Summary of Key Findings
InvestCo. has a written company commitment to customers, people (employees), shareholders and communities. Aligned with this commitment, InvestCo. actively supports their employees by investing in a small team fully dedicated to developing and implementing activities in support of employee engagement feedback.
In addition to resourcing employee engagement activities, InvestCo. has also, on occasion, integrated support and improvement of employee engagement items into individual annual performance objectives. This reinforces the importance of employee engagement to the organization and ensures recognition for employee engagement activities annually.
While studies indicate that an organization’s reputation for social …show more content…
While employee feedback clearly indicates employees believe in ABC Co.’s corporate responsibility …show more content…
First, while individual employee survey data was captured by the , only aggregated data at the team level was provided to the researcher. This was intentional in order to maintain the anonymity of the individual. By aggregating data up to a team of five individuals or greater, data variances were averaged to the team. As reward data was at the individual level, the aggregation of results prevented the ability to capture insights as to how reward receipt impacted individual employees. When data at the team level was not available due to a lack of survey respondents, results were aggregated even further. This was also a concern as this resulted in “teams” of disproportionate sizes and data findings that were not specific to the immediate supervisor. Within InvestCo., maximum span of control is generally established to be 12 subordinates. While this can vary, span of control within the data varied dramatically with a minimum of 5 team members and a maximum of XX team members. Maintaining a span of control of XX subordinates is not a realistic scenario at InvestCo., but was a realistic scenario in the data due to aggregation of results. The researcher did attempt to control for this discrepancy by reviewing results at level 5 and level 6
InvestCo. has a written company commitment to customers, people (employees), shareholders and communities. Aligned with this commitment, InvestCo. actively supports their employees by investing in a small team fully dedicated to developing and implementing activities in support of employee engagement feedback.
In addition to resourcing employee engagement activities, InvestCo. has also, on occasion, integrated support and improvement of employee engagement items into individual annual performance objectives. This reinforces the importance of employee engagement to the organization and ensures recognition for employee engagement activities annually.
While studies indicate that an organization’s reputation for social …show more content…
While employee feedback clearly indicates employees believe in ABC Co.’s corporate responsibility …show more content…
First, while individual employee survey data was captured by the , only aggregated data at the team level was provided to the researcher. This was intentional in order to maintain the anonymity of the individual. By aggregating data up to a team of five individuals or greater, data variances were averaged to the team. As reward data was at the individual level, the aggregation of results prevented the ability to capture insights as to how reward receipt impacted individual employees. When data at the team level was not available due to a lack of survey respondents, results were aggregated even further. This was also a concern as this resulted in “teams” of disproportionate sizes and data findings that were not specific to the immediate supervisor. Within InvestCo., maximum span of control is generally established to be 12 subordinates. While this can vary, span of control within the data varied dramatically with a minimum of 5 team members and a maximum of XX team members. Maintaining a span of control of XX subordinates is not a realistic scenario at InvestCo., but was a realistic scenario in the data due to aggregation of results. The researcher did attempt to control for this discrepancy by reviewing results at level 5 and level 6