High Performance Audit: The XYZ Organisation · NOTE: This shortened, sample report presents an...

NOTE: This shortened, sample report presents an abbreviated High Performance Audit. The identity of the organisation has been changed. Data contained in this audit is based on a series of on-line high performance surveys completed by employees of an organisation.

High Performance Audit: The XYZ Organisation Prepared by Michael E. Bernard, Ph.D. Professor, Michael E. Bernard Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne

March, 2015

The Bernard Group Level 27, 101 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia Tel: +61 3 9415 8327 Fax: +61 3 9419 5993 [email protected] www.workmindset.com

High Performance Audit

© 2015. The Bernard Group 2

About Michael E. Bernard, Ph.D.

Michael E, Bernard is a Professorial Fellow and Psychologist, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, and also has the appointment as an Emeritus Professor, California State University, Long Beach. He is the author/editor of over 50 books, 15 book chapters, and 30 journal articles in areas associated with peak performance, resilience, parenting, mental health, and school improvement. Michael Bernard served for many years as the inaugural sport psychologist of the Collingwood Football Team. He is an international consultant to universities, organisations, educational authorities, and governments. He is the Founder of You Can Do It! Education (www.youcandoiteducation.com; www.youcandoitparents.com), a program for promoting student social-emotional well-being and achievement that is being used in over 6,000 schools in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, England, Romania, and North America.



Contents About Michael E. Bernard, Ph.D. ............................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 Background ................................................................................................................................ 7 High Performance Workplace Surveys ...................................................................................... 9 1. Indicators of High Performing Organisations ..................................................................... 10

Survey Demographics ........................................................................................................... 10 1.1. Findings: Organisational Level .................................................................................... 11 1.2. Findings: Department Level ........................................................................................ 12 1.3. Findings: Organisation and Department Performance: Item-level analysis ................ 13

2. Employee Capabilities Needed for High Performance ...................................................... 15 Survey 2. Organisational Values in Action ............................................................................... 15

2.1. Findings: Divisional Level ........................................................................................... 15 2.2. Department Level ........................................................................................................ 16

Survey 3. Effectiveness in Tough Situations ............................................................................ 17 3.1. Findings: Organisational Level .................................................................................... 17 3.2. Findings: Item Level Analysis ..................................................................................... 18

Survey 4. High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Teams ........................................................... 19 4.1. Findings: Organisational and Department Level ......................................................... 19 4.2. Findings: Item Level Analysis ..................................................................................... 20

Survey 5. High Impact Team Behaviour .................................................................................. 21 Survey 6. High Performance Mindset at Work ......................................................................... 23

6.1. Findings: Organisation and Department Level ............................................................ 23 Recommendations (SAMPLE) ................................................................................................. 25 References ............................................................................................................................... 26



Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents completing the survey, Indicators of High Performing Organisations ............................................................................................ 10

Table 2. Respondent ratings for indicators of high performance ......................................... 11 Table 3. Respondent ratings for seven indicators of high performance ............................... 12 Table 4. Respondent ratings across seven indicators of high performance ....................... 13 Table 5. Respondent self-ratings for Organisational Values in Action ................................. 15 Table 6. Department level respondents’ self-ratings for Organisational Values in Action .... 16 Table 7. Respondent self-ratings for Effectiveness in Tough Situations .............................. 17 Table 8. Respondent self-ratings for Effectiveness in Tough Situations ............................. 18 Table 9. Directors/Managers self-ratings for High Impact Leadership Behaviours:

Leading Teams ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 10. Directors/Managers self-ratings of High Impact Leadership Behaviours:

Leading Teams ........................................................................................................... 20 Table 11. Staff self-ratings for High Impact Team Behaviours ............................................. 21 Table 12. Staff self-ratings for High Impact Team Behaviours (sample of items) ................ 22 Table 13. Respondent self-ratings of High Performance Mindset at Work .......................... 23 Graphs

Graph 1. Comparison of directors/managers self-ratings for High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Leading Teams ........................................................................................ 19

Graph 2. Comparison of team Staff self-ratings of effectiveness for High Impact Team Behaviours ................................................................................................................... 21



Executive Summary The context for this data-gathering project was the significant re-structure and changes to XYZ over past 18 months. The new COO wished to gain employees’ views from quantitative survey data about the organisation’s standing vis a vis high performance. Additional interest was securing baseline data on employee capabilities (attitudes, values, behaviours) that moderate leadership/management and employee work performance. 126 employees of the XYZ Organisation (92% of total employees) comprising Directors, Managers and Staff of all four Departments of XYZ completed a variety of high performance on-line surveys with the following results obtained.

