Skip to main content

How (not) to measure employee engagement


Want to measure employee engagement? Here is one way how to do it:

1. Measure by a survey sent twice a year
But what if people just happen to have a bit sucky day when answering? It can cause quite a distortion. 

2. Base it on one question that is: how likely is it that you would recommend the whole company as a great workplace
People might be very engaged on their work and/or in their team, while thinking that overall the company is not as good a place to work in.

3. Score based on NPS grading
Using NPS when everybody knows the valuation behind the numbering distorts the overall grade.

4. Say it is voluntary to answer but give a lot of pressure to get a 100% answer rate
Like, why do stuff like this?

5. If the team score is finally too low, threaten it by certain negative actions
I can't even...

(If this sounds a bit too specific to be a general example and more like a real life experience, you might be on to something)


An alternative I might support would be to:

1. Talk to people often. As a group, and 1 on 1. Pay attention to what people say and don't say. Try to be sensitive for bad signals and ask about them. Have a place where people can leave anonymous feedback all the time. And on top if you like to use a survey use a simple one that is asked often (like every week).

2. Be more specific with questions, but also allow open answers. Have discussions.  And ask rather on past experience then future forecasts.

3. Ditch the fake grades. If you really want to simplify employee engagement to three alternatives, go with bad - neutral - good.

4. If someone wants to opt out of the survey, let them. Maybe they are actually engaged in something important and don't want to spend time to answer on yet another fake survey.

5. Use the feedback to what it is meant for. As a trigger to think and ask for suggestions on how we could improve.

Just want the number? Pick one and declare happy,

Really want to improve? Then Do The Work.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Testers doing test automation - is that the most important thing for you to do right now?

I've been thinking quite a lot about tester's moving to do test automation.  Lately beause of these three things: 1.  European testing conference , a great testing conference I attended couple of weeks ago. It is very cool due to many things; the way the speakers get compensated, the focus on the conferring side of conferences making it very easy for people to discuss stuff, the way the talks are chosen, and because there are also a lot of developers joining. So anyway when I was talking with several of the attendees, it was a bit strange how it was easier for me to talk about the product development as a whole with the developers, where as with the testers it more naturally moved into talk of automation and tools. Also on the open space, I think the majority of the topics pitched was automation or tool related. And quite little on the process or on the customer facing side of product development.  2. In my company there are a lot of different products and...

Testing drunk

(My first blog writing ever.) I've been thinking a long time that it's funny how many bugs I find by accident. Try to do something, make a mistake and boom - a bug is found.  Making the mistakes intentionally doesn't quite work - that's why they are called accidents I guess.. So I've thought of ways to make myself more prone to accidents, coming up with an apparent one; testing drunk. TUI (testing under the influence). So this I gotta try. More to come on that later.

Six reasons why testers should do code reviews

I have had quite a lot of discussions about code reviews. Quite many also with testers, by which I have understood that many do not do those. I will not start arguing here on whether code reviews are good/important or not. But I will list a few things why I think testers would benefit of doing them. 1. Code is the only documentation that is up to date . If you really want to know how something really functions, you want to be able to see and read the code. 2. Knowing more about the thing done enables you to do better testing . You can spot things that you should definitely test, and things that you probably don't need to test that much. Like extra things added by coder, usage&modifications of existing functions, data types, etc. And to arguments thinking that one loses their "independence" as a tester by knowing too much, I would worry a lot less about that than about testing stuff that you have no idea on how it has been built. 3. Improve logging . I obse...