Forum Widgets
Latest Discussions
How does Viva Glint define and measure engagement?
Hi, I am Melissa Barry, and I am part of the Viva People Science team. One of the top questions we get at Viva Glint is how we define and measure engagement. We define engagement as the degree to which employees invest their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energies toward positive organizational outcomes. Engaged employees are absorbed in and are enthusiastic about their work. They find a greater sense of meaning in what they do, see a stronger connection between their strengths and their role, and they expend discretionary effort in their role performances. We measure engagement using a two-item engagement index, eSat (How happy are you working at Organization Name?) and Recommend (I would recommend Organization Name as a great place to work.) Viva Glint's eSat question continues to be the single best measure of employee engagement and predictor of performance and attrition. Recommend measures their willingness to endorse and be an advocate. Together these two items measure engagement, the strongest driver of business outcomes. Does this resonate with how you define and measure engagement at your organization? Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!What makes a driver 'High Impact' vs. 'Very High Impact'?
As a quick reminder, drivers are potential causal factors that affect outcome measures such as, but not limited to, overall employee engagement, a sense of belonging as well as perceptions of a great workplace culture. In determining how we differentiate between Low, Medium, High and Very High driver impact, we use the driver's Pearson r correlation tied to the intended outcome measure. Drivers are plotted on the X-Axis and those with less than a .20 Pearson r are considered “Low” impact drivers. Between .20 and less than .40 are “Medium” impact, between .40 and less than .60 are “High”, and .60 and greater are “Very High”. See the table below for additional detail. Minimum Correlation Maximum Correlation Low 0 < 0.2 Medium 0.2 < 0.4 High 0.4 < 0.6 Very High 0.6 1.0 As People Science consultants, we're always leveraging the Driver Impact report to help us understand how different survey measures impact key outcomes across different populations and tying that back to action taking strategies. We'd love to hear from our community...In what ways have you utilized Viva Glint's Driver Impact report to support key findings in your surveys?What is a driver?
Drivers are the potential causal factors that affect key outcome measures such as, but not limited to, overall employee engagement, a sense of belonging, perceptions of a great workplace culture as well as an employee’s intent to stay with their company. Viva Glint has carefully selected drivers, rooted in current research on contributing factors most closely affecting engagement, both for their breadth and relevance in the modern workplace. It’s important to also understand that not all drivers have the same impact on engagement. Career growth may be a driver for one team while work-life balance is a driver for another, based on the unique composition of the team and work environment. Knowing which drivers have a high and very high impact for your group allows you to focus on improving the scores of the drivers that matter most. This can, of course, change depending on the team, location, tenure, and even across different survey administrations. Help discover what drives engagement at your organization: Viva Glint’s Driver Impact report quickly identifies the engagement dynamics of your organization, helping you focus on areas with the highest ROI Filter and drill down to reveal the unique engagement profiles of specific employee populations and key demographics Toggle between outcomes to discover how drivers impact business outcomes like retention, performance, culture, and customer satisfaction Change between internal and external comparisons to view strengths and opportunities through various lenses As a Sr. People Science Consultant, understanding key drivers impacting critical business outcomes like engagement, belonging and an organization's culture is a primary topic of discussion as I present survey findings to my clients. These drivers are broken out by key Strengths and relative Opportunities which I then link to specific action planning strategies in efforts to help my clients understand a clear path forward to address the survey feedback. Within your organization, what are some of the key drivers impacting your employee's overall engagement? (Feel free to provide your company's industry)
Active employees import problem
Hi All, I'm experiencing some difficulty with uploading active employees into Viva Glint. Is there anyone who could assist me with this? Or is there any contact (email or phone) for a support line? Your help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance. BR, Masha
How do managers impact engagement and People Success?
As people scientists, we are often asked about the role managers have in engagement. Managers play very important roles in people's happiness and success, but the relationship between "manager" and "employee engagement" is nuanced. Pragmatically, we know that the success of most investments organizations make in people's happiness and success can be optimized, under-leveraged, or even undermined by a manager -- pointing to the importance of senior leaders bringing managers along with key business decisions. Statistically, we see that who one's manager is explains a significant and substantial amount of variance in employee engagement levels, but that effect is confounded with factors outside the manager's control. Still, there's a clear relationship between how effective managers are perceived to be and how engaged their teams are. Based on Viva Glint's research: Employees who recommend (versus those who do not recommend) their managers (Q_MANAGER_QP) are: 2.36x more likely to be engaged (Q_ESAT_HAPPY; 78% vs. 33%). Top quartile companies are 12pp more favorable than bottom quartile companies (82% vs 70% favorable). 2.29x likely to say they will probably be with their company in two year’s time (Q_RETENTION; 71% vs. 31%). Top quartile companies are 7pp more favorable than bottom quartile companies (72% vs 65% favorable). 2.24x more likely to feel their company has a great culture (Q_CULTURE; 74% vs. 33%) Top quartile companies are 21pp more favorable than bottom quartile companies (81% vs 60% favorable). Do share your reactions below, would love to hear from others!
