Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty Surveys generally aim to measure the satisfaction levels of employees regarding the organization and working in the institution, their loyalty to the organization and the people they work with, and to plan actions that will increase the satisfaction and loyalty of the employees as a result of these measurements. While Employee Satisfaction is more concrete satisfaction of the employees with the opportunities and services provided to them within the organization; Employee Engagement refers to the organic and emotional ties of employees to their managers and colleagues. For example, the high quality of service, food, and office supplies your institution provides to you will increase your satisfaction, while respecting and trusting you in the workplace will increase your loyalty.

Benefits for the Institution
It allows to determine the areas of development for increasing productivity and business performance within the organization, according to the priorities and general performance of the organization. It ensures to measure the effectiveness of the practices and guides the institution in creating the most appropriate action plans to increase employee satisfaction and loyalty.

Scope of Research
The Institute of Behavioral Sciences researches these two issues together, and also provides a development map that will guide the corporate management and human resources by measuring the effects of commitment and satisfaction on the happiness and psychological well-being of employees. This map determines both the current level of satisfaction and commitment, the top priority areas for the organization, and the actions to be taken first.

Basic Dimensions of Employee Satisfaction
1. Physical Working Conditions
2. Top Management / Corporate Management
3. Corporate Image
4. Personal Development and Career Opportunities
5. Performance Management System
6. Rewarding and Appreciation System
7. Ways of Doing Business, Process Flows and Organization
8. First Affiliated Manager
9. Job Satisfaction
10. Internal Communication
11. Wages and Benefits
12. Work-Private Life Balance

Basic Dimensions of Employee Engagement
1. Commitment to the first manager
2. Loyalty to colleagues
3. Commitment to the institution

Distinguishing Features of the DBE Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty Survey
The questionnaire can be applied on paper-pencil or online with a strict confidentiality principle
Quick results
Analysis by experts using statistical programs
The report is designed in a visually understandable way with clear and rich graphics
It can be designed specifically for the institution and meets all needs
Preparation of current situation, development roadmap and action plans based on both institution and department for the institution
Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty Research Project Flow
An Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty Survey specific to the organization is created in line with the needs and expectations of the organization. DBE question bank is used while creating this survey.
Some general and open-ended questions are added to these questions by the DBE, which will enable the analysis to give better results.
The questionnaire is applied to all employees involved in the project by DBE electronically or in paper and pen format.
Application data are analyzed by DBE using statistics and advanced statistical methods in all analysis processes. As a result of statistical analysis, priority areas to be intervened and action recommendations are created to increase satisfaction and loyalty.
Focus Group studies may be conducted in order to evaluate the results of the survey analysis with qualitative methods and to determine the development areas more clearly, as well as to determine the needs of the employees and to receive development plan recommendations.
Development programs are prepared within the scope of development plans created as a result of survey analysis (Quantitative) and Focus Group analysis (Qualitative). Strong and developing areas related to the institution are determined. As a result of the research, the establishment of intervention programs with the request of the institution is also designed.
Recent Research on Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty Research
In recent years, the value and demands given by institutions to ‘Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty’ has increased significantly. The most important factor that caused this is that nobody wants to lose qualified workforce anymore. It has been observed in recent years that the Relationship between the Manager and the Working Team, Employee Loyalty and Customer Loyalty complement each other. Customer loyalty is formed by the experience of strong interaction with the corporate employee, as well as the excellent product. Employees not being tied is costly to institutions. (Follow This Path, Curt Coffman, Gabriel Gonzalez) One-to-one interviews made with more than million employees and managers in 24 different sectors in 82 countries of the world, surveys and researches conducted on hundreds of thousands of companies in order to determine the connection between the opinion of employees and the performance of the company in the last 25 years; It shows that a workplace derives its strength from the happiness and loyalty of its employees, and that companies that provide this have a serious competitive advantage in terms of productivity, customer satisfaction, profitability and employee loyalty.

Employee Engagement is one of the most important issues that corporations around the world emphasize. Today, many institutions apply to various research companies to measure the commitment and motivation level of their employees. Taylor Nelson Sores conducted a global-scale engagement survey in 2002, covering 19,840 people in 33 countries. TNS’s Employee Score research reveals employee engagement on a global scale by sectors, countries, regions, age groups, positions and genders. All of the leading and active institutions around the world use these scales as a method and a tool for recovery.

In Gallup’s study (2002), it was determined that only 20% to 30% of employees are related to their job. There is a direct proportion between this ratio and productive institutions. In terms of Employee Engagement, it has been the most prominent state sector. The percentage of .29 non-affiliated employees is mentioned here. In this study, it was found that women are more attached to the institution. In addition, positive developments have been made 1 year after the Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty application started. (Follow This Path, Curt Coffman, Gabriel Gonzalez) Employee Satisfaction and Engagement studies have been conducted in various countries around the world for many years. As a result of the researches, the average number of people connected to the institution in the USA is 21-24%. The average person who is bound by the Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty research institution we have in certain institutions as the Institute of Behavioral Sciences in Turkey is 25-30%. As the Institute of Behavioral Sciences, we think that it is very important how the management and employees perceive all the changes that can be made as a result of the researches carried out, no undetected change can be deemed to have taken place. Therefore, during all these studies, mutual feedback should be received, change targets should be monitored regularly and analyzes that will measure the efficiency of these studies should be repeated.

