Gary and others,
First, I am not criticizing the organization. I am criticizing a
generalization made from its data in the article. I am not criticizing
the whole article. I am not even disagreeing with the generalization.
What I am trying to point out is that such a generalization is really
only a report on the state of the way things are in general, and not an
analysis of why things are the way they are. Second, criticism can be
useful. For example, many criticized the initial reports generated by
ETS from its Field Test for Business as not being detailed enough to
provide specific guidance for course development. As a result of that
criticism, the new feedback reports that are received by ETS's clients
are significantly more detailed.
The purpose of research is to explain, not to just report. Just out of
curiosity, I ran a preliminary analysis using a group of managers in an
enlightened organization (one that spends considerable time, effort and
money to develop the skills needed by its managers and leaders to
promote the growth and development of intellectual/human capital) and
commitment. The results indicated that their commitment improved over
time. I have been tracking managers in this organization for close to 20
years.
Organizations are too different to conclude that what is found in a
large study is true in any one organization. The article that I offered
to furnish to any one who would like it describes how this organization
has supported the development of the skills needed by its managers and
leaders to promote the growth and development of intellectual/human
capital that makes a difference. No one and no organization can get
ahead by being average. If I remember correctly, Tom Peters once said
that what many executives should have inscribed above their doors as
their motto is, "We're no worse than all the others."
We should not accept the way things are, but to make intelligent
choices about what to do, we need research that searches for reasons why
things are the way they are and goes beyond just reporting on the state
of things. We need more action oriented research. To improve the world
in which we all must live and work we need in-depth research that
investigates the reasons for why things are as they are, and goes to the
next step of investigating what interventions make improvements.
To close this e-mail out let me reiterate my offer. Last year, my
co-authors and I presented a paper at the
Academy of Management entitled, "Does the 360 Feedback Process Create
Actionable Knowledge Equally across Cultures?" It was judged worthy of
being published in the 2004 Best Papers Proceedings of the Academy of
Management, and also being a finalist for the Carolyn Dexter Award, an
Academy of Management Award for the Best International Paper. If you
would like a complete copy of this paper, please send me your postal
address off-line and I will send you a copy.
For those who have already sent me a request, you should be receiving
them next week. I had to make some copies of the manuscript through
central duplication. I am sure you understand : )
Frank
Frank Shipper, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Perdue School of Business
Salisbury University
Salisbury, MD 21801
Phone: (410) 543-6333
FAX: (410) 546-6208
E-mail:
fmshipper@salisbury.edu
Home Page:
http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~fmshippe/home/
>>>
discuss@rds-net.com 10/02/05 7:32 PM >>>
Frank,
I'm certainly not here to defend the Gallup research, as I'm sure they
can do
that for themselves, and would be happy to answer any of your questions
about
their research. However, I will say that Gallup has a fantastic
reputation for
their meticulousness in their research. While I can't speak personally
about
this for Gallup, I did work at ETS, which has a similar reputation
about its
research. I can assure you that the internal reviews were quite
rigorous, and I
have no doubt that they are similar for Gallup.
However, I would like to clarify your thoughts on one thing you
mentioned that
Gallup said:
"According to the 700,000-plus employees Gallup recently interviewed on
the Q12,
the longer employees stay with an organization, the less engaged they
become."
You then sated: " My response to this comment is did the Gallup
organization
control for the kind of organization, the kind of leadership or the
kind of
management these
people experience. If Gallup had, I doubt that it would have reached
the
same conclusion. The problem is that the typical worker is not in an
organization with leaders and managers that have the skills to promote
growth and development of intellectual/human capital."
My question to you is, if the "typical worker is not in an organization
with
leaders and managers that have the skills to promote growth and
development of
intellectual/human capital," then why wouldn't their engagement levels
drop over
time the longer they are exposed to these ineffective management
practices?
Most employees are usually excited about a new job. They want to do
their best.
But as they are exposed to these ineffective management practices
their
engagement levels drop. So the longer an employee is with an
organization, the
less likely they will be engaged. I find that the Gallup research on
this makes
perfect sense. So I am at a loss as to why you think they shouldn't
have
reached this conclusion.
BTW, what I find valuable is not locked in any one study, or even one
meta-analysis, but in seeing how the many studies tend to support each
other.
Where others look to see how they contradict one another, I look to see
how they
come together and what this commonality supports.
Finally, I'd be very interested in reading your own research on this
matter.
You can either e-mail it to me at this address or snail-mail it to me
at the
address below.
Make a Great Day!
Gary Lear
President & CEO
Resource Development Systems LLC
Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
P.O. Box 3185
Lake City, FL
32056
www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com