WMBA 6401 Week 5 Engagement Survey Readout Example

Ten Survey Items, Two to Act On by Monday: An Engagement Readout for a Library System That Ranks Low Scores Against Their Link to Intent to Stay and Spends Its Recommendations Where the Two Overlap

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6401: Human Resource Analytics

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Ten Survey Items, Two to Act On by Monday: An Engagement Readout for a Library System That Ranks Low Scores Against Their Link to Intent to Stay and Spends Its Recommendations Where the Two Overlap

The Survey and the Question

In September, Elk River County Library, the made-up county system in this course, surveyed all employees; 236 of about 310 responded, a 76 percent response rate. The survey asked forty items, and the standard report lists every one with its score. The management team does not need forty findings. It needs to know what to do on Monday. This readout ranks the items using two pieces of information for each: how poorly it scored and how strongly it is linked to something the library cares about, here employees' stated intention to stay another two years. Recommendations go where the two overlap.

Two Ways to Rank

Ranking by score alone directs attention to whatever people complain about most, which may not affect whether they stay. Ranking by link alone points to things that matter but may already be going well. The overlap identifies items that are both weak and consequential. Harter et al. (2002), in a meta-analysis across many organizations, found that engagement measured at the unit level was related to outcomes including turnover and customer satisfaction, which is why a link to intent to stay is a reasonable way to judge which items matter.

Table 1

Ten Items Ranked by Score and by Link to Intent to Stay

Correlations are between each item and the item "I expect to be working here in two years," across 236 respondents; all ten are drawn from the forty-item survey. Composite figures.

Where the Overlap Falls

Two items sit near the top of both rankings. Schedule notice scores second lowest and has the strongest link to intent to stay. Safety at closing scores fourth lowest and has the second strongest link. Both concern evening work, and both repeat what the turnover analysis in Week 3 found: assistants who work mostly evenings, with schedules changed at short notice, leave at twice the rate of others.

Two items are low but weakly linked. Pay fairness scores lowest of all, at 34 percent favorable, but its correlation with intent to stay is modest. That does not mean pay is unimportant; it means that, at Elk River, pay perceptions vary less with who plans to stay than schedule and safety perceptions do. Allen et al. (2010) noted that managers often overestimate the role of pay in turnover, and the survey supports that caution here. Advancement scores low and is moderately linked; it deserves attention in the workforce plan but not Monday's actions.

One item is well linked but already scores reasonably. Manager recognition is third in link but seventh in score, so most employees already feel recognized. Protecting it matters more than fixing it.

What to Do on Monday

Two recommendations follow from the overlap. First, adopt the scheduling rule proposed in Week 3: schedules posted three weeks ahead, with branch manager approval required for any change inside seven days. Second, address safety at closing at the four late branches: two staff members on duty at every closing, exterior lighting checked by facilities this month and a standing arrangement for staff to be escorted to their cars. Each can start inside a week and be read again in the March pulse survey.

The readout does not recommend action on pay before the county's next scale review, because the library cannot change the scale on its own and because the data suggest pay is not the main driver of intent to leave. It does recommend reporting the pay finding to the county board, since a score of 34 percent should not go unmentioned.

Sharing the Results With Staff

Employees who took the survey will want to know what it found and what will change. The readout recommends a short message from the director within two weeks, naming the two priority findings, schedule notice and safety at closing, the actions taken on each and the date of the March pulse survey. The message should also acknowledge the pay finding honestly: the library heard it, cannot change the county scale on its own and has reported it to the county board. Saying nothing about the lowest-scoring item would suggest it was ignored. Branch managers will discuss the results at their next staff meetings, using a one-page summary for their branch, so that evening staff hear directly that their concerns shaped the response.

Items Not Shown

Thirty of the forty items are not shown in the table. Most scored above 65 percent favorable and had weak links to intent to stay, so they would not change the recommendations. Two deserve mention. An item on workload during summer reading programs scored 44 percent but had a link of only 0.11, suggesting staff dislike the summer rush without planning to leave over it. An item on whether branch managers listen to suggestions scored 58 percent with a link of 0.24, close to the threshold for action; it should be watched in March.

Limits

Correlations do not prove causes. Employees who already plan to leave may rate everything lower, which would inflate all the links somewhat; the ranking among items is more reliable than any single correlation. Saks (2006) found that perceived organizational and supervisor support were among the antecedents of engagement, so the safety finding may also reflect how supported evening staff feel. A March pulse survey after the changes will test whether the overlap items improve and whether intent to stay follows.

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.48

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169