SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEASURING AND MONITORING ENGAGEMENT

A computer-implemented method for evaluating personnel engagement. The method may include distributing engagement surveys to a plurality of persons associated with an organization, analyzing the engagement surveys in real-time to obtain one or more engagement survey results, and reporting the engagement survey results in real-time. Also, a system for evaluating personnel engagement. The system may comprise a personnel assessment computer. The personnel assessment computer configured to distribute engagement surveys to a plurality of persons associated with an organization, analyze the engagement surveys in real-time to obtain one or more engagement survey results, and report the engagement survey results in real-time.

Not applicable.

REFERENCE TO A MICROFICHE APPENDIX

Not applicable.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The disclosure generally relates to evaluating, for example, measuring and monitoring, engagement by personnel, such as employees, associated with an organization, such as an employer.

BACKGROUND

Even though most organizations may attempt to measure engagement of their personnel, the systems and methodology employed to gauge personnel engagement have not effectively moved in recent years. Moreover, many estimate that engagement by personnel has diminished considerably in recent years. For example, about a decade ago, estimates were that one out of every three employees were considered, by the employer, to be “engaged.” More recent estimates, however, indicate that personnel engagement has fallen to only one out of every four employees. This decrease in in personnel engagement comes at a significant cost.

More particularly, employers often fear that that key personnel may leave the company with little or no warning. While employers or management within an organization may perceive that the organization is a desirable place to work, employees may feel otherwise. For example, employers or managers may perceive organizational culture differently from other personnel, may perceive compensation and incentives differently from other personnel, may perceive the availability of resources differently from other personnel, or may perceive recognition schemes differently from other personnel. Often, the disconnect between employers and personnel could have been easily remedied, had employers only recognized the need to do so.

The cost of this turnover in personnel is often significant. Not only are there costs associated with hiring a replacement and losses in productivity, but there are often further losses in efficiency and the time necessary for a replacement hire to become efficient. Some employers have estimated that for every employee turn-over event, the organization loses about a year of productivity.

As such, what is needed are improved methods and systems of addressing personnel engagement.

SUMMARY

In some embodiments disclosed herein is a computer-implemented method of evaluating personnel engagement comprising distributing engagement surveys to a plurality of persons associated with an organization, analyzing the engagement surveys in real-time to obtain one or more engagement survey results, and reporting the engagement survey results in real-time. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the engagement surveys may each comprise from about10to about20questions related to engagement. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the engagement surveys are distributed at least bi-annually. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments analyzing the engagement survey comprises determining a group or organizational value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments analyzing the engagement survey comprises determining a group or organization cultural archetype based on the group or organizational value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments analyzing the engagement survey comprises determining an intra-group conflict value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments analyzing the engagement survey comprises determining an inter-group conflict value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments analyzing the engagement survey comprises determining a culture fit score. For example, the culture fit score may be for a person with respect to another person, for a person with respect to a group and/or for a group with respect to another group. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments at least one of the persons is a prospective employee.

Also disclosed herein is a system for evaluating personnel engagement, the system comprising a personnel assessment computer configured to distribute engagement surveys to a plurality of persons associated with an organization, analyze the engagement surveys in real-time to obtain one or more engagement survey results, and report the engagement survey results in real-time. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the engagement surveys each comprise from about 10 to about 20 questions related to engagement. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to distribute the engagement surveys at least bi-annually. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to analyze the engagement survey by determining a group or organizational value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to analyze the engagement survey by determining a group or organization cultural archetype based on the group or organizational value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to analyze the engagement survey by determining an intra-group conflict value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to analyze the engagement survey by determining an inter-group conflict value. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the personnel engagement computer is configured to analyze the engagement survey by determining a culture fit score. For example, the culture fit score may be for a person with respect to another person, for a person with respect to a group, and/or for a group with respect to another group. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments at least one of the persons is a prospective employee.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Disclosed herein are methods and systems for evaluating personnel engagement. In various embodiments, the personnel that are the subject of the methods and systems disclosed herein may be, with respect to a particular organization, any employee, whether salaried, temporary, or hourly; staff; agent; contractor; affiliate; or other person otherwise engaged with the organization. Also, in various embodiments, the personnel may be members of a particular work-group, sub-group, department, or location within an organization or within the organization in its entirety. Additionally, in various embodiments, the methods and systems for evaluating personnel engagement may be applied with respect to current personnel, prospective personnel, or both.

