|
Measuring Commitment "It is not enough to profess values. They have to be lived." Charles Handy 1. Measuring commitment dates back to the HR policies supporting total quality management strategies in the 1980s. A combination of social and employment trends in the intervening years makes the task more complex. 2. Large organizations now see the creation of commonly held values as the best 'glue' to hold together an increasingly disparate workforce. However, you cannot impose static values from the top, TQM-style, with Generation X and Y workers. They have to be negotiated and constantly reviewed. 3. Employee survey frameworks, supported by the latest intranet technology, have to be sufficiently sophisticated and continuously applied to anticipate events that might undermine individual commitment early enough to be able to respond effectively. 4. Developing this capability directly supports the new strategic concepts of readiness, resilience and operational risk management. The most consistent and re-iterated message we received from the organizations we surveyed was that measuring employee satisfaction was futile unless high satisfaction ratings could be linked directly to performance increases. Consequently, developing accurate indicators of individual or team-based commitment Ð both to the immediate tasks in hand and to the overall mission or values of the organization Ð is seen as a more important focus. High commitment to the firm and the task in hand does not only boost individual performance. It underpins the individuals' willingness to stay, engage, innovate, work as part of a team, trust and emotionally involve themselves with the organization. Measuring commitment in this way is not new. It is rooted in the quality revolution that transformed Japanese manufacturing in the post-war era and swept through Europe and North America in all sectors during the 1970s and 1980s. If you are a subscriber, click here to read the full briefing. Click here to find out how to subscribe. |