Survey: Indicators of High Performing Organisations

Respondents completed a 52-item survey where they were asked to rate different indicators of their organisation’s performance. Key findings:

� Above average indicators: Teamwork-Relationship, Customer-Focus, Productivity � Below average indicators: Innovation, Fairness, Innovation, Employee

Experience, Leadership

Survey: Values in Action Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked how ‘effectively’ and ‘frequently’ they engaged in behaviour that reflect the XYZ’s core values. Those values that employees self-reported as not being engaged in effectively include:

� Sharing knowledge and actively participating in communication. � Actively sharing and soliciting ideas. � Creating learning ethos by analysing team success. � Taking responsibility for self-development

Survey: Effectiveness in Tough Work Situations

Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked them to self-report on the frequency of occurrence of 20 tough work situations and the extent to which they experienced the situations as stressful and disruptive to their work performance. Key findings:

Directors and Managers: The most stressful and disruptive work situations are

� Endless flow of work and tight deadlines � Not enough support to implement new procedures � Change direction from above (which necessitates changing plans and possibly

approach to a piece of work) � Lack of clarity or changes that require re-work � Not being consulted over changes that impacts work

Staff: The most stressful and disruptive work situations are:

� Organisational practices consisting of a lack of cross-Branch/across Team cooperation, issues surrounding senior executive (consultation, communication, values), and lack of role clarity/role confusion.



� Management practices including lack of alignment and transparency, project management (lack of guidance and support), inadequate feedback and relationships with team members.

� Time/workload pressures contain items dealing with changing priorities/urgent deadlines, workload and external causes of workload pressures.

Survey: ‘High Impact’ Leadership Behaviour: Leading Teams

Respondents completed a 20-item survey … Key areas of need:

� Talk to team about tough things interfering with performance � Spend time helping team members form strong relationships � Contribute innovative ideas on how to do things better � Listen to others without thinking what to say next

Survey: ‘High Impact’ Team Behaviour

Staff completed a 20-item survey that asked for self-ratings for 20 ‘high impact’ behaviour…Key findings: Staff strengths in team behaviour include:

� quick to praise others � delivering on time assigned work � performing work at a high standard

Staff areas of relative need in team behaviour include:

� initiating challenging conversations � expressing opinions � speaking/contributing innovative ideas

Survey: High Performance Mindset

Respondents completed a three-part, 70-item self-report survey…Key findings:

� Commitment to Others is highest, followed by equally strong Commitments to Self and Commitment to Success

� Work beliefs that need strengthening: Self-Direction, Creativity, High Frustration Tolerance, Feedback

� Behavioural Strength: Persistence � Areas for further development: Confidence � Performance Blockers:

Areas of strength: (not) Feeling Down, Anger, Procrastination Areas of need: Feeling Worried

Recommendations

Data provided from the high performance surveys completed by employees indicate attention can be placed by leadership on the priority and importance of highlighting and engaging in best organisational and leadership practices related to the strengthening XYZ’s ‘below average’ indicators of Fairness, Leadership, Innovation and Employee Experience. Performance Feedback as Part of Organisational Culture – in order for Directors, Managers and Team Members to increase their communication and feedback to each other …additional recommendations follow.



Background High Performance Workplace Framework The high performance workplace framework represents various factors that contribute to and mediate the workplace performance of individuals, teams, departments and an organisation (see Figure 1, next page). The framework operationalises organisational performance in terms of seven indicators that research reveals distinguish high from low performing workplaces1. That is, high performing organisations are rated higher by their employees on these indicators than employees of lower performing organisations rate their organisation. The seven indicators are:

1. Productivity 2. Innovation 3. Leadership 4. Teamwork-relationships 5. Quality of employee experience 6. Fairness 7. Customer-focus