In various embodiments, “engagement” of personnel may refer to some person's level of commitment to, attention to, interest in, and/or intentness with respect to the organization of which they are a part. For example, personnel exhibiting relatively high levels of engagement may tend to be characterized as absorbed in and enthusiastic about their work and/or as having a positive view of the organization. Conversely, personnel exhibiting relative levels of engagement may tend to be characterized as disconnected from and indifferent about their work and as not be particularly interested in the organization. Generally, organizations tend to prefer that their personnel be engaged, not only because engaged employees are believed to be more productive than relatively less engaged personnel, but also in that engaged employees are also exhibit a longer tenure with the organization.

In various embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein may be employed to provide a quantification of various aspects of personnel engagement. More particularly, in various embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein may utilize novel algorithms to evaluate personnel assessments. Also, in some embodiments, based upon those evaluations, the methods and systems disclosed herein may also predict whether or not a particular person will suitable member of a particular organization or group. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, based upon those evaluations, the methods and systems disclosed herein may predict potential measures to shift the culture of an organization or group. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, based upon one or more of those evaluations, the methods and systems disclosed herein may predict potential measures to improve engagement by one or more particular persons.

For example, in some embodiments the methods and systems may be related to gathering and reporting, in real-time, engagement data. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the methods and systems may be related to defining an organization's culture. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the methods and systems may be related to performance of a gap-analysis between an organizations desired culture and the organization's current culture. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments may be related to determination of potential conflicts between members of a particular group and/or potential conflicts between two or more groups.

In some embodiments, the method disclosed herein may be implemented via a personnel engagement system100. For example, referring toFIG. 1is a schematic illustration of an embodiment of the personnel engagement system100. In the embodiment ofFIG. 1, the system100generally includes a user device120and a personnel assessment computer140.

In various embodiments, the components of the system100may be operably connected via one or more networks (for example, a broadband network, an optical network, a Wi-Fi network, a Bluetooth network, a near-field communication (NFC) network, a cellular network, a satellite network, a cloud network, a card processing network, a banking network, a local area network, the World Wide Web for Internet, a non-cellular mobile phone network, a land-line network, a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), a dedicated communication line, some other networks for transferring electronic information, or combinations thereof). Particularly, in some embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may be operably connected to, for example, in signal communication with the user device120.

In various embodiments, the user device120may comprise a personal computer, a tablet, a mobile phone such as a smartphone, a cloud computing system, a server, or combinations thereof. The user device120may be configured by the user or consumer to send, receive, and/or access one or more electronic messages having a suitable format. For example, in various embodiments, the electronic message may be formatted as electronic mail (i.e., an email such as email utilizing simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) or another suitable protocol); a short-message-service (SMS) (i.e., a “text” message); an instant message (IM); a personal message or private message (PM), for example, which may be provided via a social-networking platform (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) or via a private messaging platform (e.g., WhatsApp, Kik Messenger, Snapchat); or combinations thereof.

Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the user device120may also be configured to provide Internet access, for example, comprising suitable hardware and software (e.g., an Internet browser) for connection to and navigation of various networks via which Internet access may be obtained. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the user device120may be configured to provide access to an organizational intranet. The user device120may also comprise a suitable user interface, for example, a graphical user interface which may be implemented and/or manipulated via a touch screen, a keyboard, a mouse, a trackball, voice-command, or combinations thereof.

In various embodiments, personnel assessment computer140may be generally configured to perform one or more steps of the methods generally disclosed herein. The personnel assessment computer140comprises and is implemented via a particular machine generally comprising sufficient processing power, memory resources, and network throughput capability to handle the necessary workload placed upon it.FIG. 2illustrates an embodiment of the personnel assessment computer140suitably configured to implement all, or a portion of, one or more embodiments disclosed herein. The personnel assessment computer140includes a processor202(which may be referred to as a central processor unit or CPU) that is in communication with memory devices including secondary storage204, read only memory (ROM)206, random access memory (RAM)208, input/output (I/O) devices210, and network connectivity devices212. The processor202may be implemented as one or more CPU chips.

