Survey Feedback as a Large-Scale Change Device: An Empirical Examination

Conlon, Edward J.; Short, Lawrence O.

doi:10.1177/105960118400900306

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conducting assessments provide guidance in terms of current capabilities and identification of performance gaps, helping to identify where improvement is possible, necessary or desirable (Nielsen and Kimberly, 1976). Critical to this process is determining what is explored in conducting an assessment, and how the results are shared with the organization (Conlon and Short, 1984). Identifying what to assess, and how, becomes increasingly more complex as the work becomes more intangible and knowledge-based (Tuttle and Romanowski, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

If maturity is the answer, then exactly what was the question?

Mullaly¹

2014

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – Maturity models have been widely adopted as a popular framework for improvement project management practices. Despite their prevalence, there is still minimal evidence that improvements in maturity correspond to improvements in performance or value. This paper aims to explore the challenges faced in applying project management maturity models and offers suggestions for their revision. Design/methodology/approach – The paper highlights the presumptions in their development and use that are inhibiting relevance of maturity models. Case studies from a major research project explore the relationship between maturity and value. Insights are generated on how project management maturity models need to change in order to become relevant. Findings – Project management maturity models presume that project management is universal, control oriented and consistent, and that maturity is a linear process. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the practice of project management varies, that different practices result in different value. The paper suggests that a contingent and contextual approach to assessment is required, which maturity models as currently defined may not be able to support. Research limitations/implications – This is a largely conceptual paper and draws on a limited number of case studies that derived maturity from a comprehensive understanding of project management practices. It is not tied to one specific model, and a model that would address the criticisms discussed here has not been conceived or developed. Practical implications – This paper will have particular relevance for organizations, who may place excess faith in the rhetoric surrounding maturity models without questioning their underlying relevance or value. It is also of importance to those who develop maturity models and suggests strategies for their significant revision. Originality/value – This paper takes an important look at whether maturity models actually deliver on their promise and argues that by both design and structure, they are unlikely to do so in their current form.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

If maturity is the answer, then exactly what was the question?

Mullaly¹

2014

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, organizations may improve their benchmark scores as they are exposed to new ideas when completing the assessment or after reviewing their feedback report. [15][16][17] In fact, those that had an active membership with WELCOA were directed to additional member-only resources based on their feedback reports. This could have contributed to higher scores across all benchmarks over time for WELCOA members, although we do not know what resources were actually utilized by organizations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The report details performance against each benchmark, highlights areas of strength and opportunity, and suggests changes that could improve the benchmark performance. Assessments and survey feedback have a long history as an organizational development approach 15,16 and survey instruments have been known to increase knowledge or spark new ideas for respondents 17 which could lead to improvements in WWC scores. Therefore, our first hypothesis was that organizations' overall WWC scores would increase with each repeated WWC assessment, even after controlling for organizational characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking Changes in US Organizations’ Workplace Health Promotion Initiatives: A Longitudinal Analysis of Performance Against Quality Benchmarks

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To examine changes in organizations’ workplace health promotion (WHP) initiatives over time associated with repeated self-assessment using the Well Workplace Checklist (WWC). Design: Well Workplace Checklist data include a convenience sample of US organizations that selected to assess their performance against quality WHP benchmarks. Setting: Workplaces. Subjects: In total, 577 US organizations completed the WWC in 2 or more years from 2008 to 2015. Measures: The WWC is a 100-item organizational assessment that measures performance against the original set of quality benchmarks that were established by the Wellness Council of America (WELCOA). Analysis: This study examined changes in overall WWC scores as well as 7 separate benchmark scores. Multilevel modeling was used to examine changes in scores associated with repeated assessments, controlling for the year of assessment and organizational characteristics. Results: There were significant increases in overall WWC scores (β = 2.93, P < .001) associated with the repeated WWC assessments, after controlling for organizational characteristics. All 7 benchmark scores had significant increases associated with reassessment. Compared to other benchmarks, operating plan (β = 6.18, P < .001) and evaluation (β = 4.91, P < .001) scores increased more with each reassessment. Conclusion: Continued reassessment may represent more commitment to and investment in WHP initiatives which could lead to improved quality. Other factors that may positively influence changes in performance against benchmarks include company size, access to outside resources for WHP, and a history with implementing WHP.

show abstract

“…However, Nadler (1976) in a review of the topic refers to the need for more extensive evaluation research with the inclusion of longitudinal designs, productivity measures, and data other than the data used in the feedback process. The need to evaluate the effect of survey feedback on productivity has more recently been repeated by Conlon and Short (1984).…”

Section: Survey Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%