANY A products are the best in the industry
COMPANY A products benefit consumers
As a whole, COMPANY A adapts well and quickly to changing business conditions and goals
COMPANY A and its employees are willing to try new approaches and ideas
COMPANY A employees are willing to do whatever it takes to make the company successful,
even if that means taking action outside of their job descriptions
Leader Image
Leaders at COMPANY A put their employees in the position to be successful
Leaders at COMPANY A clearly and consistently communicate the goals and objectives of all
initiatives
COMPANY A employees feel comfortable challenging the points of view of company
leadership
COMPANY A fosters an environment that allows colleagues to be heard and understood
COMPANY A leadership is open and honest with employees
Employee Interaction
COMPANY A employees consistently demonstrate a high level of integrity and honesty
COMPANY A employees treat each other with respect and dignity in all forms of interaction,
contributing to an atmosphere of cooperation and a healthy workplace environment
COMPANY A employees refrain from gossip or disseminating rumors that could be harmful to
the company or its employees
COMPANY A employees demonstrate maturity and good judgment under stress or in difficult
conditions
COMPANY A employees understand their roles on their teams
Teams at COMPANY A work collaboratively
COMPANY A employees act in a constructive manner
COMPANY A employees listen carefully and respect the opinions of others
19
Internal / Proprietary & Confidential
North American Region / Alternate Composite Index Results
Company Image
Figure 5 below provides a comparison of company image composite scores by
function. Function is based on the collapsed categories as utilized previously (See
Figure 2, Page 9).
Figure 5: Company Image Composite by Function
(North America Only-
5.00
4.94
-
4.43
4.20
Manufacturing
Sales
Lower Bound
Finance
Mean
All Other
Upper Bound
Note that the scale has been modified to ease viewing. Figure 3 indicates significant
differences between Manufacturing and the other functional units with the exception
of the All Other category (All Other consists of Human Resources, Information
Technology, Supply Chain, and those employees who either did not select a function
or selected Other). Again, the size of the bounds is a function of the small sample
sizes, particularly in the case of Sales (11) and Finance (6).
Additional analysis of the items within the company image composite suggests
Manufacturing may be segmented essentially into two groups: those who look
forward to coming to work and those who do not. Other items within this composite
do not indicate any hard splits between those who agree or disagree, while the
statement COMPANY A employees look forward to coming to work every day and
enjoy the work they do evokes nearly equal groups on either side. We may surmise
this may be explained by the level of tenure; we can’t empirically test that
proposition because that information is not included in the original data set.
20
Employee Interaction
The composite item Employee Interaction is slightly different than the other two
composite scores because it is essentially based on employee traits and employee
perceptions of how well employees work collaboratively. In contrast, the other
composite are generally focused on actors – be they COMPANY A itself and its
position or leaders of the company.
In a certain sense, this composite is perhaps more critical than the other two
groupings because it has a real impact on the day-to-day operations and how
employees interact with one another. Indeed, a negative view of the company
leadership among lower level staff – while deleterious to the internal overall cohesion
of an organization – provides some advantage in terms of increasing cohesion among
rank and file staff. Negative outcomes with regard to employee interaction among
rank and file staff have perhaps a greater impact on internal relations, production,
and ultimately, the quality of products manufactured by COMPANY A.
Figure 6 below provides identical output as Figure 3, but this time focuses on
employee interaction.
Figure 6: Employee Interaction Composite by Function
(North America Only-
4.90
4.70
4.58
4.50
4.30
4.54
4.43
4.28
4.10
3.90
Manufacturing
Sales
Lower Bound
Finance
Mean
21
All Other
Upper Bound
Non-Mfg
Due to the small sample sizes for Sales/Finance, an additional category is provided
for Non-Mfg, consisting of any respondent not self-identified as Manufacturing8.