In some embodiments, the secondary storage204may be comprised of one or more disk drives or tape drives, for example, which may be used for non-volatile storage of data and as an over-flow data storage device if RAM208is not large enough to hold all working data. Secondary storage204may be used to store programs which are loaded into RAM208when such programs are selected for execution. The ROM206is used to store instructions and perhaps data which are read during program execution. ROM206is a non-volatile memory device which typically has a small memory capacity relative to the larger memory capacity of secondary storage204. The RAM208is used to store volatile data and perhaps to store instructions. Access to both ROM206and RAM208is typically faster than to secondary storage204. The secondary storage204, the RAM208, and/or the ROM206may be referred to in some contexts as computer readable storage media and/or non-transitory computer readable media.

The processor202executes instructions, codes, computer programs, scripts which it accesses from a hard disk, a floppy disk, an optical disk (these various disk-based systems may all be considered secondary storage204), ROM206, RAM208, or the network connectivity devices212. While only one processor202is shown, multiple processors may be present. Thus, while instructions may be discussed as executed by a processor, the instructions may be executed simultaneously, serially, or otherwise executed by one or multiple processors. Instructions, codes, computer programs, scripts, and/or data that may be accessed from the secondary storage204, for example, hard drives, floppy disks, optical disks, and/or other device, the ROM206, and/or the RAM208may be referred to in some contexts as non-transitory instructions and/or non-transitory information.

In some embodiments, some or all of the functionality disclosed above may be provided as a computer program product. The computer program product may comprise one or more computer readable storage medium having computer usable program code embodied therein to implement the functionality disclosed above. The computer program product may comprise data structures, executable instructions, and other computer-usable program code. The computer program product may be embodied in removable computer storage media and/or non-removable computer storage media. The removable computer readable storage medium may comprise, without limitation, a paper tape, a magnetic tape, magnetic disk, an optical disk, a solid-state memory chip, for example analog magnetic tape, compact disk read only memory (CD-ROM) disks, floppy disks, jump drives, digital cards, multimedia cards, and others. The computer program product may be suitable for loading, by the personnel assessment computer140, at least portions of the contents of the computer program product to the secondary storage204, to the ROM206, to the RAM208, and/or to other non-volatile memory and volatile memory of the personnel assessment computer140. The processor202may process the executable instructions and/or data structures in part by directly accessing the computer program product, for example by reading from a CD-ROM disk inserted into a disk drive peripheral of the personnel assessment computer140. Alternatively, the processor202may process the executable instructions and/or data structures by remotely accessing the computer program product, for example by downloading the executable instructions and/or data structures from a remote server through the network connectivity devices212. The computer program product may comprise instructions that promote the loading and/or copying of data, data structures, files, and/or executable instructions to the secondary storage204, to the ROM206, to the RAM208, and/or to other non-volatile memory and volatile memory of the personnel assessment computer140.

In some contexts, the secondary storage204, the ROM206, and the RAM208may be referred to as a non-transitory computer readable medium or a computer readable storage media. A dynamic RAM embodiment of the RAM208, likewise, may be referred to as a non-transitory computer readable medium in that while the dynamic RAM receives electrical power and is operated in accordance with its design, for example during a period of time during which the personnel assessment computer140is turned on and operational, the dynamic RAM stores information that is written to it. Similarly, the processor202may comprise an internal RAM, an internal ROM, a cache memory, and/or other internal non-transitory storage blocks, sections, or components that may be referred to in some contexts as non-transitory computer readable media or computer readable storage media.

In various embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may be configured to perform all, substantially all, or part of one or more of the methods disclosed herein, for example, a method of providing a quantification of various aspects of personnel engagement, a method of evaluating personnel assessments, a method of predicting whether or not a particular person will suitable member of a particular organization or group, a method predicting potential measures to shift the culture of an organization or group, a method of predicting potential measures to improve engagement by one or more particular persons, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may be configured to perform one or more of the steps of the methods disclosed herein in real-time or substantially in real-time. As used herein, processing in “real-time” refers broadly to completion of one or more processing tasks, from receipt of an input to generation of an output based upon that input, without any appreciable delay, for example, as opposed to “batch” processing.

For example, referring toFIG. 3, an embodiment of a method300of evaluating personnel engagement is illustrated. In the embodiment ofFIG. 3, the method300comprises distributing an engagement survey to personnel (at block310). For example, the personnel assessment computer140may cause an engagement survey to be distributed electronically via the user device120. For example, in various embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may cause the engagement survey may be distributed to various personnel via an email, a text message, an instant message, a personal message or private message (PM) via a social-networking platform or via a private messaging platform. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may cause the engagement survey to be presented to personnel upon logging into, via the user device120, an organizational intranet, for example.

