Embracing Change Staying Ahead of the Curve Keeping Employees Engaged in a Changing Workplace Noel Landuyt nlanduytaustinutexasedu 5124719831 Institute for Organizational Excellence ID: 592815
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "CUPA HR" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
CUPA HR
“Embracing Change: Staying Ahead of the Curve” Keeping Employees Engaged in a Changing WorkplaceNoel Landuytnlanduyt@austin.utexas.edu512-471-9831Slide2
Institute for Organizational Excellence
University of Texas at Austin’s School of Social Work Working in this area for over 30 years Research Unit History Research Work in 35 States Multiple Benchmark Groupings Last Year: Employee Engagement (1/4 Million employees) Customer Surveys (1/2 Million customers of services)
Leadership Excellence (360, Collaboration, Supervision)
Measurement is a Science “Soft Measures” to Hard Numbers Slide3
What is Engagement?
Fully EngagedPassively EngagedDisengagedActively Disengaged
30%
50%
20%Slide4
3 Key Engagement StrategiesSlide5
Survey of Employee Engagement
Engagement Research as it relates to: Organizational Learning Turnover Utilization of Leave Time Measurement is a Science “Soft Measures” to Hard Numbers (Perceptions??) What you don’t know might hurt you.
Engagement Increased Importance in Public Sector
Slide6Slide7
Instrument Features
10 Demographic and 71 Standard Items Coded for Multiple Organizational Breakdowns Up to 20 Additional Items (specific your organization) Custom Links and Pull-ins Available Formats: Online (English and Spanish)
Hardcopy (English and Spanish)
Online for Visually Impaired Reader Slide8
Instrument Reporting
Overall Executive Summary and Data Report Each Coded Area Exec Summary & Data Report (pdf) Overall Summary Data in Excel All Coded Areas Summary Data in Excel Benchmarks: Over time
Similar Size
All Respondents Higher Education
Slide9
Reporting Illustrations
Slide10
Reporting Illustrations
Slide11
Illustration: UTSA
ProfileSurvey PromotionWebsiteRoll backExecutive LeadershipMid ManagementTown HallWebsite: http://www.utsa.edu/hr/soe/2008/Slide12Slide13
Enhanced Performance Through Organizational Learning
Moynihan and Landuyt (2009), How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging Cultural and Structural Perspectives. Public Administration Review . V69, N6.ResearchSlide14
Turnover Intention in State Government
Moynihan and Landuyt (2008), Explaining Turnover Intention in State Government: Examining Roles of Gender, Life Cycle, and Loyalty. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 28(2). Factors decreasing probability of likelihood of intent to leave.
Loyalty: 1 unit increase on scale = 1.2% decrease.
Empowerment: 1 unit increase on scale = 4% decrease. Job Satisfaction: 1 unit increase on scale = 5% decrease.
ResearchSlide15
Research
Various other research topics: Employee Retention/Turnover Knowledge Integration and Information Transfer Burnout Team Work Quality
Organizational Induced Learned Helplessness
Employee Voice Social and Organizational Capital Slide16
Case Study
ProfileTexas OrganizationApproximately 1000 FTEHighly Educated WorkforceSlide17
Case
StudyUtilization of Sick LeaveTurnoverSurvey of Employee Engagement 1 2 3 4 5Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyDisagree Agree
Divided into 2 GroupsSlide18
Findings: Pride In Work
No Real Difference (5 hours)GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
63
Satisfied
58Slide19
Findings: Benefits
No Real Difference (5 hours)GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
64
Satisfied
59Slide20
Findings: Supervision
Difference of 22 hoursGroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
80
Satisfied
58Slide21
Findings: Organizational Mission
Difference of 24 hoursGroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
81
Satisfied
57Slide22
Findings: Pay
Difference of 24 hoursGroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
74
Satisfied
50Slide23
Findings: Job Satisfaction
Difference of 28 hoursGroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
84
Satisfied
56Slide24
Findings: Valued Employee
GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
88
Satisfied
54
Difference of 34 hours (approaching a work week)Slide25
Findings: Ethical Behavior
GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
93
Satisfied
59
Difference of 34 hours (approaching a work week)Slide26
Findings: Harassment
GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationDissatisfied
110
Satisfied
59
Difference of 51 hoursSlide27
Findings: Turnover
GroupAverage # of Hours of Sick Leave UtilizationLeft
107
Stayed
57
Difference of 50 hoursSlide28
Utilization of Leave Time and Turnover
Landuyt (2009) – Employee Attitudes, Leave Utilization and Turnover - Internal Working PaperResearch
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Difference
Pride in Work
58 Hours
63 Hours
5 Hours
Benefits
59
64
5
Supervision
58
80
22
Mission
57
81
24
Pay
50
74
24
Job Satisfaction
56
84
28
Valued
54
88
34
Ethical Behavior
59
93
34
Harassment
59
110
51
Stayed
Left
Turnover
57
107
50Slide29
3 Key Engagement StrategiesSlide30
Noel Landuyt
nlanduyt@austin.utexas.edu512-471-9831