Results for individual items in the Employee Interaction composite indicate, for the
most part, general agreement with the exception of the item COMPANY A employees
refrain from gossip or disseminating rumors that could be harmful to the company or
its employees. Among manufacturing employees in North America, this item was
lowest on average and generated the highest standard deviation. This indicates, in
my opinion, confusion on the part of the respondent about the correct interpretation
of that statement. In reality, if the statement is meant to be correlated with the
value Professionalism, the first part of the statement would suffice; in other words,
refraining from gossip or disseminating rumors, regardless of whether or not they
are harmful to the company or its employees, represents Professionalism and would
be an improvement over the current statement. While not the highest in terms of
deviation of responses, the statistical results also indicated what I perceive as a level
of confusion from the other functional groups (Sales, Finance, etc.).
On a more detailed level, an analysis of the individual items along with general
results regarding communication suggest that internal communication and more
importantly clear, consistent, and frequent communication regarding company policy
and events is a critical need. Employees engage in gossip and the dissemination of
rumors when there is not clear, open and transparent communication from their
superiors or upper level management. Rumors die when the propensity to speculate
is diminished because management has stated policy clearly.
Leader Image
The composite item Leader Image represents items which either contain the word
“Leader” or “Leadership”; one exception is the item COMPANY A fosters an
environment that allows colleagues to be heard and understood. Regardless, this
item certainly places the impetus on leadership at COMPANY A as those actors
responsible for impacting the work environment through policies and direction
provided to front-line supervisors.
8
It should be pointed out that one of the difficulties of having respondents self-select
their function is that some employees in Manufacturing may have not selected a
function, which distorts some of the results since some manufacturing employees
may be diluting differences between manufacturing and non-manufacturing.
22
Figure 7 below provides indications of differences according to function on this
composite scale.
Figure 7: Leader Image Composite by Function
(North America Only-
4.33
-
3.80
3.60
3.77
3.73
3.68
3.40
3.20
Manufacturing
Sales
Lower Bound
Finance
Mean
All Other
Non-Mfg
Upper Bound
Figure 5 indicates, that while there doesn’t appear to be any significant differences
with regard to function, clearly this composite index received the lowest scores. As
noted previously, this index (and in general the items contained in the index)
received the lowest scores across all items, and is where COMPANY A should focus its
energy to mitigate the impact of these results. The fact that there isn’t any
significant difference simply means there appears to be a consensus on this index.
Clearly there is an apparent disconnect between how employees perceive COMPANY
A – in terms of its position in the industry – and how employees perceive their
leadership. Also, as noted in the opening pages of this report, the item which scored
lowest among all employees (regardless of region or function) was this statement:
COMPANY A employees feel comfortable challenging the points of view of company
leadership. Nearly half of all employees disagreed with this statement and a quarter
of employees either strongly or moderately disagreed. Even those identified as
Leaders found, on average, disagreement with this statement.
This is not to say that there aren’t employees that agree with this statement (more
than half did agree), but this is an area where there is a clear division within the
organization. An examination of open-ended responses to clarify respondent scores
suggests the following: among those who disagree with this statement, there is a
perception (right or wrong) that 1) stating opinions contrary to leadership will result
in consequences or termination, and 2) employees feel disconnected from the
23
process because they do not feel there is any mechanism for providing input. While it
is true that COMPANY A employees should understand they are not the ones who
make policy, they should also feel like they have a role in the process of creating and
refining that policy.
The final section of this report provides some conclusions by focusing on where the
data suggests are the problem areas that should be investigated. While the results
clearly illustrate that the most critical area is North America, all areas, functions, and
value components will be addressed.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 8 below provides a matrix which highlights some of the key areas (both
positive and negative) as revealed in the analysis of the survey data. Following the
table, there are a number of recommendations that may be considered as attempts
to mitigate some of the negative consequences of these results. First and foremost,
it is critical that any potential initiatives be communicated clearly to all employees
and employees are provided an opportunity for input; by simply asking COMPANY A
employees to participate in this survey, COMPANY A is setting the expectation that
the information will be used in some manner. Additional surveying efforts should also
be planned in order to gauge any progress being made.
The matrix provides areas for improvement based on the value components under
study. A green icon with a P subscript indicates that average scores (for each region
or function) under each composite were significantly higher than the overall score
(among all employees); by contrast a red icon with a N subscript indicates
significantly lower scores, while a blank cell indicates no significant difference.