In various embodiments, the engagement survey may comprise a plurality of questions, for example, from about 1 question to about 25 questions, or from about 5 questions to about 20 questions, or from about 10 questions to about 20 questions. For example, the engagement survey may include about 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 questions. In some embodiments, the questions set forth in the engagement survey may be directed, collectively, to the six (6) drivers of personnel engagement, for example, perception of job importance, clarity of job expectations, career advancement opportunities, feedback from superiors, quality of working relationships, perceptions of the organizational values and culture, and internal employee communications. For example, each survey may include from about two (2) to about four (4) questions directed to each of these drivers of personnel engagement.

In various embodiments, the personnel assessment computer140may cause the engagement surveys to be distributed at regular intervals and/or on-demand. For example, the engagement surveys may be distributed weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, biannually, or annually. In some embodiments, the engagement survey distributed on one occasion may be the same as or substantially the same as the engagement survey distributed on another occasion. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the engagement survey distributed on one occasion may differ with respect to the engagement survey distributed on another occasion. For example, the questions included within the engagement survey may be changed over time. In some embodiments, the questions included within an engagement survey may be based upon the questions included in a previous engagement survey and/or the responses to those questions. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the engagement survey need not be distributed in its entirety at a single time. For example, the questions of an engagement may be presented over a period of time, such as a few questions over the course of several days.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 3, the method300also comprises analyzing the results from the engagement survey (at block320). For example, in various embodiments as will be disclosed herein, various algorithms and scoring protocols may be employed to analyze the results of the engagement surveys. In various embodiments, and dependent upon the intended result of the analysis, the algorithms and scoring protocols may be utilized to compare a particular person's engagement survey results to the engagement survey results of a group (or the organization in its entirety), to compare a particular person's engagement survey results to the results of a previous engagement survey by that person, to compare a particular person's engagement survey results to an ideal result or a benchmark, compare a particular person's engagement survey results to industry norms or expectations, to compare a particular group's engagement survey results to another group's engagement survey results (or the organization in its entirety), to compare a particular group's engagement survey results to the results of a previous engagement survey by that group, to compare a particular group's engagement survey results to an ideal result or a benchmark, to compare a particular group's engagement survey results to industry norms or expectations, or combinations thereof. Specific examples of algorithms and scoring protocols are disclosed herein, for example, with respect toFIGS. 5, 6, 7, and 8, although suitable alternatively algorithms and scoring protocols will be appreciated by one of skill in the art upon viewing this disclosure.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 3, the method300also comprises reporting the results of the analysis of the engagement survey (at block330). For example, in some embodiments, the results of the analysis of the engagement survey may be made available to a group leader, a manager, or other interested persons via a dashboard. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the results of the analysis of the engagement survey may be sent to a group leader, manager, or other interested person via an electronic message.

In various embodiments, an engagement survey report may comprise various data derived from the analysis of the engagement survey results, for example, indications of the engagement of particular persons or particular groups, indications of how the engagement of particular persons or groups compares to other persons or groups, indications of how the engagement of particular persons or groups has changed over time, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the engagement survey report may comprise data from the results of the engagement survey, for example, responses to particular questions, comments made by personnel, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the engagement survey report may comprise one or more recommendations based on the engagement survey results. For example, in some embodiments the personnel assessment computer140may, based upon the results of the personnel engagement surveys, make recommendations as to actions that can be taken to improve personnel engagement with respect to one or more individuals or with respect to various groups. For example, the personnel engagement report may suggest actions, such as in-person commendations, group or team recognition, or the like. The suggested actions may be based upon the analysis of engagement survey results, such as by taking into account the values of personnel or groups and using these values to identify actions most-likely to have a positive result.

As an example, and referring toFIG. 4, an embodiment of an engagement survey report400is shown. In the embodiment ofFIG. 4, the engagement survey report400includes comments made by personnel concerning impact101, comments made by personnel concerning compensation102, and comments made by personnel concerning team recognition103. Also in the embodiment ofFIG. 4, the engagement survey report400includes a quantitative indication of the “mood” of a group of employees104, a quantitative indication of the “mood” of a single employee, and indications of mood trends, historically106.

Additionally or alternatively, referring toFIG. 5, a method500of evaluating personnel engagement is illustrated. In the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the method500may be particularly well-suited to the determination of group or organizational values. In the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the method500comprises distributing an engagement survey to personnel (at block510), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3. In the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the surveys may include one or more questions related to group or organizational values. For example, personnel may be asked to identify value statements that are most-important to them and to identify value statements that are least-important to them.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the method500also comprises determining a group or organization culture based upon the engagement survey results (at block520). For example, the selected values may be summed for all survey responses using one positive vote for any value that a respondent finds most-important and one negative vote for any value that a respondent finds least-important, for example, as shown.

