Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey 2r1e3x
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 2z6p3t
Overview 5o1f4z
& View Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey as PDF for free.
More details 6z3438
- Words: 2,008
- Pages: 4
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Employee Empowerment Evaluation Kit Part 1 – Introduction to the Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey The following survey is designed to measure the extent to which your employees feel empowered to carry out their duties in behalf of your organization. We suggest that you make one copy of the survey for each of your employees, ask them to fill it out anonymously, then ask one of them to compute the survey averages. Meanwhile, you should fill out the same survey in a manner that reflects how you believe your employees will answer each question. In the end you will have two surveys: one that indicates your employees’ average responses and one that indicates how you thought they would answer. In our next issue we will discuss a comparison of the two, focusing on the implications of their similarities and differences. Introduction: Your imm ed iate sup ervisor is par ticipating in an evalu ation of your p ercep tions of how much inf lu ence and con tro l you h ave over d ay-to-d ay even ts at work . You ar e invited to particip ate by comp leting th is survey . Your p articipation is bo th vo luntary and anonymou s. Instru ction s: To comp lete th e survey respond to the questions using bo th the fo llow ing scales by placing the appropr iate nu mber in the box to th e r ig ht of th e statem ent.
Response Scales EFFECTIVENESS
IMPOR TAN C E How impo rtant is th is facto r to you? 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7=
Not at all impo rtant So mewhat important Very impo rtant Crit ica lly importa nt
How well does your organization implement this factor? 1= Not at all eff ect iv e 2= 3= So mewhat eff ectiv e 4= 5= Very eff ect ive 6= 7= Tota lly effect ive
Sample Question Part icipat ion in Decision Mak ing 1) I am invo lved in m ak ing decisions that aff ect m y work.
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Eff ect iveness 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am involved in making decisions that affect my work. Importance (6) Effectiveness (2) In the examp le abov e th e respond ent indicated that he/sh e should be invo lved in mak ing decision s that aff ect h is/her work (6 und er Importan ce), but the organ ization is less than “som ewh at effectiv e” in th is ar ea (2 und er Eff ect iv en ess) .
© 2004 navran associates 2
Page 1
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Part 2 - Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey Instrument
Part icipat ion in Decision Mak ing 1) I am invo lved in m ak ing decisions that aff ect m y work. 2) I am g iven th e oppor tunity to suggest improv em en ts. 3) I participate in setting the go als and objectives for my job. 4) Proposed decisions ar e m ad e at th e low est appropriate level. 5) I have access to the infor mation I n eed to m ake good decision s. 6) As I g ain exper tise I am allow ed more latitud e o n the job. Percept ion s of Immediat e S up erv iso r 7) My sup ervisor v alu es my sugg estion s and r equests. 8) My superv isor en cour ages m e to suggest w ays to improv e job qu ality . 9) My superv isor en cour ages m e to suggest w ays to improv e produ ctiv ity . 10) My superv isor encour ag es me to con tinu ally develop my job skills. 11) My sup erv isor k eeps m e infor med of job prob lem s or con cern s. 12) My sup erv isor is concerned about my professional developm en t. Percept ion s of H igh er Ma nagement 13) Higher m an agemen t shar es infor m ation w ith p eople at all levels. 14) Peop le at my lev el r eceive th e resour ces need ed to do th e job r igh t. 15) Higher man agemen t values id eas and suggestion s from my lev el. 16) I have access to my sup erv isor’s sup er iors when I need it. 17) Higher m an agemen t understands my job enough to evaluate my p erform an ce. 18) Higher m anag em en t is in terested in tr aining p eople at my lev el for adv ancem en t. Management of Cha nge 19) Emp loyees’ id eas and op in ions are sought when chang e is con sid er ed. 20) I have a vo ice in the d ecision when chang es ar e plann ed. 21) The impact of techno logical ch ange on peop le is always consider ed. 22) Upcom ing ch anges are talk ed about open ly an d freely. 23) Peop le ar e giv en adequ ate and appropriate tr ainin g to d eal w ith ch anges. 24) The rate of ch ange in this org an ization is r ight.
