盖洛普Q12员工敬业度调查.ppt

What do those positive changes in Q12TM scores mean as it relates to business outcomes? Those workgroups in this case study that experienced a .2 increase in their Grand Mean score saw their Customer Loyalty scores increase by 1.81% and their Full-time turnover decrease by 5.48%. Workgroups that saw a .2 decrease in their Grand Mean scores from 1997 to 1999 saw their Customer Loyalty scores decrease by .4%, their Full-time turnover increase by 1.24% and their Part-Time turnover increase by 20.72%. What do those changes translate to in terms of dollars? The variables we are using to measure sales and profit are Sales Budget Variance and PL Budget Variance. The Sr. Executives of this company had a budget that they expected each store to live up to in terms of their Sales and their Profitability. We wanted to see whether stores who increased their Q12TM scores from 1997 to 1999 exceeded their sales and PL budgets or fell short of them. What we saw was that stores that increased their Grand Mean on the Q12TM by .20 from 1997 to 1999 exceeded their Sale Budget by an average of $560,217 in 1999. They also outperformed their PL budget by an average of $419,142. Those stores that saw a decrease in their Q12TM Grand Means by .20 fell short of their Sales Budgets by $747,835 in 1999 and their PL budgets by $18,731. This comes from our retail case study. There were some stores in this case study that only saw movement in their Q12TM scores that were at the top of this hierarchy. Those stores actually saw their turnover go up by 6% for part-time, and 12.4% for full-time associates. They also saw their Customer loyalty scores decrease by .84%. They also fell short of their Sales budgets by an average of $483,996 while they slightly exceeded their PL Budgets by an average of $122,880. Of the stores that saw improvements in their scores throughout this hierarchy, they realized a 7.2% decrease in part-time turnover, a 10.9% decrease in full-time turnover, and a 1.7