The ranked importance of the values for the group or organization may be determined by ordering the rolled up value set, for example, as shown.

The highest scoring nine (9) values in the sorted set are used as the most-important values (the “Top 9”) for the group or organization and the lowest scoring nine (9) values in the sorted set are used as the least-important values (the “Bottom 9”) for the group or organization. While the method disclosed herein used the Top9and Bottom9values, in other embodiments, any suitable number of values may likewise be used in the analysis.

In additional or alternative embodiments, the values of a group or organization may be determined utilizing various suitable datasets. For example, in some embodiments, instead of using all members of the group or organization, the members are limited to only top performers within the group or organization, for example, such as the top 10% of performers. In some embodiments, instead of using all members of the group of organization, the members are limited to only those who have been a part of the group or organization for a certain number of years, for example, at least 1 year, 2 years, 3, years, 4 years, 5 years, etc. In some embodiments in instead of using all members of the group of organization, the members are limited to only those who exemplify the group or organizational culture. In some embodiments, a weight may be attached to a particular member's value selections. For example, in a hierarchy, weight may be attached to a member's value selections based upon the number of other members that report, directly or indirectly, to that member, as shown.

Also for example, a weight may be attached to a particular member's value selections based upon that member's contributions to the group or organization, as shown.

In some embodiments, a group or organizational culture can be determined from the value rankings, for example, the Top 9 values and the Bottom 9 values. For example, predefined culture archetypes may have certain most-important values and least-important values associated therewith. For example, based upon previously completed cultural assessments, the distribution of values with respect to culture archetype can be determined. This calculation is defined as the count of the intersection set of the user selected value set and the archetype value set. Utilizing a vector of size 18 (e.g., where a Top 9 and Bottom 9 values are used), the number of persons that match for 1 value for each archetype are summed, likewise, the number of persons that match for 2 values, 3 value, 4 values, etc., are all summed. This forms the basis for an empirical distribution function. Using this function, a member's score for each cultural archetype can be calculated as a percentile with respect to the empirical distribution function. Taken together for the group or organizational members, these scores yield the cultural archetype.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the method500comprises reporting the results of the group or organizational cultural determination (at block530), as also similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3.

Additionally or alternatively, referring toFIG. 6, another embodiment of a method600of evaluating personnel engagement is illustrated. In the embodiment ofFIG. 6, the method600may be particularly well-suited to predicting intra-group conflict values. For example, and not intending to be bound by theory, intra-group conflict values may identify areas of potential conflict within a group, for example, based on highly-contested values, such as where some group members identify certain values as being most-important and other group members identify those same values as being least-important. Not intending to be bound by theory, where a significant number of total members select a particular value as being most-important and a significant number of total members select a particular value as being least-important, confusion and disagreement often result, particularly with respect to areas affected by that value, causing groups or organizations to operate sub-optimally.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 6, the method600comprises distributing an engagement survey to personnel (at block610), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3. Also, and as disclosed with respect to the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the surveys may include one or more questions related to group or organizational values, such as identification of value statements that are most-important to them and value statements that are least-important to them. Also in the embodiment ofFIG. 6, the method600comprises determining a group or organization culture based upon the engagement survey results (at block620), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 5.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 6, the method600comprises determining intra-group conflict values from the group or organization values (at block630). In some embodiments, determining the intra-group conflict values from the group or organization values may comprise determining an agreement ratio and a disagreement ratio. Generally, the agreement ratio may quantitatively define the strength of agreement with respect to a particular value by the overall bias or agreed upon voting direction in the group, for example, as shown.

Also, generally, the disagreement ratio is the complement, for example, as shown.

In some embodiments, determining the intra-group conflict values from the group or organization values may comprise determining a weighted disagreement ratio. For example, a weighted disagreement ratio may enable sorting the values most-in-conflict with respect to a group or organization, such as by blending the popularity of the value's selection by the group and the degree of disagreement among the members selecting the particular value. For example, the weight may be equal to the ratio of the value's selection to the size of the group, for example, as shown.

In some embodiments, the weighted disagreement is determined by multiplying the weight by the disagreement ratio.

Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the weighted disagreement is determined by multiplying the square of the weight by the disagreement ratio, so as to increase the effect of the weight.

Upon determining the weighted disagreement ratio, the values may be sorted according to the respective ratios. In some embodiments, those value having a disagreement ratio exceeding a threshold value (e.g., 0.20) may be identified as conflicted values.

In some embodiments, certain values may have higher importance and/or greater effect as a conflict value that others and, as such, may be weighted differently. For instance, a value like “Doesn't list to be constrained by rules” may have more importance or effect as a conflict value than “Making friends at work.” In some embodiments, various values may be assigned their own weighting value in order to obtain those conflict values that are most-important or may have the greatest effect.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 6, the method600comprises reporting the results of the intra-group conflict value determination (at block640), as also similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3.

Additionally or alternatively, referring toFIG. 7, another embodiment of a method700of evaluating personnel engagement is illustrated. In the embodiment ofFIG. 7, the method700may be particularly well-suited to predicting inter-group conflict values.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 7, the method700comprises distributing an engagement survey to personnel (at block710), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3. Also, and as disclosed with respect to the embodiment ofFIG. 5, the surveys may include one or more questions related to group or organizational values, such as identification of value statements that are most-important to them and value statements that are least-important to them. Also in the embodiment ofFIG. 7, the method700comprises determining a group culture based upon the engagement survey results, for each of two or more groups (at block720), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 5.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 7, the method700comprises determining inter-group conflict values from the group values (at block730). In some embodiments, determining the inter-group conflict values from the group or organization values may comprise determining a difference (e.g., a delta) between the normalized quantifications of a particular value for each of the groups. For example, in some embodiments, the quantification of a particular value may be normal by calculating a logarithm for the respective value. In some embodiments, the difference (e.g., a delta) between the normalized quantifications of a particular value for a first group and a second group can be determined, for example, as shown.

Additionally, in some embodiments, one or more of the values may be weighted, as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 6. For example, in some embodiments the values may be weighted so as to emphasize how often a particular value was selected by a group.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 7, the method700comprises reporting the results of the inter-group conflict value determination (at block740), as also similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3.

Additionally or alternatively, referring toFIG. 8, another embodiment of a method800of evaluating personnel engagement is illustrated. In the embodiment ofFIG. 8, the method may be particularly well-suited to predicting whether or not a particular person will suitable member of a particular organization or group. For example, members of a group or organization and candidates for that group or organization may be compared to one another or against a desired culture value set. As disclosed herein, a group or organization may have a quantifiable set of values. For example, each value can have a weight based upon the number of times it is selected positively or selected negatively by members of the group or organization. Additionally or alternatively, a group or organization may select values that toward which or away from which they wish to direct the group or organization. If a value is selected toward which a bias is desired, that value may be weighted relatively more, such as by a percentage. The percentage may be se based upon the desired sensitivity, for example, so as to produces a particular desired culture.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 8, the method800comprises distributing an engagement survey to personnel (at block810), as similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3.

In the embodiment ofFIG. 8, the method800comprises determining a culture fit score for a person or group with respect to another individual or group based upon the engagement survey results (at block820). In some embodiments, it may be desirable to determine a culture fit score for a first person with respect to a second person, for example, to determine how well these two people might work together or as a part of a common team. In some embodiments, a culture fit score for a first person with respect to a second person may comprise scoring, across each of a plurality of culture values, by adding one (1) point where the first and second person match a particular value (e.g., both select as most-important or both select as least important), subtracting one (1) point where the first and second person conflict with respect to a particular value, and doing nothing (e.g., adding 0 points) for all other values. This will yield a raw score. In some embodiments, based on the raw score distribution of the entire population (e.g., all individuals evaluated), a percentile fit may be determined based upon place of the raw score within the empirical distribution function, as disclosed with respect toFIG. 5.

Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, it may be desirable to determine a culture fit score for a person with respect to a group, for example, to determine how well that person might work as a part of that group. In some embodiments, a culture fit score for the person with respect to the group may be determined by comparing the, across each of a plurality of culture values, the values of the person to the values of each group member by adding one (1) point where the person and a particular group member match a particular value (e.g., both select as most-important or both select as least important), subtracting one (1) point where the person and the particular group member conflict with respect to a particular value, and doing nothing (e.g., adding 0 points) for all other values. This will yield a value vector, VVal. A group value vector, VGroup, may be calculated as previously discussed with respect toFIG. 5, particularly, as shown.