Performance management is one of the most important HR processes in terms of its implications for most dimensions of organizational life: the company’s ability to activate its talents, to create a correct scale of values, to distribute the benefits by merit obtaining internal equity, recognition and encouragement of performers, employee motivation, etc. In fact, Performance Management encompasses all HR processes that can contribute to improving employee performance and is therefore not a single process but a cluster of different but convergent processes. The core of a Performance Management System is the (sub) Performance Evaluation System (SEP) (which is often limited and confused) and which is the system used by the company to measure the results (work) of its employees. In its narrowest form, in order to outline a Performance Management System, SEP must be completed with an Employee Development System (which can take various names – training, coaching, etc.) and a Performance Reward System (Comp & Ben). The purpose of a Performance Management System, however, is NOT (only) the individual performance but the company-level performance of the employees as a whole, considering that the whole represents more than the sum of the parts.

Functions of a Performance Management System

Any system is defined by its functions and the Performance Management System must fulfill a long series of functions, among which we mention the most important.

It must: It measures employee performance at the individual, team, departmental and company level Have the ability to distinguish between effort and result, SEP often confusing the effort with the result obtained ( it does not matter how many phones you give or how many offers you send but how many contracts you sign ). Of course, the effort is often the guarantee of a good result, but it should not become an end in itself Provides recognition of individual merits and contributions and sets the right but also the right reward for each employee – so as not to affect internal equity – avoids the feeling of frustration that occurs when someone works better but receives less Identify areas and areas of personal and professional development for those evaluated, not just present a (unsatisfactory) verdict on performance It provides a solid and correct decision base for the legal decisions of the respective staff for dismissals, penalties, bonuses or promotions.

Why is it difficult to replace

Naturally and normally, Performance Management evolves with the new paradigms in HR, so it is worth analyzing the direction in which it is heading. However, change is not easy and can be a touchstone for many companies. Performance Management is one of the remaining chapters in the new era of Talent! Why? Probably precisely because of its importance but also because of the complexity required to design such a system. It will take until most companies are able to migrate to the new formulas because, first of all, it is difficult to change / replace in companies that already have one. There are many reasons such as:

Performance management generates input in training programs, in the management of promotions and careers and obviously in Comp & Ben, an always sensitive area, which is better not to touch if you are not prepared. Even small variations in how performance is appreciated and rewarded can have a huge impact on a person’s income (on the part of employees) and proportionally, can impact the total payroll (respectively taxes and fees, on the part of the employer).

Another reason why Performance Management lags behind is the high degree of bureaucratization and formalization of evaluation processes, sometimes doubled by electronic ERP systems that provide the necessary input for evaluation (indicators, targets and objectives, percentages, etc.) . That is why it is easy to say: to change the processes of Performance Management, but much harder to do. Performance evaluation, is just the tip of the iceberg, is part of an ecosystem with a huge inertial mass! Those who already have a system in place must first think about the short-term impact on employees, even if, on paper, the long-term impact is positive. We can easily imagine what can happen in a medium-sized company, say with 300 employees, if at the change of the Performance Management System, a trembling of them are affected by weaker evaluations respectively by lower incomes. If people don’t agree with something, they certainly don’t agree to reduce their income! The impact of a new system must be discussed with employees, possibly with the union, if it exists and here is how from an HR process, it becomes a management problem or even a business one if the subject is not managed correctly. So, on the principle “it becomes a management problem or even a business one if the subject is not managed correctly. So, on the principle “it becomes a management problem or even a business one if the subject is not managed correctly. So, on the principle “do not give the sparrow a hand on the crow on the fence “, many rightly avoid intervening in existing systems, for a presumptive” better”

Last but not least, the degree of formalization of these systems must be considered. The direction is towards simplification and de-bureaucratization, an otherwise correct and desirable direction, only there is a limit to which one can go with the simplification and de-bureaucratization of Performance Management, namely to the limit of the connection with revenues. A company cannot leave the evaluation process of failure, unregulated, at the mercy of evaluators’ subjectivities – just for the sake of simplification – because it will get chaos. It is no coincidence that Performance Assessment Systems are among the most procedural and bureaucratic, the reason being that they are security measures aimed at creating a stable and robust system. The basic idea is that if two independent evaluations are made, the same result must be obtained (the two necessary and mandatory conditions are those of validity and fidelity of the evaluations. Otherwise the system is not correct, such a defective scale will produce wrong measurements). Again we see, it is easier said than done to throw everything away than to do it because what we put in place must be better than what we put down.

That being said, they are not an argument, of course, for organizational cowardice or inaction, progress, the need to constantly change and adapt to the new environment being obvious. The above clarifications are only a listing and an acknowledgment of the difficulties inherent in changes in Performance Management not a reason to give up.