Appendix 1

The Survey and Evaluation

The following appendix presents the survey used.  The purpose of this section is to provide the survey, to comment on the effectiveness of each question, and to give a frequency analysis for each question.

            Some questions certainly were more important than others.  Often, the usefulness of a question only became apparent after receiving the answers from the respondents.  Likewise, some questions deemed appropriate and important at survey construction later turned out to be ill-suited, because the responses indicated that the question was ambiguous or worded poorly.

            The option of “other” within many of the questions revealed little.  The only question for which the response of “other” elicited information useful for future surveys was in the training portion.  Several respondents stated that they provide safety training.  This was not a topic discussed within the survey.  However, in types of information shared, safety information was a choice.  Safety training should have been a possible selection.  As a whole, though, few respondents provided information other than circling the alternatives provided within the survey.

            The method for presenting the information is to present the question, provide the frequency table, and then comment on each question.  I hope that this post-hoc analysis of the survey aids in constructing better surveys.  While I think that this survey captured a lot of valuable information, each and every subsequent survey can be made better given that the researcher learns.  The process itself is a learning curve, and I certainly am more aware of issues surrounding surveys as a result of this procedure.

            One final note: I present the survey, with bolding and highlighting, as was done on the original survey.  If one were to remove the frequency tables and my notes, then one would have the survey that was mailed to the participants.

HUMAN RESOURCES SURVEY

GENERAL INFORMATION:

1. How many full-time employees work at your company?:

            a. 0 - 50

            b. 51 - 100

            c. 101 - 250

            d. 251 - 500

            e. over 500

Table 33

This information is useful given that readers can identify the size of the firms investigated within the sample.  However, this information was not used directly within the research.

2. Which category best describes your company?:

a.       manufacturing

b.      professional / service

c.       high technology

d.      heavy industry

e.       other:

Table 34

One can see quickly from this chart that the majority of companies surveyed were from the manufacturing sector.  This question did pose a problem, though.  The respondents often forced themselves into a category.  While this was never the case for manufacturing, companies often would write in a category.  The type of category would often describe the firm in such detail that it would compromise the survey given that the anonymity wall was broken.  In cases where the company described what they did in such detail, I placed the company as best I could.  This was made easier in that the company would circle a response and then describe their activities.  In the cases where the company described their activities and did not circle a response, I coded the company as the respondent did: other.  What would be a good idea next time is to search for broader categories into which respondents could place themselves. 

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES:

3. Approximately, what is your company's yearly absenteeism rate?:

a.       0 - 5%

b.      6 - 10%

c.       11 - 15%

d.      16 -20%

e.       over 20%

Table 35

Given that this absenteeism rate was one of the two main variables within the analysis, this question was clearly important.  The only comment that I have for this question and the next, turnover, is that future researchers may want to consider an interval variable.  Given the limitations with using ordinal variables, then certain types of analyses become impotent.  Utilizing a broader range of statistics could be useful.  However, please see Chapter 4 on the issues that surround reporting problems with absenteeism.  Perhaps coding turnover as an interval variable would be a first step prior to standards being applied to reporting.

4. Approximately, what is your company's yearly turnover rate?:

            a. 0 - 5%

            b. 6 - 10%

            c. 11 - 15 %

            d. 16 - 20%

            e. over 20%

Table 36

For the most part, please see the comments above for absenteeism.  However, I would like to remark on the fact that the surveyed firms have, overall, very low turnover.  As found in Chapter 4, the estimated turnover of all industries within the United States is 15%.  From the frequency chart, one can see that the majority of companies fall considerably below that number.

5. Which methods does your company use to hire employees?:

a  structured interview

b. psychological testing

c. skills testing

d. other

Table 37

This question yielded little information.  Given that there is no portion where the respondent can expound on the information provided, then the difference between an interview where one explains skills and skills testing becomes of little value.  Likewise, there are several respondents who selected more than one skill.  “Combination” in the last line (44.8%) identifies those companies that utilize multiple methods.  Future researchers would want to work out details of how to code this type of question before using it within any type of analysis.  Determining all of the possible interactions among interview types would be difficult but could prove useful in identifying the correlation between approaches and some other variables.

6. Please rate the importance of each of the following Human Resource functions:

As an overall indicator, this series of questions identified a lot.  There were a few surveys where people circled below “3” for items such as employee development and training and employee representation to management.  Then, the respondent stated that the firm provided all of the training identified in the survey and offered all of the mechanisms for participation. 

The most important information gleaned from this series of questions was how the respondent rated the importance of these areas when compared to other questions.  If the human-resource manager stated that a company highly valued training and development or employee representation to management but provided neither training nor representation to management, then there was a clear lack of support to substantiate the reply.   In other words, this was a test question to determine if the firm walked-the-walk and talked-the-talk.  This type of check and counter-check was invaluable during the qualitative review of the firms and enabled me to categorize the firms with greater accuracy.

