|
The Process
To begin the process, the surveys were
anonymously completed by each employee in the sales organization on
their manager at each level up to the Vice President. The surveys were
then scored by Sterling Institute. In a meeting to debrief the survey
results, each manager was given their personal feedback which
consisted of the composite results of everyone in their work unit.
Since the employees completing the survey put only their manager's
name on the survey and since only the managers received their own
data, complete confidentiality was maintained. Confidentiality
significantly increases the validity of the feedback and the manager's
willingness to receive and use it as a tool to increase their
effectiveness.
During the course of the session, each
manager analyzed their MPS feedback, identified their strengths and
improvement opportunities and developed action plans to improve their
performance. In addition, using summary data for the entire group, all
the managers, together with the help of the consultants, identified
the strengths and improvement opportunities of the organization and
developed group action plans to improve organizational performance.
The MPS was administered one year apart over three years.
The first set of scores for this
division were exceedingly low. Of particular concern were the group
scores for Performance Expectations, Teamwork and Effective Authority.
These scores reflected the sales staff's concern both about recent
changes in leadership and the factors which led up to the changes.
Comments received during the feedback session reinforced survey data
which indicated the sales force felt as if:
 |
the
goals and objectives of the work unit were unclear;
|
|
they had
no authority to carry out necessary activities of their jobs;
and
|
|
they
were functioning as disparate entities instead of as one,
cohesive team. |
Few knew how well they were
performing and most felt that their relationships with their
supervisors were not productive. When compared with the scores of
other divisions of this same company, this division's scores were
significantly lower.
|
Introduction
The
Environment
Management
Practices
Survey
The
Process
Follow-Up
Year
2 Data
Year
3 Data
Summary
|
