Job satisfaction is something companies try to quantify and measure through the use of surveys. Over the years satisfaction surveys have been called opinion surveys, climate surveys, and now, engagement surveys. Although the names have changed, they are designed to measure employees’ attitudinal responses towards work. Knowledge gained through these surveys is great, but what the company does with it is another story. What are some practical purposes of these surveys? In others words what can they actually be used for, besides merely knowing how people feel?

If a company or organization is not planning on making a change or assessing the effects of a recent change based on the satisfaction surveys, the organization might as well not have the survey at all. The only exception to the above is if the organization is conducting its first job satisfaction survey for point of reference.

Job satisfaction surveys are practical when they are determining the results of a recent change, such as a management change or a new human resource activity. If the result of the survey is negative relative to the last one, then one can assume the change had a negative effect on employee satisfaction. If otherwise, the change made a positive impact on employee satisfaction. The course of action the organization chooses to take based on these surveys is up to them, but from a standpoint of lowering turnover it would be advisable to revert a negative change and continue and consider intensifying a positive change.

In addition to reducing employee turnover, job satisfaction surveys may in themselves make employees feel their opinions matter. For a successful modern corporation to thrive I believe employee opinions do matter.

Many future problems can be circumvented if you select the right employees. Good selection is more than merely picking the right person, but rather knowing what you are looking for from a skills & abilities standpoint and traits & attributes standpoint. Skills and abilities can often be seen on a resume or application, but personal attributes, traits and character cannot be seen and are more elusive. Many employers and experts think these elusive traits are more important. How can these elusive qualities be assessed in the hiring process?

In a modern environment, employees can tap a multitude of resources in assessing traits that are not obvious from reading a college transcript or resume application. A good selection not only takes into consideration skills and attributes, such as a B.S. in Computer Engineering with extensive Java programming knowledge, but also must take into consideration values such as emotional stability and motivation. It is for this reason oftentimes employers will choose applicants who were involved in team sports over a similar applicant who was not.

Team sport is something which of course requires teamwork, and a sense of motivation. An important characteristic to look for when hiring new employees is employee confidence. As Barrick and Zimmerman (2009) put it:

"Employees with higher confidence will be more persistent in striving to adapt to novel job demands or the work setting and will be less likely to withdraw from work because of anxiety over low performance or ineffective adjustment." (pg. 186)

From personal experience, I find that many hiring professionals will use new technologies to determine these aspects of potential hires. Facebook, which is a popular site for sharing personal experiences and showing off to the world, is also a great place to check out what kind life this potential employee is living. It is for this purpose that many clever college students (myself included) will remove anything from their Facebook profile or photo albums that may keep them from getting a job.

Employee referral is a powerful tool as new employees hired on through this method will have social support early on, and usually will be more confident (pg. 189). Employees who have the confidence to refer someone else will most likely think twice before suggesting someone they know is unfit for the position.

References:

Barrick, M. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2009). Hiring for retention and performance. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 183-206.

Using quantitative or qualitative approach to evaluating employees

Performance management can be approached in many different ways. One of the debates that has continued over the years is the question of whether to have a quantitative or qualitative approach to evaluating employees. Analyze the pros and cons in this debate and share your personal perspective based on your experience

The reason this makes for a good debate is because both sides have a valid point, but in my opinion certain variables come into play which will make one option favorable over another. A quantitative approach for performance is much easier when an employee's work can be measured - a farmer can judge a seasonal worker by the number of apples he's able to pick, for example. A qualitative approach for assessing performance is more useful for employees who do a wide variety of work, and produce ideas, or lead others.

Of course, there is an argument to be made against the quantitative approach if external factors come into play - some might consider the personal situation or background of the seasonal worker in evaluating why he didn't pick as many apples as he should have. My argument is that in evaluating employees the main focus should be on what value the employee has brought to the company. There are laws restricting employers from releasing employees for sickness or pregnancy because quite honestly both of these things will affect the employee's contribution at least in the short to medium term. For small, fast paced companies this can become a major liability in the bottom line and may end up causing the end of the company!

A qualitative approach is more useful in assessing performance for those who engage in a variety of activities and who's personality or leadership style can be evaluated 100 different ways by 100 people. Of course, a methodical qualitative approach can still be used for those with a varieties of roles and attributes by breaking down those attributes and basing performance on a collection of them.

Either way, one would be hard pressed to rid any performance review of subjectivity unless of course the function is simply evaluated by 'picking X number of apples' or 'selling Y number of products'. The more accurate the assessment the more likely it is employees will be able to improve on their troubled areas.

Overusing training to solve employee related problems in organizations

When it comes to solving employee related problems in organizations often times the topic of training and development comes up. More often than not training is used to address these issues. What do you see, if any, that could be potentially wrong with this approach?

Regarding employee related problems I believe the second step after verifying that training is not the answer is to review that employee's quality of work life and whether or not he/she is being compensated and treated with respect for his/her abilities. I find it a bit narrow minded to believe that all employee related problems arise out of lack of training, but this does not rule training out as a tool for educating on a variety of issues both technical and ethical. If neither training or a review of the employee's quality of work life prove effective it is possible the employee is not optimizing his/her work priorities, and may need more assistance by his/her manager in doing so. Some employees will need more coaching than others, and a good manager will place each employee where he/she functions best. If all else fails, it may be time to reorganize and possibly consider punitive actions against an under-performing employee. Some employee related problems are based on clashes of personality, which may involve two or more employees whose infighting is damaging the effectiveness of the business. In this case it may be wise to consider moving around employees (if the company has multiple branches), or dismissing one of the employees so that work can get done.