Gallup Research on Engagement and Productivity
From pages 24-26 of the Clifton StrengthsFinders Online Assessment Technical Report
Engagement
In 896 business units, pre-post measures of employee engagement were available in the form of survey data from Gallup’s Q12. (For information on the Q12 see Wagner & Harter, 2006). The core Q12 survey consists of 12 Likert items rated on a scale of 1-5. In interpreting the amount of growth on the Q12 GrandMean (calculated as the mean of the responses to the 12 statements) to consider substantial growth, Gallup researchers have considered a number of different criteria, including various sources of possible error (sampling, measurement, transient), and the relationship of changes in engagement to changes in business outcomes. Considering all of this information, Gallup researchers have adopted, as a general guideline, using .20 as criteria for work unit growth, or a 0.10 improvement for larger groups with over 1,000 employees.
Among the 896 work units with Q12 data, those whose managers received a strengths intervention (generally involving some personalized feedback, but not universally) showed 0.16 more improvement on their Q12 GrandMean relative to those units where the manager received nothing. This was a simple wait-list control rather than a placebo-controlled study, but given the size of these workgroups (less than n=1,000 but generally larger than n=100), this indicates some evidence of significant increase in engagement from the strengths intervention. This is particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period — the other 100+ employees in both the study and control groups received nothing.
Data on the individual engagement responses were also available for 12,157 employees. Among those employees receiving a strengths intervention, engagement improved by 0.33 relative to employees without the intervention. This was also largely a simple wait-list control, where most of the “control” employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as well. Nevertheless, the substantial gains in employee engagement among the employees receiving strengths feedback is a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention.
Employee Turnover
Turnover data were available for 65,672 employees. Among employees receiving some strengths feedback, turnover rates were 14.9% lower than for those employees receiving nothing (controlling for job type and tenure). Presumably, some of this gain in utility flows through the improvement in engagement discussed previously, given the large body of evidence linking employee engagement to employee turnover. Gallup researchers intend to explore the structure of this multivariate relationship among strengths, engagement, and performance as data become available.
Productivity
There were 530 work units with productivity data. Those whose managers received strengths feedback showed 12.5% greater productivity post-intervention relative to those units where the manager received nothing. Similar to the engagement data discussed above, this is particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both the study and control groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement studies, the “control”managers here were wait-list controls.
Data on the productivity of 1,874 individual employees were examined for the effects of strengths feedback as well. Most of these employees were engaged in sales functions, where the productivity data represent sales. Among those employees receiving a strengths intervention, productivity improved by 7.8% relative to employees without the intervention. This was also largely a simple wait-list control, where many of the “control”employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as well. Nevertheless, the substantial gains in productivity among the employees receiving strengths feedback is a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention.
There is also thought to be a significant amount of range restriction in the measurable talents of many of these individuals, as a large percentage of them were selected for their current position via a talent-based selection instrument. That is, participants were required to possess at a minimum the required levels of the talents measured by these selection instruments to be eligible for the strengths intervention in the first place.
Profitability
Profit data were available for 469 business units, ranging from retail stores to large manufacturing facilities. Those units whose managers received strengths feedback showed 8.9% greater profitability post-intervention relative to units where the manager received nothing. Again, this is extremely positive evidence of the utility of investing in talent; only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both the study and control groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement studies, the “control”managers here were wait-list controls for the most part.
Engagement
In 896 business units, pre-post measures of employee engagement were available in the form of survey data from Gallup’s Q12. (For information on the Q12 see Wagner & Harter, 2006). The core Q12 survey consists of 12 Likert items rated on a scale of 1-5. In interpreting the amount of growth on the Q12 GrandMean (calculated as the mean of the responses to the 12 statements) to consider substantial growth, Gallup researchers have considered a number of different criteria, including various sources of possible error (sampling, measurement, transient), and the relationship of changes in engagement to changes in business outcomes. Considering all of this information, Gallup researchers have adopted, as a general guideline, using .20 as criteria for work unit growth, or a 0.10 improvement for larger groups with over 1,000 employees.
Among the 896 work units with Q12 data, those whose managers received a strengths intervention (generally involving some personalized feedback, but not universally) showed 0.16 more improvement on their Q12 GrandMean relative to those units where the manager received nothing. This was a simple wait-list control rather than a placebo-controlled study, but given the size of these workgroups (less than n=1,000 but generally larger than n=100), this indicates some evidence of significant increase in engagement from the strengths intervention. This is particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period — the other 100+ employees in both the study and control groups received nothing.
Data on the individual engagement responses were also available for 12,157 employees. Among those employees receiving a strengths intervention, engagement improved by 0.33 relative to employees without the intervention. This was also largely a simple wait-list control, where most of the “control” employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as well. Nevertheless, the substantial gains in employee engagement among the employees receiving strengths feedback is a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention.
Employee Turnover
Turnover data were available for 65,672 employees. Among employees receiving some strengths feedback, turnover rates were 14.9% lower than for those employees receiving nothing (controlling for job type and tenure). Presumably, some of this gain in utility flows through the improvement in engagement discussed previously, given the large body of evidence linking employee engagement to employee turnover. Gallup researchers intend to explore the structure of this multivariate relationship among strengths, engagement, and performance as data become available.
Productivity
There were 530 work units with productivity data. Those whose managers received strengths feedback showed 12.5% greater productivity post-intervention relative to those units where the manager received nothing. Similar to the engagement data discussed above, this is particularly notable because only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both the study and control groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement studies, the “control”managers here were wait-list controls.
Data on the productivity of 1,874 individual employees were examined for the effects of strengths feedback as well. Most of these employees were engaged in sales functions, where the productivity data represent sales. Among those employees receiving a strengths intervention, productivity improved by 7.8% relative to employees without the intervention. This was also largely a simple wait-list control, where many of the “control”employees in this study subsequently received strengths feedback and coaching as well. Nevertheless, the substantial gains in productivity among the employees receiving strengths feedback is a very positive indication of the utility of the intervention.
There is also thought to be a significant amount of range restriction in the measurable talents of many of these individuals, as a large percentage of them were selected for their current position via a talent-based selection instrument. That is, participants were required to possess at a minimum the required levels of the talents measured by these selection instruments to be eligible for the strengths intervention in the first place.
Profitability
Profit data were available for 469 business units, ranging from retail stores to large manufacturing facilities. Those units whose managers received strengths feedback showed 8.9% greater profitability post-intervention relative to units where the manager received nothing. Again, this is extremely positive evidence of the utility of investing in talent; only the managers of these groups received strengths feedback during the study period, with the remainder of the employees in both the study and control groups receiving nothing in most cases. Also similar to the engagement studies, the “control”managers here were wait-list controls for the most part.
