A manager’s essential guide to holding regular check-ins
muchskills.com
muchskills.com
For example while it talks about employee engagement it never defines the exact meaning. While it quotes some Gallup stats on how said engagement rose for companies initiating some measures it fails to exactly describe the change (before and after state).
And so on. In the end it is nothing but advertising dressed up as content.
[Edit] And, just realized, it was posted without stating the affiliation of the poster to the advertised company.
I feel like this has less to do with this one article specifically and more that Gallup/HBR skew these studies towards kinds of work where these numbers easy to observe, or are at least amenable to some kind of measurement. The GE study article[1] seems to support it's claim with a performance/cost engineering outcome, some business process metric whose value is left unspecified, and some sort of vague organizational change.
I'm curious if there are more rigorous or at least modest methods behind these kinds of numbers. Obviously HBR isn't going to delve into the model for their casual article, but I assume that academics at Harvard Business School do?
[1] https://hbr.org/2015/08/ges-real-time-performance-developmen...