© 2004 navran associates 2
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Page 2
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Part 3 - Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey Profiles 1. 2. 3. 4.
Compute the average score from your employees for each group of eight (8) questions for each employee (space is provided for up to eight employees)– both in of importance and effectiveness Place the individual averages in the appropriate spaces Compute the group averages See the interpretative guide for general interpretation of the average scores Importance Scores - Averages
Employee
Participation in decision making
Perception of immediate supervisor
Perceptions of higher management
Management of change
Individual overall average
Management of change
Individual overall average
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Group Average Effectiveness Scores - Averages Employee
Participation in decision making
Perception of immediate supervisor
Perceptions of higher management
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Group Average
Interpretation To in terpr et each prof ile, rev iew th e inform atio n provided in th e grid b elo w. P ay par ticu lar attention to those categories wh er e th e Emp loy ee Survey Profile show ed marg in al and in effectiv e areas. Consider th e g ap betw een how impor tan t yo ur emp loyees con sid er a par ticu lar topic to be and how eff ectively th e organ ization addresses th at topic in th eir op inion . D iffer ences of more than 1.5 r eflect an urgen t need to addr ess the w ay your organization hand les a par ticu lar issue. When comp aring th e Emp loyee Surv ey to your o w n response, b e aw are th at d iff eren ces of more than 1 .0 raise a y ellow f lag . D iffer ences of more than 1.5 (in importan ce or effectiveness) ref lect an even greater poten tial for m isund erstand ing , if n ot addressed.
© 2004 navran associates 2
Page 3
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Category Participation in Decision Making
Percept ion s of Immed iat e Supervisor
Percept ion s of High er manag ement
Management of Chang e
INEFFECTIVE Effectiveness average between 1.0 and 3.5 Employees who are isolated from the decision making process feel “done to” rather than “done with.” The consequence is low level motivation and commitment. These employees resist change and innovation. When a supervisor fails to provide encouragement, information and employees feel no stake in their success and become focused on personal needs rather than organizational goals. Management’s perceived lack of concern is viewed as sufficient cause to do the minimum required for survival in the organization. Loyalty to the organization, its leaders, goals and objectives is low. Employees who are not involved in the implementation of change affecting their work are most likely to resist (and/or undermine) the effort. This increases costs and reduces the effectiveness of change.
© 2004 navran associates 2
MARGINAL Effectiveness average between 3.5 and 5.5 Marginal levels of participation can confuse employees. They do not understand why they are included in decision making only some of the time. This often leads to lowering the trust level. Supervisors who are somewhat effective in meeting employees’ needs for control realize the benefits of increased performance. However, they cannot expect full development of employee potential. Perception that management is inconsistently concerned about employees means trust levels go down. Though loyal to supervisors and work groups, employees are not as committed to the organization. Moderate employee involvement goes a long way toward reducing resistance to change. The result can be ive acceptance of the “inevitable” but with little enthusiasm or .
EFFECTIVE Effectiveness average between 5.5 and 7.0 When employees feel involved in the decisions affecting them they are more motivated and committed to a successful outcome. Trust increases and employees develop to their maximum potential. When perceived as empowering, supervisors benefit from employee commitment and development. Employees are vested in meeting their own goals, those of the supervisor and of the organization. Management sets the organization’s standards. When standards include the recognition of each employee’s potential contributions, individuals are motivated to rise to those high expectations. Fully empowered employees seek positive, productive change as a way to increase their contribution to the goals and objectives of their immediate supervisor, higher management and the organization.