Table 8: Explicit Composite Scores by Region & Function
Region
Function
Item
APAC
EMEA
LATAM
Enthusiasm
●P
●P
Professionalism
●P
●P
Flexibility
●P
Teamwork
●P
Communication
●P
NA
●P
●N
●P
MFG
SALES
FIN
OTHER
●N
●P
●P
●P
●N
●N
●P
●N
●N
●N
●N
●P
●N
●N
●P
●P
●P
●N
Note: Composite scores based on combination of questions under each value component.
24
●P
●P
Recommendations
In general, the data suggests a number of areas that are candidates for
improvement. In terms of location and function, North America and particularly
Manufacturing is where energies should be focused; nevertheless, company-wide
initiatives should redouble efforts on highlighting company values. One question
which perhaps should have been asked but was not is whether the employee can
name the five company values unaided. Given the fact that these values were
recently introduced, a measure of awareness would provide some indication of where
internal marketing efforts should be focused.
The fact that the company values were developed without any substantive input from
employees underscores one of the negative results of this survey. Communication
and Teamwork are two of the value constructs where employees scored lowest in
terms of their level of agreement. Both values speak to the ability (or inability) of the
company to 1) provide an open and transparent channel of communication to
employees, and 2) allow for employee’s substantive input in areas where it is
appropriate. Employees are judged according to how well they exemplify these
values, so it seems fitting they should have some input into how these values are
identified and defined.
There is one other point to be made with regard to the value statements and their
relationship with the higher-level constructs. Some of the value statements are
directly related to the position COMPANY A holds within the industry or its
consumers. Unless it is made clear during discussions surrounding company values
why this is important to the employee (in terms of his/her role), this value will have
less of an impact on their day-to-day work.
The following are potential areas where survey results can be used to inform
company-wide initiatives:
Performance objectives surrounding the [REDACTED] initiative appear to be
fairly established with regard to employee evaluation. One potential initiative,
though not without some risk, would be to re-establish a communication with
these employees to gather input on company values. This is something that
perhaps should have been done when the values were developed, but could
also pay dividends now as an opportunity to 1) further educate the workforce
on what the values mean and there relation to performance and 2) allow
employees to discuss the values in an open forum in terms of what they mean
to them. Recognizing that an opportunity was missed in gathering feedback
from employees is one method to build some trust with company employees
by acknowledging the importance of employee input into this process. It is
25
critical to ensure that employees and management are interpreting the values
in exactly the same way. According to the [REDACTED] process, the
opportunity for this takes place at the beginning of each year; it is critical
managers engage their direct reports in this conversation.
There is a value missing from the discussion surrounding the five core values
and that is accountability; employees must be accountable to the values, but
then again, management should be held accountable as well. It is clear from
these results that – even in some cases – leaders do not agree that certain
values are being exhibited. Perhaps accountability should not be a core value,
but in any communication regarding the values, this concept should be
established as germane to ensuring adherence to the values.
The newsletter is an excellent vehicle for disseminating information about the
values, recognizing employees that embody a particular value, or information
about the value itself; the use of specific examples from different business
units are instrumental in establishing some resonance with employees.
Performance goals or objectives appear to be based upon actual company
initiatives; these provide measurable results around which the employee can
strive to achieve. In this regard, it is important that employees understand
their contribution to the overall goal of the company. When instituted
properly, this tends to provide some level of fulfillment that the employee’s
work is valued and vital to company success.
Provide channels of input for employees to provide information regarding
company policy, work processes and other areas that impact employees’ dayto-day performance, in addition to the performance objectives. To the extent
that cross-functional teams can be established, if these are established
properly, they provide an opportunity to increase empathy across the
different business units. This serves to minimize any internal dissension and
provides for greater communication.
While this can be risky, the establishment of competition between business
units can provide an opportunity for strengthening internal relationships
between team members and focusing attention on performance metrics. The
level of risk is somewhat dependent on 1) metrics that are directly influenced
by the business units; and 2) competition should really be between business
units engaged in the same activity (i.e. manufacturing teams in different
locations, sales teams, etc.).
26