Employee Engagement - Ged Horn
-
Upload
iss-uk-ld-team -
Category
Leadership & Management
-
view
170 -
download
0
Transcript of Employee Engagement - Ged Horn
Employee Engagement
Ged Horn
2
Why you are here - The ISS Value Chain
Defining playing fields, rules and strategic priorities
Turning strategic priorities into attractive and operational service offerings
Engaging capable individuals in all positions
Delivering on promises
Following up on customer experience to identify area for improvement
Managing sales effectively
Boosting the Business Platform
3
We Operate in 53 Countries and have > 541,000 employees
4
... Our greatest asset is our engaged employees
Customer Experience
Business Results
Engaged Employees
Shareholder Value
Engaged employees are key to delivering shareholder value
“That’s why all leaders at every level of the organisation need to adopt, promote and be
passionate about the ISS Leadership Principles – promoting teamwork and collaborating across
borders and business – ensuring that each and every of our employees work towards our shared
vision of being the Worlds Greatest Service Company ”
That is why we need to lead by example
5
Our Leadership Principles...
6
…strong Leadership impacts our business results…
7
• Using the Leadership principles drives Employee Engagement
• Engaged Employees deliver a better service to the customer leading to higher customer satisfaction
• Resulting in a greater return for our shareholders
Driving leadership Behaviour is driving our business …
And we know it works! It’s a simple correlation.
0
8
CB
III
Mar
gin
Employee NPS-60 60
0
10
CB
III
Mar
gin
Customer NPS-60 60
8
Net Promoter Score 2013 - Place to work
9
How likely would you be to recommend ISS to others as a good place to work?
This question was asked on an 11-point scale. The scoring method is shown in the following figure:
Overall ENPS is calculated by subtracting the % of Detractors from the % of Promoters.
Extremely likely
Not at all
likely
Promoters Passive Detractors
Promoters
= 31%
Detractors
= 44%
ENPS score-13
ISS 2014 LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
2012-18
2013-13
2020+40
Employee Net Promoter Score
ISS 2014 LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
UK Employee Net Promoter by Department Score
ISS 2014 LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
UK Employee Net Promoter by Department Score
Executive summary 2013: Key Facts
High performing companies defined as >50 international companies (surveyed by Hay Group in the past 5 years) which exceeded industry averages in terms of 5-Year ROA, ROI and ROE by 40% to 66%.
1. The largest population so far surveyed; 19,525 people. Response rate = 51.3%
2. Results show improvements in sense of direction, trust in leaders, commitment to equal opportunities and delivering to customers
3. However there are some declines, in having the tools and equipment needed, training and learning and development
4. Work environment remains highly enabled, significantly more than high performing companies
5. White collars scores improved around clarity of direction, discussions with managers, trust in leaders, delivering to customers, and health and safety, but declined around intention to stay and pay.
6. Another slight decline in employee’s expectations of action as a result of the survey, suggests that there may be a lack of traction here
Hay Group’s Employee Effectiveness framework
Our flexible framework uniquely focuses on both engagement and enablement
Clear & promising direction Confidence in leaders Quality & customer focus Respect & recognition Development opportunities Pay & benefits
Performance management Authority & empowerment Resources Training Collaboration Work, structure, & process
Drivers
Employee Engagement Commitment Discretionary effort
Employee
EffectivenessEmployee
Effectiveness
Employee Enablement Optimised roles Supportive environment
Productivity
Financial performance
Attraction and retention of talent
Customer loyalty
Innovation
Enhanced corporate reputation
Dimension summary 2013
vs. 2012
Employee Enablement +1
Managing Performance -2*
Delivering for Customers (wc only q’s) +2
Respect and Well-Being +1*
Employee Engagement +1
Training and Development -2
Senior Leadership (wc only q’s) +3
Recognition and Pay -1
Career Development and Talent (wc only q’s) +1
78
74
74
73
69
69
68
60
54
13
12
18
16
17
17
23
18
31
10
14
8
12
14
14
10
23
15
100%
63%
41%
38%
30%
51%
50%
34%
48%
55%
22%
17%
24%
14%
22%
18%
16%
13%
9%
2%
10%
10%
23%
10%
8%
13%
14%
14%
13%
33%
29%
34%
17%
24%
37%
25%
22%
7-Board Director
6-Director
5-Senior Manager
4-Middle Manager
4-Prof/Tech
3-Admin Manager
3-Junior Manager
2-Admin
2-Supervisor
1-Operative
Most Effective Frustrated Detached Most Ineffective
Segmenting Employee Level Effectiveness
Comparison to Services norm
54 9 14 23
2012: 50 11 13 26
2012: 36 16 12 36
2012: 46 21 7 26
2012: 40 22 9 29
2012: 40 14 12 35
2012: 40 22 11 27
2012: 39 22 13 26
2012: 59 28 0 13
The Admin Manager population has seen the largest increase in the Most Effective segment compared to 2012. The Prof/Tech population has seen the largest decline in the Most Effective segment compared to 2012.