The framework draws the obvious connect between an organisation’s Vision, Mission, Values and Strategy and organisational performance. That is, the more inspirational the vision, how well mission is articulated, the extent to which organisational values spell out the behaviours whereby people can enjoy their work, collaborate and perform at high levels, and how explicit, realistic and well delineated the organisation’s strategic plan, the higher the likelihood of an organisation being rated highly on many of these indicators. However, based on extensive research from the fields of positive psychology, organisational development, leadership and human performance, the framework also includes intrinsic, employee capabilities that moderate the impact of vision, mission, values and strategy on organisational performance. The strength of these capabilities across all employees determines the levels of performance of individuals, teams, departments and the organisation as a whole. Chief amongst these capabilities is the individual and collective performance mindset of employees. Research clearly reveals that the psychological capital2 of people sometimes called mindset3,4 is more important to high levels of performance than economic capital (resources, infra-structure), human capital (educational background, technical skills) and social capital (relationships, networks). Research indicates that one predominant way in which mindset impacts organisational performance is enabling people to engage in difficult, high impact behaviours (“High Performance”). The framework reveals three aspects or domains of the high performance of employees that research indicates contributes to high performance outcomes. First, the extent to which the values of an organisation are regularly and effectively modelled in the behaviour of all employees5. Second, how frequently and effectively leaders engage in ‘high impact’ best practice behaviour in leading teams and individuals6. Third, the effectiveness and calmness with which people respond to challenging situations and people who engage in difficult behaviour7….



VISION MISSION VALUES STRATEGY2015High Performance

Workplace Framework

HIGH PERFORMANCE MINDSET

HIGH PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES

SuccessSelf–Direction

Optimism

Growth

Creativity (Innovation)

High Frustration Tolerance

OthersAcceptance of Others

Respect

Empathy

Support

Feedback

SelfSelf-Acceptance

Positive Self-regard

Authenticity

Positive Focus

Healthy Living

OrganisationalValues in Action

Effectivenessin Tough Situations

‘High Impact’Workplace Behaviours

Individuals Teams Departments Organisation

Productivity Teamwork-Relationships

Self-management Confidence Persistence Organisation Getting Along

BEHAVIOURAL STRENGTHS

Customer Focus

COMMITMENTS

ORGANISATION

HIGH PERFORMANCE SKILLSET

Employee Experience LeadershipInnovation Fairness

Figure 1. The High Workplace Performance Framework



High Performance Workplace Surveys

The surveys described below were completed by employees (Directors/Managers and Team Members) of the XYZ Organisation. Survey: Indicators of High Performing Organisations (all employees).This survey examines employee perceptions/ratings of seven indicators of high performing workplaces revealed in latest organisational development research including: Productivity, Innovation, Leadership, Teamwork and Relationships, Quality of Employee Work Life, Fairness and Customer-Focus. Survey: High Performance Mindset at Work (all employees). Based on research from the fields of positive psychology that illuminates the positive psychological capabilities of top performers, this survey completed over the years by 1,000s of employees at all levels, assesses employee perception of core work commitments (success, others, self), 15 supporting work beliefs (e.g., self-direction, optimism, other-acceptance, empathy, self-acceptance, authenticity) and four intrinsic work performance blockers (procrastination, anxiety, anger, feeling down) and behavioural strengths (confidence, persistence, organisation, getting along) Survey: Organisational Values in Action (all employees). Items on this survey reflect the extent to which employees perceive they model in their behaviour their organisation’s core values. The organisation’s values were used to develop items for this survey.

Surveys: ‘High Impact’ Leadership Behaviours (a. Leading Teams, b. Leading Individual) (Directors, Managers). Items on this survey measure those high impact ‘best practice’ behaviours international research reveals top leaders routinely employee in leading teams and managing people. Survey: ‘High Impact’ Team Behaviours (Staff). Items on this survey measure different positive and collaborative behaviours that research indicates as demonstrated by members of high performing teams. Survey: Effectiveness in Tough Work Situations (Leadership/Managers; Staff). written for these surveys reflect common cross job sector tough situations as well as those identified by XYZ executives.



1. Indicators of High Performing Organisations Survey Demographics 126 employees comprising Directors, Managers and Staff of all four Departments of XYZ completed the 52-item survey, Indicators of High Performing Organisations. Survey items asked respondents to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Not low/ Not high, 4 = High, 5 = Very high) specific aspects of organisational performance (see Table 4).

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents completing the survey, Indicators of High Performing Organisations

Total Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4

ORGANISATION 126 24 19.0% 34 27.0% 44 34.9% 24 19.0%

LEVEL Directors 12 10% 4 17% 2 6% 2 5% 4 17%

Managers 38 30% 6 25% 8 24% 16 36% 8 33% Staff 76 60% 14 58% 24 71% 26 59% 12 50% Total 126 24 34 44 24

GENDER Male 50 40% 4 17% 8 24% 26 59% 14 58%

Female 76 60% 44 183% 26 76% 18 41% 10 42% Total 126 24 34 44 24

AGE 20-29 24 19% 0 0% 6 18% 18 41% 0 0%

30-39 24 19% 4 17% 8 24% 6 14% 6 25% 40-49 26 21% 4 17% 8 24% 8 18% 6 25% 50-59 46 37% 14 58% 10 29% 10 23% 12 50% 60+ 6 5% 2 8% 2 6% 2 5% 0 0% Total 126 24 34 44 24