There is one final note, which concerns how one should read the frequency tables.  In the survey, the only numbers identified with nominative values are 1 and 5.  Given that people might value 2, 3, and 4 in a variety of ways, I did not depict those numbers with nomenclature. Rather, I list the values for which the survey identified values, and then I identify responses for the 2, 3, and 4.

[1 = least important,   5 = most important]

1. employee benefit administration                         1          2          3          4          5

Table 38

2. employee development and training                   1          2          3          4          5

Table 39

3. long-term strategic planning                               1          2          3          4          5

Table 40

4. employee representative to management            1          2          3          4          5

Table 41

5. other:                                                                1          2          3          4          5

(There were four companies that provided a response for other.)

As you can see, a lot of companies prefer to be at the high-end of assigning importance to these areas.  However, as stated above, the real determination of importance rested in whether the company allocated resources to those areas.  If the company stated that they valued development and training and representation to management, then the immediate next check was to see if the company provided training and mechanisms for participation.  This cross check was priceless during the qualitative analysis.

OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE:

7. What percentage employee-owned is your company today?:

a.       0 - 10%

b.      11% - 29%

c.       30%-49%

d.      50%- 99%

e.       100%

Table 42

This question was not utilized very often within the analysis.  Although it is useful for demographics, the comparison between it and the next question simply leads me to believe that the proportion of company ownership is stable.  Perhaps, though, ownership is likely to increase slightly over the next five years.

8. What percentage employee-owned do you think your company will be in five years?:

a.       0 - 10%

b.      11% - 29%

c.       30% - 49%

d.      50% - 99%

e.       100%

Table 43

Please see above question for comments.

9. How many years has your company been employee-owned?:

            a. 0 - 1 year

            b. 2 - 5 years

            c. 6 - 10 years

            d. 11 - 15 years

f.        16 years or over

Table 44

This was a demographic question, again.  From the table, one can see that the majority of the respondents have been employee owned for 11-15 years.  This is enticing, because the surveyed companies represent not fads but solid structures.

10. Why did your company become employee owned?: (please circle all that apply)

            a. retiring owner

            b. avert shut-down

            c. capital improvement

            d. corporate performance

            e. other

Table 45

The primary reason for employee ownership is for retiring owners to transfer their companies to the employees—not averting a shutdown as one might believe on the basis of press coverage.

TRAINING:

11. What types of training does your company offer?:

The following list of specific training items revealed very relevant information.  The results, usually, came when comparing the responses to the overall nature of the returned survey.  If the firm stated that they placed high importance on development and training, provided only management / supervisor training, and offered only joint labor/management committees as a mechanism for participation, then one could infer a non-participatory culture.  However, if a firm placed importance on training, provided several of the components, shared information, and provided congruent mechanisms for participation similar to those for which employees received training, then one could easily infer a participatory culture.

The only alternative amongst the list that seemed to elucidate little was employee orientation.  This option created post-hoc questions given that I was unsure what occurred in employee orientation.  Was it a one-day class, one-hour class, or a multi-month process?  Given this lack of standardization, I would recommend that future researchers expound on the question by providing a sub-section within the response to determine the amount of time devoted to introduction or apprenticeship endeavors.

In presenting the frequency tables for this section, the tables are broken down into whether or not the surveyed firms provide training or not.  Therefore, a “yes” indicates that the firm does and a “no” indicates that a firm does not provide the identified training.

a.       employee orientation

Table 46

b.      financial training

Table 47

c.       problem-solving training

Table 48

d.      team-building training

Table 49

e.       management / supervisor training

Table 50

f.        computer-skills training

Table 51

g.       other:

(Sixteen companies indicated that they provide some other form of training.)

As one can see from the above tables, the vast majority of training exists within employee orientation and management/supervisor training.  The other types are grossly neglected.  This is clearly an issue that employee-owned firms need to address, because training in other areas provides workers with the tools to be successful.

12. What percentage of your workforce participates in at least one training course per year?:

a.       under 29%

b.      30 - 49 %

c.       50 - 69 %

d.      70 - 89 %

e.       90 - 100%

Table 52

At first, this question was not as valued as it should have been.  This question, similar to question 6, became a crosscheck question.  As stated in the analysis, the confounding category described those companies for which a culture could not be inferred.  This question assisted me in ascertaining that distinction.  This crosscheck question highlighted the deficiency of the previous question in that some respondents replied only to the training types listed.  A few respondents stated that they provided safety training.  However, given that some companies answered that they provided none of the training listed but had a percentage of the work force in at least one training course per year, then there is an obvious discrepancy between what the survey captured and what occurs in the work force for some companies.  Future researchers should utilize this discrepancy to identify other types of training companies provide to ensure that all types are recognized in the survey so as to ensure that the instrument captures the true nature of the training programs within firms.

13. How much do you feel training contributes to improved company's performance?:

a.       training does not help to improve our company's performance

b.      training slightly helps to improve our company's performance

c.       training modestly helps to improve our company's performance

d.      training greatly helps to improve our company's performance