Tieguy -I think its clear that person does not wish to participate. I thought you might give us some detailed insight as to the changes needed without posting someone else's commentary on this board.
You may be right about their wishes to participate, but who knows, we'll see what happens. I have already given detailed insight on changes related to third party capabilities. I listed examples, ideaologies behind those examples, and even provided a link so that additional details could be researched by those interested in finding out what other options are available for the ERI.
Posting someone elses commentary that is germane to this discussion was not my idea initially, I was not going to mention that I had opened some outside dialogue, but I think you may have assumed that you were the only one who had been contacted, so you brought it up, literally begging for my reply.
I replied, "lets' open our sidebar conversations to the forum" but for some reason you don't seem too keen on that idea now, why not?
Tieguy -Our ERI was created with the help of an outside third party. Much of it is still essentially being managed by third parties who really have no horse in this race and can therefore stay pretty much objective.
Of course. Even if it wasn't a 3rd party, even if it is/was UPS employees who were conducting the survey and collecting the results-objectivity is crucial to the entire process.
Tieguy -Most of those who manage this process are PHD's and those near PHD in their speciality. I therefore believe a third party running it is of little benifit.I think the collection of information with the intent of gathering measurable results is sound. If a third party outside agency were to use the same process then I don't see any difference in the outcome.
As I have posted before several times, it is far more than the collection of data that makes a successful Employee Relation Index. It is the way it is administered, the feedback information, the turnaround time, the consistency of the product company wide - PHD or not, the only business a third party provider is in - is providing these products and services to global companies like UPS. I understand and respect your point about that caliber of UPS people who are involved with our current ERI, but that fact notwithstanding, the opinion of most of our employees in this forum, on the job, and in almost all districts is the same - the products sucks-and it has for long time....and there are other options out there, why not look into them?
Tieguy -The process is not perfect by any means. We made it measurable. We put it on the managers balanced scorecard and therefore hold the manager accountable for the results. That means the manager may try to manage it honestly or he may try to work it for the cheap homerun. This also means it can be manipulated by those who take it. If I'm a driver who's pissed at my center team or something that happened twenty years ago then I can answer negatively on all questions when answering the questions honestly may have gotten half of them positive or neutral. Groups of drivers could also manipulate it to send a message. This i've seen this tends to happen more so during contract years when the rumor is shop stewards and sometimes even BA's send the word to hammer us on the ERI. All part of the shennanigans that can take place. A third party will not stop any of that unless they actually administer face to face on each question.
Much of the negative attitude surrounding the ERI is because of the unprofessional, rushed manner in which UPS presents the survey to the employees. Of course there will always be disgruntled employees, but it is an insult to all the good hard working people who feel that UPS does not care enough about the survey to present it in a prioritized, professional manner. If UPS doesn't care-why should the employees. That is what affects the outcome of the scores far more than those few disgruntled employees who are trying to sabotage the results.
I said in an earlier post that I don't trust the results of the ERI-not because I think the results are being manipulated, but beause of the above reason, UPS doesn't are about it, and neither do the employees
Besides, top notch survey companies build in statistical allowances for variancess like sabotage when scoring an index of the ERI's ilk.
Tieguy -I would actually like to see the third party solution if administered face to face. I think the focus group meeting tends to inhibit those who do not feel comfortable speaking in front of groups or management.
Most focus groups are face to face, I am confused by what you mean here.
Tieguy -As for this discussion I thought Boiled frog and Sammie provided some good insight. I think you communicate well but you're generally a little weak on the specifics
Maybe so, but I did outline several examples, developed sound arguments to augment those examples and also provided some outside resources to support my arguments. that has to be worth something in the specifics column
In sumary, there are a lot of very good companies out there who provide top notch solutions in the Employee Survey discipline, maybe UPS should look to invest in one.