Please Note: The ratings provided by respondents to the six surveys completed have been summarised in tables using the following statistics:

Mean (M): average rating of respondents Standard Deviation (SD): A measure of the range of ratings above and below the mean. The more spread apart the ratings, the higher the standard deviation. A low standard deviation indicates that the ratings by respondents tend to be tightly clustered around the mean - a high standard deviation indicates that the ratings are spread out over a large range of values. When the ratings of respondents are normally distributed meaning that most of the ratings are close to the mean, about sixty-eight percent of the data are within one standard deviation of the mean.



1.1. Findings: Organisational Level

Table 2 reports employee ratings for each of the seven indicators of high workplace performance. Their order of appearance goes from highest to lowest indicator. Note: To interpret means (M), use 4.00 as a cut-off. Those indicators above 4.00 can be considered relatively high. Those indicators below 4.00 can be considered relatively low,

Table 2. Respondent ratings for indicators of high performance

Rating Scale: 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Not low/ Not high, 4 = High, 5 = Very high

Key Findings and Comment Overall, ratings by all employees of the Organisation across the seven indicators of high performance indicators are generally high. Above average: Teamwork-Relationship, Customer-Focus and Productivity Average: Fairness, Innovation Below Average: Leadership, Employee Experience



1.2. Findings: Department Level Table 3. Respondent ratings for seven indicators of high performance

Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Teamwork- Relationships 4.33 0.65 4.55 0.74 4.38 0.55 4.17 0.63

Customer - Focus 4.35 0.70 4.13 0.74 4.65 0.47 4.03 0.63

Productivity 3.97 0.68 4.07 0.72 4.25 0.65 4.10 0.86

Innovation 3.88 0.82 3.78 0.85 4.01 0.77 3.93 0.76

Fairness 3.89 0.86 3.37 1.28 4.44 0.69 3.00 1.26

Employee Experience 3.60 0.79 3.20 0.87 2.80 0.73 2.30 1.01

Leadership 4.14 0.91 2.40 1.06 3.80 0.66 2.20 1.08

Rating Scale: 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Not low/ Not high, 4 = High, 5 = Very high



1.3. Findings: Organisation and Department Performance: Item-level analysis

Table 4 presents respondent ratings to individual questions for the seven indicators of high performance. The items’ order of appearance goes from highest to lowest in ratings provided by respondents.

Table 4. Respondent ratings across seven indicators of high performance (sample of items)

Indicator Item Organisation Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Teamwork- Relationships

Quality of team performance 4.40 0.81 4.17 0.80 4.65 0.76 4.59 0.58 3.92 0.95 Support received from others 4.35 0.72 4.33 0.47 4.47 0.70 4.45 0.58 4.00 1.00 Communication with each other 4.25 0.80 4.25 0.72 4.53 0.70 4.18 0.65 4.00 1.08 Collaboration with each other 4.30 0.79 4.17 0.69 4.41 0.84 4.55 0.50 3.83 0.99 Colleagues share knowledge 4.22 0.77 4.08 0.86 4.47 0.70 4.27 0.45 3.92 1.04

Customer - Focus

Creating value for customers 4.32 0.83 4.50 0.76 4.00 0.69 4.82 0.39 3.67 1.03 Seek customer views/feedback 4.38 0.70 4.00 0.71 4.29 0.82 4.77 0.42 4.17 0.55 Effort to understand clients' needs 4.29 0.84 4.17 0.80 4.18 0.86 4.73 0.45 3.75 1.01 Act on customer feedback 4.37 0.65 4.42 0.64 4.00 0.69 4.73 0.45 4.17 0.55

Productivity

Focus on delivering high outcomes 4.53 0.56 4.27 0.45 4.53 0.70 4.64 0.48 4.58 0.49 Amount of work accomplished 4.52 0.67 4.80 0.40 4.35 0.76 4.55 0.50 4.50 0.87 Quality of work 4.41 0.64 4.20 0.40 4.35 0.68 4.50 0.58 4.50 0.76 Focus on improvement 4.32 0.71 3.82 0.72 4.12 0.68 4.64 0.57 4.50 0.65

Leadership Acknowledges staff using high ratio of positive to negative comments 3.84 1.28 4.10 1.22 4.36 0.88 4.20 0.75 2.33 1.33

Seeks diverse views and opinions 3.72 1.21 3.67 1.15 4.00 1.22 4.21 0.56 2.50 1.22

Talks about the hard things interfering with team performance 3.49 1.19 3.78 0.79 3.45 1.30 4.08 0.83 2.25 0.97



Key Findings and Comment Directors, Managers, Team Members Generally speaking, respondents at different levels in XYZ share similar evaluations of the seven indicators of high performance. Departures from this generalisation include:

� Directors rated the quality of Employee Experience, Fairness and Leadership noticeably higher than Managers or Team Members.

