Posts Tagged ‘Financial Performance’

Employee engagement and organisational performance

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Engagement is all about getting employees to ‘give it their all’. Various research studies show a strong connection between an employee’s level of engagement and the level and quality of work performance.

Elements of engagement

The concept of engagement has naturally evolved from past research on high involvement, empowerment, job motivation, organizational commitment and trust.

Dr. Paul Bernthal (2009) proposes that engagement comprises of individual value, focused work, and interpersonal support with the following sub-components that further define the meaning of engagement:

  • Individual Value - Employees feel more engaged when they are able to make a unique contribution, experience empowerment, and have opportunities for personal growth.  The perception of meaningful work is one of the most influential factors in determining employees’ willingness to stay with an organization.
  • Focused Work – Employees feel more engaged when they have clear direction, performance accountability and an efficient work environment.
  • Interpersonal Support – Employees feel more engaged when they work in a safe, cooperative environment.

Work related roles

“Role theory” reviews different roles that people engage in at work and explains reasons why people engage in certain roles and not in others (Welbourne, 2003). Engagement is about what people do at work.  The Five work-related roles differentiated are:

1. Job holder role – employees come to work and do the job that is listed in their job description.

2. Team member role – employees go “above and beyond” to help members of their team work toward common goals.

3. Entrepreneur role – employees come up with new ideas and processes and try to get those ideas implemented.

4. Career role – employees do things to enhance their career in the organization; they learn, they adapt new skills and more.

5. Organization member role – employees do things that promote and help the company even if it’s not part of their jobs or their team’s duties.

Employee engagement and performance measurement

Researches on employee engagement use different approaches.  According to the global workforce study conducted by Tower Perrins, only a fifth of the respondents can be categorized as engaged (Towers Perrin, 2008). The largest segment, over 40%, is the so-called “enrolled,” perhaps best described as capable but not fully committed. The four categories of employees engagement are presented below:

Source: Towers Perrin, 2008

The same  workforce study reveals that a spread of more than 5% in operating margin and more than 3% in net profit margin was observed between the companies with high employee engagement and those with low engagement. How  engagement affects financial performance and retention in companies is illustrated in the figure below.

Source: Towers Perrin, 2008 (click on the image for larger size)

Another employee engagement research approach was developed by Gallup Consulting, which uses 12 questions (Q12) to measure the employee engagement (Gallup Consulting, 2008). Gallup’s latest meta-analysis (an analysis of data from more than 152 organizations) shows dramatic differences between top and bottom quartile workgroups on key business outcomes, as it is revelead in the the figure below:


Source: Gallup Consulting, 2008, 2010

Answers to the Gallup’s questions (Q12) that measure employee engagement correlate with retention, productivity, customer engagement and safety.

Why is important to measure engagement?

Some companies use engagement scores as lead measures in their HR scorecards. When an organization can show the relationship between engagement scores and bottom-line outcomes, everyone pays attention to the engagement index. Establishing this critical link between people and performance helps HR professionals prove that people-related interventions are a worthwhile investment.

How do you measure the employee engagement in your firm?

For further examples of performance measures and reports explore the Human Resources KPIs in practice section of smartkpis.com (smartKPIs.com 2010). The employee engagement index is available at: http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi-key-performance-indicator/employee-engagement-index-1836.html

References

Bernthal P. 2009, Measuring Employee Engagement, Development Dimensions International, Inc., available at: http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_MeasuringEmployeeEngagement_wp.pdf

Gallup Consulting 2008 -2010, Employee Engagement , What’s Your Engagement Ratio?, available at: http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/employee-engagement.aspx and  http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/Employee-Engagement-Overview-Brochure.aspx

Towers Perrin 2008, Global Workforce Survey, Closing the Engagement Gap: A Road Map for Driving Superior Business Performance, available at: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2008/200803/GWS_Global_Report20072008_31208.pdf

Welbourne T. 2003, Employee Engagement: Doing It vs. Measuring, available at: http://www.eepulse.com/documents/pdfs/HR.com-9-8-03.pdf

The financial performance of world’s top football clubs – a “Deloitte Football Money League” special report

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Deloitte Football Money League reached its 13th edition, once with the launch of its latest report on March 2010, under a striking headline: “Spanish Masters Football Money League”.

The report, profiles the highest earning clubs of the world’s most popular sport, football, and was released nine months after the end of the 2008/2009 season.

The measure chosen for assessing the clubs performance is $ Club revenue, as it offers according with Deloitte analysts “the best publicly available financial comparison”. Other measures such as # Fan base, # Broadcast audience, or # On pitch success, though good candidates for assessing club strength and performance, were not considered for the purpose of the current investigation.

