Why the Employee Engagement Survey is out of Date

May 25, 2015

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract The objective of this project is to examine a current article and determine the capacity to analysis the current event by developing a rational summary (Schinker, 2015). This article is about the review of a somewhat outdated management method that has recently been given an updated title. The company examined within the article can be any kind of general company and is intended to be used as an illustration of what any company is able of transforming (Schinker, 2015). This is article is intended to demonstration what is not functioning within a company and how that company can go about revamping their method of providing an enjoyable work experience. Current Event Summarization The article that I found for my current event was “Why the employee engagement survey is out of date?” and is basically a summarization of another article titled “It's Time To Rethink The 'Employee Engagement' Issue” with an ultimate resolution. So to begin the author of “It's Time To Rethink The 'Employee Engagement' Issue” is Josh Bersin and based off of my article he argues that the conventional yearly engagement survey is invalid and unnecessary (Red, 2015). Bersin asks for more of an all-inclusive, unified, and instantaneous method to assessing and pushing for greater amounts of associate dedication and desire (Bersin, 2014). The most noted yearly engagement survey developer was actually Gallup who created the initial survey over 30 years ago (Bersin, 2014). Gallup was initially motivated by the industrial engineer Frederick Taylor’s work of the late-1800s (Bersin, 2014). Taylor was the first to notice the increased associate satisfaction on the steel business’ production rates (Bersin, 2014). My article continues to explain that Bersin has an argument that allows us to understand that this old evaluation standard is no longer applicable due to the fact that there are currently too many types of surveying tools used to gauge associate engagement (Red, 2015). The first reason why this evaluation standard is no longer applicable is because the standard is just too constricted (Red, 2015). Based off of my article Bersin implies that the conventional engagement survey is not as comprehensive as it could be (Red, 2015). Developing work societies mean redefining most management designs, the job atmosphere, and even the labor force itself which normally are excluded from most surveys (Red, 2015). Therefore, Bersin goes on to state that companies have to look past these aspects of engagement and come up with innovated ways to make their associates feel wanted and cherished (Red, 2015). Types of ways my article says this is possible could be by providing snack rooms, rooms to relax in, and even ways to eliminate stress such as yoga or a masseuses (Red, 2015). The other reason why this evaluation standard is no longer applicable is because the term engagement is misleading (Red, 2015). Based off of my article it states that Bersin even has a problem with the term “engagement” he says that engaging a company’s associates is no longer adequate (Red, 2015). He says that a company’s associates have to ready to commit or marry the company (Red, 2015). Yet, the only way this would be possible is by establishing a company that makes their associates want to come to work (Red, 2015). Based off of the article Bersin feels that it would be best if companies began utilizing a new evaluation standard besides the conventional yearly engagement survey (Red, 2015). With that said a new method that companies could adopt would be by gauging the delight and career fulfillment on a regular basis (Red, 2015). By placing instantaneous reaction instruments to a company’s associates it allows these associates to straightforwardly convey their emotions to management so that they can control any disputes before that become overwhelming (Red, 2015). The article also states that based off of Bersin’s perspective that associates should be viewed as the core to a company’s production instead of as just cogs in the machine, which can be interpreted by saying that instead of a company working their associates to the bone that they could utilize the new method mentioned above and make themselves seductive to the associates and they will engage themselves much more often (Red, 2015). Current Event Determination Earlier this week we discussed a topic called the quality of work life programs. I feel that this article greatly relates to this concept due to the fact that by engaging a company’s associates they can determine what makes going to work irresistible. This is what the quality of work life programs do for the companies that use them. Therefore, we can see with the following chart that quality of work life programs could basically be the solution to the engagement survey problem.

Quality of work life		Job satisfaction		Performance
Work propose, Job atmosphere & amenities, Work reassurance, Health, Incomes & compensations, Job life equilibrium, Education & growth, Management & Associate equality	The first concept leads to the next concept	Excellent company to work for minus pressures, improved enthusiasm & fulfillment, decreased truancy, smaller turnover.	The second concept leads to the last concept	Increase in sales, assets & ROAG, shareholder worth, company sustainability, competitive advantage, associate awareness, scientific guidance & elasticity.

(Gayathiri & Ramakrishnan, 2013). With what I have learned this week in regards to what the quality of work life programs are they are essentially expected to help enhance the personal lives of a company’s associates and their functionality to more of an acceptable standard. Now with this said to determine the solution to the question of whether I feel the article discussed a prediction of a recovery, if a negative approach, or success, if a new launch or revamping of a current policy/approach, to this issue?” (Schinker, 2015). I believe that with the concept that the end of the article “Why the employee engagement survey is out of date?” discussed that the quality of work life programs are the solution to the engagement survey issue and could become very effective in the long run for many companies. I also feel that as long as companies attempt to work with their associates this concept will become even better than the “engagement survey” concept. Therefore, I believe that as long as companies are trying to enhance their method of associate engagement and try to utilize some of the abundant resources accessible to them that they can handle their functionality issues successfully. Conclusion With all of the material from above I trust that the article “Why the employee engagement survey is out of date?” is an applicable article that completely displays that I understand what make this a management issue (Schinker, 2015). The rationale for this is due to the fact that the article expresses a procedure that is similar to the quality of work life programs, which are a management concept that we discussed this week. The quality of work life programs can also be used as a means for managers to enhance the lives of their associates and the inclusive functionality of the company. References Bersin, J. (2014, April 10). It's Time To Rethink The 'Employee Engagement' Issue. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/04/10/its-time-to-rethink-the-employee-engagement-issue/. Gayathiri, R., & Ramakrishnan, L. (2013, January 1). Quality of Work Life – Linkage with Job Satisfaction and Performance. Retrieved May 25, 2015, from https://www.ijbmi.org/papers/Vol(2)1/Version_2/A210108.pdf, Red, L. (2015, March 12). Why the employee engagement survey is out of date. Retrieved May 25, 2015, from https://www.leadershipreview.net/why-employee-engagement-survey-out-date Schinker, R. (2015). Week 2 Current Event Paper Assignment Description. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from https://davenport.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/execute/displayLearningUnit?course_id=_189795_1&content_id=_7164613_1.

Cite this page