� Directors rated the indicator Teamwork-Relationships noticeably lower than

Managers or Team Members. Gender Across all seven indicators of high performance, males and females were similar in their ratings. On specific indicators, one difference was noticeable.

� Males rated the following indicator of high performance higher in comparison to females: Productivity

Age Differences Significant differences in ratings of the indicators of high performance are observed.

� Overall, younger employees (20-29 year olds) provided highest rating across six of the seven indicators of high performance (not Fairness).

� The 30-39 and 40-49 year old groups gave lower rating of Leadership than older or

younger groups.

� The 40-49 year old group provided the lowest ratings of all age groups with noticeably low ratings on the indicators of Fairness, quality of Employee Experience, and Leadership.



2. Employee Capabilities Needed for High Performance Survey Demographics Directors and Managers working in the four Departments completed the following surveys. High Performance Values in Action, ‘High Impact’ Leadership Behaviour: Teams, Effectiveness in Tough Situations and High Performance Mindset at Work. Staff completed the following surveys: High Performance Values in Action, ‘High Impact Teams Behaviour; Effectiveness in Tough Situations and High Performance Mindset at Work

Survey 2. Organisational Values in Action

Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked how ‘effectively’ and ‘frequently’ they engaged in behaviours that the Department of Education and Training has listed as reflecting each of the Department’s core values: Collaboration and Sharing, Outcomes, Respect and Diversity and Empowerment.

2.1. Findings: Divisional Level

Table 6 reports total employee self-ratings for each of the XYZ Organisation’s core values. Their order of appearance goes from highest to lowest value rated by employees that they action effectively.

Table 5. Respondent self-ratings for Organisational Values in Action

Rating Scale: How Effective? 1 = Ineffective…5 = Effective How Frequent? 1 = Rarely… 3= Sometimes…5 = Often



2.2. Department Level

Table 7 breaks down employee ratings for each of the Organisation’s core values by Department. Note: To interpret means (M) for Effectiveness, use 4.20 and above to identify relative strengths and 3.80 as a relative need.

Table 6. Department level respondents’ self-ratings for Organisational Values in Action

Total Organisation Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4

Effective Frequent Effective Frequent Effective Frequent Effective Frequent Effective Frequent

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Respect 4.20 0.67 3.50 1.17 4.20 0.50 3.20 0.80 3.70 0.30 4.40 0.20 3.60 0.70 3.40 1.20 4.80 0.20 4.70 0.10

Collaboration 3.63 0.77 4.00 1.01 3.10 0.70 3.50 1.10 3.20 0.40 3.50 0.70 3.60 0.60 3.80 0.40 3.80 0.40 3.50 0.70

Excellence 3.35 0.86 3.50 0.91 3.10 0.70 3.70 0.50 4.00 0.60 3.70 0.50 3.30 0.30 4.00 0.20 3.10 0.30 4.00 0.60

Responsibility 3.20 0.75 3.40 0.79 2.80 0.50 3.80 0.80 3.60 0.50 4.10 0.50 3.30 0.50 4.30 0.30 3.10 0.40 4.20 0.20

Rating Scale: How Effective? 1 = Ineffective…5 = Effective How frequent? 1 = Rarely…3 = Sometimes…5 = Often

Key Findings and Comments:

There are several behaviours at Organisational and Department levels that represents ‘needs.’

At Organisational level: � Seeking to understand others’ background and experience. � Creating learning ethos by analysing team success. � Actively sharing and soliciting ideas. � Sharing knowledge and actively participating in communication.



Survey 3. Effectiveness in Tough Situations

Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked them to self-report on the frequency of occurrence of 20 tough work situations and the extent to which they experienced the situations as stressful and disruptive to their work performance. The work situations were identified in the literature as most likely to be challenging including change and interacting with people whose behaviour is difficult. Additionally, examples of tough work situations common to respondents were identified in interviews. Respondents were also invited to write in the past part of the survey, specific work situations that adversely influenced their stress and performance.

