I’m not going to mention that it’s Thursday (again). Well, the (again) thing is kinda goofy, as Thursday comes around every week at this same time. Sort of like Wednesday. Actually, nothing like Wednesday. If it was, I wouldn’t always be a day late with my Wednesday blog. However if I switch to Thursday I know that I will wind up writing this on Friday and after another six months, I’ll be back to Wednesday. Sigh. My life is so complicated.

Anyway….

Really Interesting Stuff From the 2008 Employee Hold’em National Benchmark on Workforce Engagement

Ok, I just got done talking with my PR folks and we are all excited about releasing the results from this year’s benchmark study over the next 6-9 months. There is so much DATA, it’s an abundance of riches… Here are just a few nuggets related to the engagement of workers to their organization:

• Employees in Leisure & Hospitality and Federal Government employees are the most Fully Engaged of any industry group at 51% and 50% respectively.
• New England employees are the least engaged of any geographic group, with more employees Unengaged than Fully Engaged (32% Fully Engaged, 42% Unengaged). Engagement has fallen by 27% in the New England area over the last five years.
• In each of the three national benchmark studies (2004, 2006, 2008), employees who were caring for an adult loved one and/or had a child under 18 living at home were more Fully Engaged than employees who weren’t.
• Engagement falls after the first 30 days of an employees tenure and doesn’t increase until the fourth year of employment.
• Employees with their employer for less than two years are significantly less engaged than they were in 2004.
• Younger workers (18-34) are significantly less engaged than they were in 2004. Not surprisingly, these are the same employees who will have seven jobs by the time they are 30.
• Employees in mid-size companies (100-500) are significantly more Unengaged than in 2004.
• As in 2004 and 2006, there is little difference in engagement by the employee’s gender or education level.

And although I’m not ready to talk too much about it as I’m still analyzing the data, employees who work for an environmentally conscious organization are considerably more likely to “stay longer, work harder, and recommend the organization” than employees who don’t work for a green company. This one looks big, stay tuned.

Good to Great

I’m often asked if there is a “limit” to how much companies can improve as it relates to employee satisfaction and engagement. Although it is mathematically easier to show improvement when you start at a lower level, I often see the good get better. Improvement in employee engagement and retention can be continual; it’s more about effort than it is about “scores”.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal came to a similar conclusion.

Based on 350 coronary-bypass surgery deaths at some Ontario hospitals, it was determined that 1/3 of these deaths were the result of not following SOP’s and other “preventable events”. Poor coordination among the surgical team (Communication), not recognizing the signs of infections (Training and Development), and lack of proper medical equipment (Tools and Technology) were determined to be significant risk factors that ultimately contributed to death.

Even when it’s life and death, the good can get better. Glad to know that improving retention is a little bit easier!

The Financial Impact of Workforce Engagement

Quite the snappy title. It’s what I used for the title of my 3 hour workshop yesterday to the Compensation and Benefits Professionals of Indiana. I was able to link Workforce Engagement to:

• Increases (and decreases) in turnover
• The amount of time wasted by employees, now at 125 minutes per day
• A productivity surplus or deficit based on how hard employees work
• Changes in revenue
• Changes in stock price
• Changes in profitability
• Increases in EBITDA
• The cost of replacing workers (1/2 to 1 1/2 times an employees salary)

I was even fortunate enough to show some client retention data showing the impressive decreases in turnover we’ve achieved over the last three years  The CBPI folks were more impressed at the $42,500 we save for each 1% decrease we achieve in turnover.  Best thing?  That $42,500 gets saved every month we keep turnover lower than before.  Over the last 2 years, we have saved over $5 million bucks…$5,000,000.

Not bad.