N= 15,413
N= 842
N= 1,156
N= 42
N= 79
N= 1,455
N= 106
N= 83
N= 142
N= 6
23%
25%
34%
39%
40%
52%
54%
31%
37%
38%
41%
41%
42%
44%
63%
20%
21%
19%
21%
21%
16%
22%
30%
10%
12%
10%
9%
11%
12%
9%
17%
21%
15%
10%
10%
5%
3%
10%
15%
18%
16%
18%
19%
16%
11%
40%
33%
32%
30%
29%
27%
21%
30%
37%
32%
33%
32%
28%
28%
17%
H&SIT
FinanceOperations
SupportHR
Sales
Damage ControlHard Facility Services
Retail ServicesSoft Facility Services
SecurityCatering
LandscapingCleaning
Most Effective Frustrated Detached Most Ineffective
Segmenting Employee Service TypeEffectiveness
Comparison to Services normThe Cleaning, Sales and HR populations have the largest Most Effective segment.The H&S and IT populations have the smallest Most Effective segment.
N= 9,053Service:
Support:
N= 715N= 2,994 N= 911N= 746N= 214N= 79N= 81
N= 67N= 56N= 169N= 1,333N= 212N= 24N= 30
Taking action by Job Level
I believe that action will be taken as a result of this survey
Job Level UK Responses Q23
ISS UK 19,525 61
1-Operative 15,413 63
2-Admin 842 43
2-Supervisor 1,156 54
3-Admin Manager 42 56
3-Junior Manager 79 57
4-Middle Manager 1,455 55
4-Prof/Tech 106 29
5-Senior Manager 83 54
6-Director 142 81
7-Board Director 6 100
Whilst Board Directors and Directors are highly positive that action will be taken, this drops notably for senior managers. Lowest scores are for Prof/Tech and Admin staff.
10 = Score is 10 or more greater than: ISS UK
10 = Score is 10 or more less than: ISS UK
Taking action by Job Level
Annual appraisal by Job Level
I have had an annual appraisal within the last 12 months
Job Level UK Responses Q16
ISS UK 19,525 60
1-Operative 15,413 57
2-Admin 842 69
2-Supervisor 1,156 51
3-Admin Manager 42 73
3-Junior Manager 79 76
4-Middle Manager 1,455 80
4-Prof/Tech 106 54
5-Senior Manager 83 94
6-Director 142 99
7-Board Director 6 100
10 = Score is 10 or more greater than: ISS UK
10 = Score is 10 or more less than: ISS UK
Those at 2-Supervisor level are least likely to have had an appraisal in the last 12 months
More improvements than declines in white collar opinion since 2012
Improved since 2012:
- ISS has a clear sense of direction (+6)
- I regularly talk with my manager/supervisor about how well I do my job (+4)
- I have trust and confidence in the senior leadership of ISS UK (+3)
- We keep the promises we make to our customers (+3)- Health and safety is taken seriously in ISS (+3)
White collar scores have declined around intention to stay and pay.
Declined since 2012:
- Expressed intention to continue working at ISS UK (-4)
- I believe my pay packet is as good as I would get in a comparable job elsewhere (-3)
White collar scores have improved around clarity of direction, discussions with managers, trust in leaders, delivering to customers, and health and safety.
Employee Development
People Development Routes
People Development
Exporting UK Talent
Its our in our DNA
Thank you