3.1. Findings: Organisational Level

Table 7. Respondent self-ratings for Effectiveness in Tough Situations

Rating Scale: How Stressful/Disruptive? 1 = little…3 = Medium…5 = A lot Red = stressful/disruptive How Frequent? 1 = Rarely…3 = Sometimes…5 = Often Pink = frequent



3.2. Findings: Item Level Analysis

Table 8. Respondent self-ratings for Effectiveness in Tough Situations (sample of items) Note: To interpret means (M), use 3.00 and higher to identify for those situations being relatively more Stressful/Disruptive,


Stressful Frequent Stressful Frequent Stressful Frequent Stressful Frequent Stressful Frequent


Endless flow of work and tight deadlines 3.41 1.03 3.59 1.19 3.40 1.36 3.20 1.47 3.60 0.80 3.80 0.98 3.40 0.80 3.60 1.02 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

Not enough support to implement new procedure 3.00 0.91 2.94 0.87 2.60 0.49 2.80 0.40 3.80 0.40 3.40 0.80 2.80 1.17 2.60 1.02 2.50 0.50 3.00 1.00

Lack clarity or changes result in re-work 2.88 0.76 2.76 0.88 2.40 0.80 2.40 1.02 3.00 0.63 3.00 0.63 3.20 0.75 2.60 0.80 3.00 0.00 3.50 0.50

Work encroaches on personal time 2.82 1.25 3.12 1.18 3.00 1.67 2.80 1.60 3.40 0.80 3.80 0.98 2.40 0.80 2.80 0.75 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00

Member of leadership team is incompetent 2.82 1.38 2.35 1.23 3.60 1.50 2.60 1.36 1.60 0.80 1.40 0.49 2.80 0.75 2.40 0.80 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

Not achieving one or more important goals 2.76 1.11 2.06 0.87 3.00 1.10 2.40 1.02 3.20 1.17 2.00 0.89 2.60 0.80 2.00 0.63 1.50 0.50 1.50 0.50

Rating Scale: How Stressful/Disruptive? 1 = Little, 3 = Medium, 5 = A lot How Frequent? 1 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 5 = Often



Survey 4. High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Teams Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked them to self-report on their direct-line Manager’s effectiveness and frequency of occurrence in demonstrating 20 team leadership behaviours that international research reveals as best practice (see Table 15).

4.1. Findings: Organisational and Department Level Table 9. Directors/Managers self-ratings for High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Leading Teams Note: To interpret means (M), use 4.20 and above to identify leadership behaviours that are relative strengths and 3.80 and below as leadership behaviours that are relative needs.

Rating Scale: How Effective? 1 = Ineffective, 5 = Effective Red = effective

How Frequent? 1 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 5 = Often Pink = frequent

Graph 1. Comparison of directors/managers self-ratings for High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Leading Teams

Rating Scale: How Effective? 1 = Ineffective, 5 = Effective

0

1

2

3

4

5

Leading Teams




4.2. Findings: Item Level Analysis

Table 10. Directors/Managers self-ratings of High Impact Leadership Behaviours: Leading Teams (sample of items) Note: To interpret means (M), use 4.20 and above to identify leadership behaviours that are relative strengths and 3.80 and below as leadership behaviours that are relative needs.

Division Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4



Make frequent use of praise and positive statements 3.94 0.75 4.44 0.61 3.60 0.49 4.60 0.49 4.20 0.75 4.40 0.49 4.00 0.71 4.00 0.71 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.00

Raise issues about customer perspectives during team meetings

3.94 0.75 4.13 0.60 3.40 0.49 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.63 4.00 0.63 4.50 0.50 4.75 0.43 4.00 1.00 3.50 0.50

Ask for more information to draw out reasons for point of view

3.94 0.43 4.06 0.56 3.80 0.40 4.20 0.40 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.63 4.00 0.00 3.75 0.43 4.00 1.00 4.50 0.50

Open to others new ideas and avoid being negative 3.69 0.68 4.13 0.60 3.40 0.49 4.20 0.40 3.60 0.49 4.00 0.63 4.00 0.71 4.25 0.43 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

Encourage team members to share creative ideas without fear

3.69 0.92 4.25 0.75 3.20 0.75 4.40 0.49 4.40 0.49 4.40 0.49 4.00 0.71 4.25 0.43 2.50 0.50 3.50 1.50

Listen to others without thinking what to say next 3.25 0.66 3.44 0.61 3.40 0.49 3.60 0.49 3.60 0.80 3.60 0.80 2.75 0.43 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.50 0.50