Page 4
Employee Empowerment Evaluation Kit Part 1 – Introduction to the Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey The following survey is designed to measure the extent to which your employees feel empowered to carry out their duties in behalf of your organization. We suggest that you make one copy of the survey for each of your employees, ask them to fill it out anonymously, then ask one of them to compute the survey averages. Meanwhile, you should fill out the same survey in a manner that reflects how you believe your employees will answer each question. In the end you will have two surveys: one that indicates your employees’ average responses and one that indicates how you thought they would answer. In our next issue we will discuss a comparison of the two, focusing on the implications of their similarities and differences. Introduction: Your imm ed iate sup ervisor is par ticipating in an evalu ation of your p ercep tions of how much inf lu ence and con tro l you h ave over d ay-to-d ay even ts at work . You ar e invited to particip ate by comp leting th is survey . Your p articipation is bo th vo luntary and anonymou s. Instru ction s: To comp lete th e survey respond to the questions using bo th the fo llow ing scales by placing the appropr iate nu mber in the box to th e r ig ht of th e statem ent.
Response Scales EFFECTIVENESS
IMPOR TAN C E How impo rtant is th is facto r to you? 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7=
Not at all impo rtant So mewhat important Very impo rtant Crit ica lly importa nt
How well does your organization implement this factor? 1= Not at all eff ect iv e 2= 3= So mewhat eff ectiv e 4= 5= Very eff ect ive 6= 7= Tota lly effect ive
Sample Question Part icipat ion in Decision Mak ing 1) I am invo lved in m ak ing decisions that aff ect m y work.
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Eff ect iveness 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am involved in making decisions that affect my work. Importance (6) Effectiveness (2) In the examp le abov e th e respond ent indicated that he/sh e should be invo lved in mak ing decision s that aff ect h is/her work (6 und er Importan ce), but the organ ization is less than “som ewh at effectiv e” in th is ar ea (2 und er Eff ect iv en ess) .
© 2004 navran associates 2
Page 1
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Part 2 - Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey Instrument
Part icipat ion in Decision Mak ing 1) I am invo lved in m ak ing decisions that aff ect m y work. 2) I am g iven th e oppor tunity to suggest improv em en ts. 3) I participate in setting the go als and objectives for my job. 4) Proposed decisions ar e m ad e at th e low est appropriate level. 5) I have access to the infor mation I n eed to m ake good decision s. 6) As I g ain exper tise I am allow ed more latitud e o n the job. Percept ion s of Immediat e S up erv iso r 7) My sup ervisor v alu es my sugg estion s and r equests. 8) My superv isor en cour ages m e to suggest w ays to improv e job qu ality . 9) My superv isor en cour ages m e to suggest w ays to improv e produ ctiv ity . 10) My superv isor encour ag es me to con tinu ally develop my job skills. 11) My sup erv isor k eeps m e infor med of job prob lem s or con cern s. 12) My sup erv isor is concerned about my professional developm en t. Percept ion s of H igh er Ma nagement 13) Higher m an agemen t shar es infor m ation w ith p eople at all levels. 14) Peop le at my lev el r eceive th e resour ces need ed to do th e job r igh t. 15) Higher man agemen t values id eas and suggestion s from my lev el. 16) I have access to my sup erv isor’s sup er iors when I need it. 17) Higher m an agemen t understands my job enough to evaluate my p erform an ce. 18) Higher m anag em en t is in terested in tr aining p eople at my lev el for adv ancem en t. Management of Cha nge 19) Emp loyees’ id eas and op in ions are sought when chang e is con sid er ed. 20) I have a vo ice in the d ecision when chang es ar e plann ed. 21) The impact of techno logical ch ange on peop le is always consider ed. 22) Upcom ing ch anges are talk ed about open ly an d freely. 23) Peop le ar e giv en adequ ate and appropriate tr ainin g to d eal w ith ch anges. 24) The rate of ch ange in this org an ization is r ight.
© 2004 navran associates 2
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Impo rtan ce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eff ect iveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Page 2
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Part 3 - Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey Profiles 1. 2. 3. 4.