The individual-to-group score can be calculated, for example, as shown, wherein F0represents a normalizing factor equal to a maximum score.

In some embodiments, based on the raw score distribution may be mapped (e.g., with respect to all individuals evaluated) and a percentile fit may be determined based upon placement of the raw score within the empirical distribution function, as disclosed with respect toFIG. 5.

Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments it may be desirable to determine a culture fit score for a first group with respect to a second group, for example, to determine how well that those groups, or the members thereof, might work together, for example, on a common or cooperative task. In some embodiments, a cosine of similarity may be used to determine the differential between the weighted value vectors of two groups, VAand VB, respectively, as shown.

that is, the square root of the sum of all the squares of all values in vector.

In some embodiments, for example, a value for theta (θ) of less than 30 may indicate that the two groups are well-aligned. In some embodiments, using the population distribution for all group-to-group theta scores, a percentile fit can be determined based upon placement of the raw score within the empirical distribution function, as disclosed with respect toFIG. 5.

In some embodiments, calculation of a group alignment score may provide the ability to measure the cohesiveness within a group of persons. The greater the alignment, the more inclusive the team and more well-aligned the team is generally considered to be. In some embodiments, a group alignment score may be calculated by averaging the individual-to-individual scoring, as disclosed herein, of all members. In some embodiments, using the population distribution for all group scores, a percentile fit can be determined based upon placement of the raw score within the empirical distribution function, as disclosed with respect toFIG. 5

In the embodiment ofFIG. 8, the method800comprises reporting the results of the culture fit score determination (at block830), as also similarly disclosed with respect toFIG. 3.

In various embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein may be advantageously employed to measure and/or monitor personnel engagement. For example, first, the methods and systems disclosed herein allow personnel engagement to be monitored in real-time or substantially in real-time and, as such, allow managers or other interested personnel to respond quickly and incrementally to yield desired results. Conversely, conventional attempts to monitor employee engagement relied upon, often, only a single annual survey. As such, often, needs of personnel that should have been addressed are never come to the attention of managers or other interested persons and are overlooked.

Second, the methods and systems disclosed herein realize that personnel engagement is not static and, as such, is not accurately monitored by a single annual survey. Rather, by utilizing multiple engagement surveys over a longer period of time, the systems and methods disclosed herein allow managers and other interested persons to gain a more accurate view of the engagement of their personnel and how levels of engagement change on a day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month basis. By comparison, conventional attempts to monitor personnel engagement relied on only a single survey, often conducted annually. Because of this, managers or other interested persons often felt unable to deal with all of the issues potentially identified and did not adequately respond to needs of personnel.

Third, the methods and systems disclosed herein improve the functioning of a computer system, for example, the disclosed personnel assessment computer140. For example, utilizing the algorithms and protocols disclosed herein, the personnel assessment computer140may filter the multitude of available data attributes resultant from a personnel engagement survey to only that data most-pertinent to the determination being made and, as such, increases the efficiency and operation of the disclosed personnel assessment computer140. Also, in some embodiments the methods and disclosed herein are particularly advantageous in that these methods and systems particularly overcome problems specifically arising in the realm of computer systems. For example, utilizing the protocols and algorithms disclosed herein to filter the available data overcomes problems specifically-related to the operation of the personnel assessment computer140.

The ordering of steps in the various processes, data flows, and flowcharts presented are for illustration purposes and do not necessarily reflect the order that various steps must be performed. The steps may be rearranged in different orders in different embodiments to reflect the needs, desires and preferences of the entity implementing the systems. Furthermore, many steps may be performed simultaneously with other steps in some embodiments.

Also, techniques, systems, subsystems and methods described and illustrated in the various embodiments as discrete or separate may be combined or integrated with other systems, modules, techniques, or methods without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Other items shown or discussed as directly coupled or communicating with each other may be coupled through some interface or device, such that the items may no longer be considered directly coupled to each other but may still be indirectly coupled and in communication, whether electrically, mechanically, or otherwise with one another. Other examples of changes, substitutions, and alterations are ascertainable by one skilled in the art and could be made without departing from the spirit and scope disclosed.

It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure. The embodiments described are representative only and are not intended to be limiting. Many variations, combinations, and modifications of the applications disclosed herein are possible and are within the scope of the disclosure. Accordingly, the scope of protection is not limited by the description set out above, but is defined by the claims which follow, that scope including all equivalents of the subject matter of the claims.