Talk to team about tough things interfering with performance

3.00 0.79 3.06 0.90 2.80 0.40 3.20 0.40 3.40 0.80 3.20 1.17 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.50 0.50 2.50 0.50

Rating Scale: How Effective? 1 = Ineffective, 5 = Effective. How frequent? 1 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 5 = Often



Survey 5. High Impact Team Behaviour

Respondents completed a 20-item survey that asked them to self-report on their effectiveness…

Table 11. Staff self-ratings for High Impact Team Behaviours

Graph 2. Comparison of team Staff self-ratings of effectiveness for High Impact Team Behaviours

0

1

2

3

4

5

Leading Teams




Table 12. Staff self-ratings for High Impact Team Behaviours (sample of items)




Quick to praise others for helping me 4.13 0.78 4.28 0.57 3.67 0.75 4.17 0.37 4.40 0.66 4.40 0.66 4.18 0.72 4.27 0.45 4.00 0.89 4.20 0.75

I ask for help from others 3.78 0.89 4.09 0.80 3.83 0.90 4.17 0.69 4.20 0.60 4.40 0.49 3.27 0.96 3.64 0.98 4.00 0.63 4.40 0.49

Apply good problem solving skills 3.75 0.66 3.91 0.80 3.50 0.76 3.00 0.58 4.10 0.30 4.40 0.66 3.45 0.50 3.73 0.45 4.00 0.89 4.40 0.80

Spend time forming strong relationships 3.72 0.94 3.88 0.96 3.83 0.90 4.17 0.69 3.80 1.08 3.60 1.11 3.64 0.77 3.82 0.94 3.60 1.02 4.20 0.75

Contribute to collaborative decision making 3.66 0.64 3.78 0.70 3.33 0.47 3.67 0.75 3.90 0.70 3.90 0.70 3.55 0.50 3.64 0.64 3.80 0.75 4.00 0.63

Ask for more information to clarify point

3.59 0.74 3.88 0.82 3.83 0.69 4.00 0.58 3.60 0.49 4.00 0.63 3.27 0.75 3.45 0.89 4.00 0.89 4.40 0.80

Seek opinions from colleagues with diverse backgrounds

3.56 0.79 3.53 0.93 3.50 0.76 3.50 0.96 3.60 0.80 3.30 0.90 3.36 0.64 3.27 0.62 4.00 0.89 4.60 0.80

Not afraid to express opinions 2.94 0.79 3.16 0.94 2.67 0.47 2.67 0.75 3.20 0.75 3.40 0.92 2.82 0.57 3.09 0.90 3.00 1.26 3.40 1.02

Initiate challenging conversations 2.59 1.00 2.53 1.00 2.67 0.75 2.33 0.75 2.40 0.80 2.30 1.19 2.55 1.08 2.55 0.99 3.00 1.26 3.20 0.40



Survey 6. High Performance Mindset at Work

Respondents completed a three part, 70-item self-report survey covering three aspects of a high performance mindset: Commitments, Behavioural Strengths and Performance Blockers (intrinsic to individual). Respondents used a seven-point scale to indicate to indicate how often they display the psychological capability represented in each item.