Why does Viva Glint generally recommend a minimum size of 5 for reporting?
While lowering the threshold might increase the number of people with reports, the quality of data and interpretation would be significantly compromised for those managers. The key issue here is when you reduce the number of people you're aggregating over, slight shifts/variations in responses can make what is actually a small difference more prominent than it should be. We believe that making decisions based on such unreliable data will be more harmful than helpful. We also don't recommend lowering the minimum group size for reporting below 5 because it would jeopardize the confidentiality we are trying to protect for employees. As a team of People Scientists, we often advise leaders who do not meet the reporting requirement to still have feedback meetings with their team. One effective tactic commonly used in these meetings is to view the scores at the next level up -- with the permission of the leader who owns that report -- and discuss where the larger-group results do and do not reflect the smaller-group experience. In the absence of a report, what else can be done to encourage managers/leaders to discuss their team's employee experience and take action? Do share your ideas below, would love to hear from others!
Access problem
Hi alanderfield I am facing a problem with report access and I am faced with this error while trying to log in. Please see image- even as I refresh, it stays on the same page. This is quite troubling as we are to do a client insights presentation this week but I am not able to log in with this error. I have reached out to the fast track MS team who were supposed to guide this client but they were not able to solve it. The client is also OOO the whole week and we are not able to get them to help raise a ticket on the MAC site. Please advise if anything could be done on the back end? This problem has been here since last Thursday.How do I ensure that historical items are comparable to the Glint taxonomy?
Survey design and mapping is an important step - getting this right is critical because if not done well, results could be misconstrued and consequently misinforms organization wide and team level interventions. Having worked as a People Scientist for a while now, this is where errors are commonly made so it is definitely worth investing more time and effort on this process. Now, once you have selected your questions from the Glint taxonomy that align to your organizational strategies, there may be a desire to compare trending data from previous surveys to your new Glint items. If you do decide to compare historical data to new items moving forward, it is vital that the previous and new questions are truly comparable. If historical data is not aligned to new insights, you risk misinterpreting the results, not having clear connections from historical to new insights or proceeding with misguided action steps. To ensure true comparisons between previous and new results, it is essential to match items accurately. In order to map to the Glint taxonomy, you must consider the wording, item intention, and referents. Maps to the Glint taxonomy - Exact wording - Similar wording with same intent - Similar wording with same referent Does not map to the Glint taxonomy - Different wording - Similar wording with different intent - Similar wording with different referent Item intention: If items have different wording, they can still be mapped to Glint items as long as the intention of the historical item aligns with the intention of the item you are mapping to –they must have the same aimed purpose and outcome (see attached Item Intention for examples) Item referent: To gain specific insights, an item will always have a referent (e.g. –Company, senior leadership, direct manager, team, coworkers or even the employee themselves). If two items have similar intention, but are aimed at different referents, they cannot be mapped (see attached Item Intention for examples). As you embark on the review process, ask yourself whether it's absolutely necessary to map the items and/or if it's necessary to include all historical items. What are some design/mapping best practices that you have used in the past? Share them below!Should organizations continue to survey during times of significant change?
I am a Senior People Science Consultant at Viva Glint and have supported many organizations in helping their employees through large-scale changes. My short answer to this question is yes! Organizations should definitely continue to survey during times of change and here's why...especially during times of change, employees need to express concerns and exert control where possible to protect against the uncertainty introduced by shifts around them. Continuing to survey during changes sends the message to employees that their voice counts and is an important input to organizational decision making. Employee feedback also can guide one of the most powerful tools for an organization to navigate change -- a strong communication strategy tailored by the audience to address unique concerns and alleviate fears. Organizational changes create a heightened employee need to receive timely, proactive, and candid communications about what’s happening, why, and the impacts it will have. Supporting managers during these times with employee feedback collected through regular surveys, accompanied with targeted action plans and communication scripts, is critical so they can best support employees. How have you used employee feedback to inform your change management activities?Why does Viva Glint recommend only asking one item per domain/theme/dimension?
One of Viva Glint's survey design goals is to keep measurement short and easy so that teams can be pulsed more frequently (agile) with sustained high participation rates. This means that we prefer to use single-item measures instead of multiple-item measures to avoid the survey becoming too cumbersome for employees to provide their thoughtful and candid feedback. For most practical purposes, well-constructed single-item measures are as good as multiple-item measures when it comes to utility and reliability (i.e. they predict future behavioral outcomes, and they do so consistently over time). This approach can reduce the survey length by 3-4x, relative to more “traditional” engagement surveying methods, thereby significantly improving the employee experience and survey completion rates. We generally choose a single-item measure over a multi-item composite/index if the single-item captures over 80% of the variance and information content in the multiple item measure. As a Sr. People Science Consultant, I'm always having conversations with my clients around best practices for survey design, especially as they seek to be more agile in their survey approach. Keeping their surveys shorter and using single item measures is a key element in doing so, however, convincing key stakeholders and business leaders to adopt this approach may warrant additional considerations. What are some ways in which you've convinced leadership teams and/or key decision makers to adopt a more agile surveying approach by using single item measures?