Compute the average score from your employees for each group of eight (8) questions for each employee (space is provided for up to eight employees)– both in of importance and effectiveness Place the individual averages in the appropriate spaces Compute the group averages See the interpretative guide for general interpretation of the average scores Importance Scores - Averages
Employee
Participation in decision making
Perception of immediate supervisor
Perceptions of higher management
Management of change
Individual overall average
Management of change
Individual overall average
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Group Average Effectiveness Scores - Averages Employee
Participation in decision making
Perception of immediate supervisor
Perceptions of higher management
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Group Average
Interpretation To in terpr et each prof ile, rev iew th e inform atio n provided in th e grid b elo w. P ay par ticu lar attention to those categories wh er e th e Emp loy ee Survey Profile show ed marg in al and in effectiv e areas. Consider th e g ap betw een how impor tan t yo ur emp loyees con sid er a par ticu lar topic to be and how eff ectively th e organ ization addresses th at topic in th eir op inion . D iffer ences of more than 1.5 r eflect an urgen t need to addr ess the w ay your organization hand les a par ticu lar issue. When comp aring th e Emp loyee Surv ey to your o w n response, b e aw are th at d iff eren ces of more than 1 .0 raise a y ellow f lag . D iffer ences of more than 1.5 (in importan ce or effectiveness) ref lect an even greater poten tial for m isund erstand ing , if n ot addressed.
© 2004 navran associates 2
Page 3
Employee Empowerment 3 Evaluation kit E
Category Participation in Decision Making
Percept ion s of Immed iat e Supervisor
Percept ion s of High er manag ement
Management of Chang e
INEFFECTIVE Effectiveness average between 1.0 and 3.5 Employees who are isolated from the decision making process feel “done to” rather than “done with.” The consequence is low level motivation and commitment. These employees resist change and innovation. When a supervisor fails to provide encouragement, information and employees feel no stake in their success and become focused on personal needs rather than organizational goals. Management’s perceived lack of concern is viewed as sufficient cause to do the minimum required for survival in the organization. Loyalty to the organization, its leaders, goals and objectives is low. Employees who are not involved in the implementation of change affecting their work are most likely to resist (and/or undermine) the effort. This increases costs and reduces the effectiveness of change.
© 2004 navran associates 2
MARGINAL Effectiveness average between 3.5 and 5.5 Marginal levels of participation can confuse employees. They do not understand why they are included in decision making only some of the time. This often leads to lowering the trust level. Supervisors who are somewhat effective in meeting employees’ needs for control realize the benefits of increased performance. However, they cannot expect full development of employee potential. Perception that management is inconsistently concerned about employees means trust levels go down. Though loyal to supervisors and work groups, employees are not as committed to the organization. Moderate employee involvement goes a long way toward reducing resistance to change. The result can be ive acceptance of the “inevitable” but with little enthusiasm or .
EFFECTIVE Effectiveness average between 5.5 and 7.0 When employees feel involved in the decisions affecting them they are more motivated and committed to a successful outcome. Trust increases and employees develop to their maximum potential. When perceived as empowering, supervisors benefit from employee commitment and development. Employees are vested in meeting their own goals, those of the supervisor and of the organization. Management sets the organization’s standards. When standards include the recognition of each employee’s potential contributions, individuals are motivated to rise to those high expectations. Fully empowered employees seek positive, productive change as a way to increase their contribution to the goals and objectives of their immediate supervisor, higher management and the organization.
Page 4
Related Documents c2h70
Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey 2r1e3x
October 2019 90
Employee Empowerment 2b4g18
October 2022 0
Employee Empowerment 2b4g18
July 2021 0
November 2021 0
Employee Empowerment Questionnaire 5s4p44
October 2019 124
Disadvantages Of Employee Empowerment 3e5o4v
November 2019 57More Documents from "Dr-Afzal Basha HS" 1z3z20
Employee Empowerment Evaluation Survey 2r1e3x
October 2019 90
Employee Empowerment Practices For Organisational Effectiveness.ppt 2k444s
March 2021 0
Houzan Suzuki - Manual Completo De Tantra 2439v
September 2021 0
Land Acquisition Act 1894 666w3n
November 2019 76
Machine Hour Rate 1j5j6f
November 2019 51