6.1. Findings: Organisation and Department Level

Table 13. Respondent self-ratings of High Performance Mindset at Work

Organisation Depart 1 Depart 2 Depart 3 Depart 4


Commitments 5.66 1.16 5.50 1.08 5.59 1.26 5.66 0.97 6.00 1.09

Success Beliefs 5.51 1.23 5.33 1.15 5.46 1.34 5.39 1.08 6.03 1.00

Growth 6.02 1.09 5.70 1.34 6.00 1.27 5.96 0.71 6.56 0.60

Optimism 5.71 1.15 5.50 1.24 5.61 1.28 5.61 0.96 6.31 0.71

Creativity 5.55 1.21 5.45 0.97 5.71 1.25 5.21 1.26 6.00 0.97

High Frustration Tolerance 5.15 1.35 4.90 1.23 5.18 1.43 5.11 1.29 5.50 1.28

Self-Direction 5.11 1.34 5.10 0.98 4.79 1.48 5.07 1.17 5.75 1.44

Others Beliefs 5.84 1.09 5.76 0.95 5.74 1.21 5.87 0.87 6.08 1.10

Empathy 6.15 0.84 5.80 0.90 6.36 0.66 6.00 0.79 6.50 0.78

Acceptance of Others 5.88 1.06 5.70 0.89 5.96 1.16 5.86 0.94 6.00 1.05

Respect 5.85 1.12 5.75 0.99 5.79 1.21 5.82 1.03 6.13 1.16

Feedback 5.72 1.22 5.80 1.02 5.43 1.54 5.82 0.93 5.94 1.14

Support 5.62 1.20 5.75 0.94 5.18 1.45 5.86 0.69 5.81 1.36

Self Beliefs 5.63 1.17 5.42 1.15 5.56 1.22 5.71 0.97 5.90 1.17



Organisation Depart 1 Depart 2 Depart 3 Depart 4


Healthy Living 6.10 1.23 6.15 1.00 5.68 1.55 6.32 0.84 6.38 1.15

Authenticity 5.73 0.94 5.55 0.80 5.79 0.84 5.68 1.03 5.94 1.01

Positive Focus 5.72 0.92 5.60 0.85 5.61 1.03 5.79 0.72 5.94 1.01

Self-Acceptance 5.39 1.30 4.95 1.48 5.57 1.31 5.21 1.03 5.94 1.13

Positive Self-Regard 5.24 1.46 4.85 1.62 5.18 1.35 5.54 1.20 5.31 1.57

Behavioural Strengths 5.32 1.26 5.26 1.11 5.30 1.20 5.21 1.26 5.61 1.25

Persistence 5.68 1.13 5.66 1.09 5.73 0.85 5.41 1.18 6.08 1.19

Getting Along 5.52 1.19 5.54 1.13 5.56 1.10 5.41 1.23 5.63 1.19

Organisation 5.30 1.36 5.38 1.13 5.17 1.44 5.09 1.36 5.83 1.16

Confidence 4.77 1.35 4.46 1.07 4.74 1.43 4.91 1.28 4.93 1.45

Performance Blockers 2.61 1.31 2.88 1.15 2.39 1.35 2.93 1.22 2.09 1.11

Feeling Worried 3.02 1.50 3.62 1.38 2.50 1.51 3.27 1.40 2.73 1.25

Procrastination 2.67 1.25 2.70 1.05 2.71 1.35 3.11 1.08 1.80 1.01

Feeling Down 2.57 1.46 3.00 1.35 2.34 1.51 2.84 1.35 1.95 1.16

Feeling Angry 2.17 1.03 2.18 0.83 2.01 1.03 2.47 1.04 1.90 1.00

Rating scale: How often demonstrate / experience? 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Doesn’t Apply/not sure, 5 = Often, 6 = Almost Always, 7 = Always



Recommendations

Data from the six surveys clearly point to recommendations that apply to the Organisation. Additionally, the obvious differences in some aspects of the data obtained from employees from each Department suggest that recommendations need to be tailored to be the strength and needs profile of each Department.

1. Seven Indicators of High Performance Research reveals that it common practice for leaders of high performing teams, departments and organisations to have their eye on each of the indicators of high performance. Data provided from the high performance surveys completed by employees indicate attention can be placed by the Executive Director at divisional level on highlighting and engaging in best organisational and leadership practices related to the strengthening indicators of Fairness, Leadership, Innovation and Employee Experience. High Performance Indicators Leadership The data obtained from employee ratings of Leadership as well as the self-ratings of Directors and Managers suggest the need for ongoing professional in ‘high impact’ leadership behaviour for leading teams and individuals. [omitted]



References 1Boedker C., Vidgen R., Meagher K., Cogin J., Mouritsen J., & Runnalls J. M. (2011). Leadership, Culture and Management Practices of High Performing Workplaces in Australia: The High Performing Workplaces Index. Technical Report, Society for Economic Knowledge, Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales. 2Luthans, F., & Youssef, C.M. (2004). Human, social and now positive psychological capital management. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143-160. 3Bernard, M.E. (2014). Mindset matters most. CEO, December Issue, 82-83. 4Bernard, M.E. (2014). It’s all in the mind. How to transform an underachiever with potential to a high performer. HR Monthly, December, 2013/January, 2014. 5Collins, J., & Porras, J.I. (2002). Built to Last: Success Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: Harper-Collins. 6Clifton, D.O., & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In A.K.S., Cameron, B.J.E. Dutton & C.R.E. Quinn (Eds.). Positive Organizational behaviour.: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 7Maddi, S.R., & Kobasa, S.C. (1984). The Hardy Executive: Health Under stress. Homewood, Il: Doe Jones-Irwin.

High Performance Audit: The XYZ Organisation · NOTE: This shortened, sample report presents an...

Documents

Transcript of High Performance Audit: The XYZ Organisation · NOTE: This shortened, sample report presents an...