Premier Bank Yields Better Results
Data Show Implementation of Precision Leadership Survey in Conjunction With
12-Question Employee Engagement Survey Delivers Stronger Results
Effective leadership is critical in today's changing work environment. For any organization seeking lasting changes to its performance, operational practices and culture, the work must begin with leadership. That was the case for one of the 20th largest banks in America as they signed on with ADI to train more than 2500 bank managers in a behavior-based performance management system called Precision Leadership®. This training was part of a broader engagement that included coaching for senior leaders and upward feedback through ADI’s proprietary survey process.
Successful execution is by definition, top-down. Assessing the current impact and perceptions of the leadership team in any organization is an essential first step in driving future performance and, most importantly, Discretionary Effort™. The Precision Leadership® development process begins with a positive accountability system: ADI’s online Precision Leadership Survey. As ADI’s flagship survey, the Precision Leadership Survey (PLS) is typically used in conjunction with the implementation of our consulting methodology. The upward feedback provided through this survey gives specific guidance on management practices that those being managed or supervised find particularly effective, as well as those practices that get in the way of optimized performance.
Across various implementations, ADI has encountered the presence of other well-known surveys, as was the case with this large bank. This case study provides valid and reliable data that show how the Precision Leadership Survey can replace, or at least maximize, the impact of existing engagement surveys. Many of our clients have found success in conducting a well-known, global 12-question survey of employee engagement (herein referred to as Engagement Survey) in conjunction with the Precision Leadership Survey. By comparing the data across managers participating in both surveys, we performed the following statistical analyses which are summarized at the end of this document.
Precision Leadership Survey vs. Engagement Survey
- 99.9% certainty that if someone scores higher on the Precision Leadership Survey, they will score higher on the Engagement Survey.
Regression Equation: Engagement Survey score = 2.07 + 0.480*PLS
- Plug a PLS score into this equation to get an estimate of what the Engagement Survey score would be for the same individual.
- In the equation above, the higher the PLS score = the higher the Engagement Survey score.
R-sq Value: 40.3%
- This tells us how well we can predict the Engagement Survey score if we have a PLS score and vice versa.
- If R-sq was 100% we could absolutely predict the exact value of one score given the other.
- 40.3% is excellent for perception surveys and other psychometrics.
ANOVA F = 31.09 p < 0.001
- Illustrates how well the two scores are correlated.
- The ANOVA above represents a positive correlation – therefore, we can say with greater than 99.9% certainty (1 - p ≥ 0.999) that if one of the survey scores is relatively high, the other will be as well.
- 95% certainty (p < 0.05) is the generally accepted level for reporting significant results.
What does the significant correlation imply?
It implies two scenarios (with 99.9% certainty):
- Managers engaging in behaviors that yield high Engagement Survey scores also engage in behaviors that yield high PLS scores.
- What managers do to receive high PLS scores also produces high Engagement Survey scores.
How does this correlation relate to the working environment?
Considering both the PLS and the Engagement Survey pinpoint the same aspects of the working environment as arranged by managers . . .
- PLS: the behaviors that produce the environment
- Engagement Survey: the results of those behaviors
. . . we can state that the second implied scenario listed above is more relevant: What managers do to receive high PLS scores also produces high Engagement Survey scores.
Published January 21, 2011