Source: Deloitte, 2010

Thus, according with the latest club financial performance results, Real Madrid is the first sports team to record revenues in excess of 400 million Euros in a financial year. What strikes out is the fact that this astronomic revenue was generated in the conditions of a relatively disappointing season, with poor performance results for the team, both in the internal arena, where they were overpowered by their life time rivals, F.C. Barcelona, but also on the international stage, where they suffered a six consecutive loss in a Champions League knock out stage. Despite all these misfortunes the matchday, broadcasting and commercial revenues, where all in triple figures at the end of the reporting period, maximizing club’s revenues.

Source: Deloitte, 2010

Even more impressive, the report reveals that the revenues of the Spanish top 2 clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona, have tripled in the last 10 years as the graph below shows. This is mostly due to a tremendous increase in the revenues generated from broadcasting rights. Thus, the two clubs significantly ascended in the Deloitte Money League Rankings, Real Madrid from the 6th position up on the top spot and Barcelona from the 13th position on the 3rd place.

Revenue growth of selected Money League clubs 2000/01 to 2008/09  (Euros/millions)

Source: Deloitte, 2010

As the report further reveals, the top 20 of the world’s most successful football clubs is entirely dominated by major European clubs. Most of them, as regular participants in the richest football clubs competition, the  UEFA Champions League, are also generating impressive revenues from it, both from the tickets sales and TV broadcasting rights but also from the match-day prize money. According with Deloitte analysts, the revenues generated by the most prestigious European football clubs competition over the last 18 years increased more than twenty fold, from 45 million Euros in 1992/93 season to a staggering 1, 090 billion Euros in 2009/10 season.

Source: Deloitte, 2010

These figures, are further proof that  football has become indeed a major industry. Club performance is no longer measured only by the form showed on the pitch by teams during competitions, but  is becoming more and more dependent on the clubs leaders ability to manage “a real business”, one in witch marketing campaigns are as important as football transfers, and leadership over the entire club is as important as the leadership that the football team captain has to show on the pitch.

For more Sport Management KPIs visit: http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/industries/sport-management/

References:

Social and Financial Performance of Microfinance Institutions

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are mainly private-held companies, whose owners tend to have long-term interests (Ingo, W., Krauss, N. 2008). Most MFIs are strongly related with a social mission. For example, the most common “raison d’être” for MFIs is to broaden access to financial services, reduce poverty, empower women, build community solidarity, or promote economic development and regeneration.

MFIs social performance refers to the extent of their success in meeting these goals, representing more the impact rather than an outcome (IFAD 2006).

Impact pathways (IFAD 2006)

As social organizations, MFIs apply commercial principles for achieving social impact. MFIs performance focuses both on social impact and financial outcomes. The social impact is achieved through the way financial services improve the lives of poor and excluded clients, by widening the range of opportunities for communities.

Financial outcomes are achieved through strategic management and focus on assuring organizational performance. The KPIs used to measure performance of microfinance institutions are usually structured in core areas, (Rosenberg 2006) such as:

  • Outreach—what number of clients are being served?
  • Client poverty levelhow poor are the clients?
  • Financial sustainability—how profitable is the MFI, in order to maintain and expand its services, without having continued injections of subsidized donor funds?
  • Collection performance—is the MFI collecting its loans as planned and expected?
  • Efficiency—is the MFI controlling its administrative costs at an optimal level?

A standard international KPI monitored in MFIs is Portfolio at Risk (PAR). It measures the loan portfolio with at least one day missed payment to total loan outstanding at a given time. It refers to the outstanding balance of all the loans that have an amount overdue.

For further examples of MFIs performance indicators, explore the Banking, Mortgages and Credit KPIs examples and the  section of smartkpis.com (smartKPIs.com 2010).

References:

IFAD 2006: Assessing and managing social performance in microfinance,  Rome

Ingo, W., Krauss, N. 2008: Can Microfinance Reduce Portfolio Volatility?, Working Paper Series, USA: New York University

Rosenberg, R. 2006: Review of UNDP Microfinance Portfolio, The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), Washington D.C.

smartKPIs.com 2010, Banking, Mortgages and Credit KPIs examples, viewed 27 May 2010, <http://www.smartkpis.com/kpi/industries/financial-institutions/banking-mortgages-and-credit/>.

Featured products

$99 USD
 
$183 USD
 
$1800 USD
 
$35 USD
 
$99 USD
 
$45 USD
 
$289 USD
 
$99 USD