But anyway, no, this link doesn’t link directly to the study either, it links to a report that links to the study
You can immediately see a button that says “download report” when you click on that link. I wouldn’t call that “digging for sources”.
The wall of text doesn’t really answer my questions about the independence of employee engagement.
Furthermore they suggest that managers have a huge effect on employee engagement, which seems to point to a potential area where this assumption could fail.
It’s not independent, co-ops let you vote on managers which allows productivity to increase.
EDIT: I have apologized to (and thanked) tailcalled via messages, and have added the document as the third source. Once again, thanks for the suggestion.
You can immediately see a button that says “download report” when you click on that link. I wouldn’t call that “digging for sources”.
I have downloaded the report. When I searched for keywords from the sentence “This is not only terrible for the workers but also for the economy, since businesses with engaged workers have 23% higher profit, while employees who are not engaged cost the world $7.8 trillion in lost productivity, equal to 11% of global GDP.” in the report, the main section that appeared was this:
Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic era put a halt to a long period of gradual but general improvement among the world’s workers. This matters for global economic dynamism. Gallup estimates that low engagement costs the global economy US$7.8 trillion and accounts for 11% of GDP globally. Gallup’s analysis of 112,312 business units in 96 countries found a strong link between engagement and performance outcomes, such as retention, productivity, safety and profitability
The other potentially relevant section that appeared was this:
Business units with engaged workers have 23% higher profit compared with business units with miserable workers.
Neither of these sections give any idea of how Gallup came to the conclusion, but the link in the first section contains a link to a different document that probably forms the foundation/primary source for their analysis.
It’s not independent
I mean if the independence of employee engagement doesn’t hold, then the causal inference doesn’t go through, and you can’t infer that engagement has this much effect on productivity...
co-ops let you vote on managers which allows productivity to increase.
… however this sounds like a different form of independence than the one I brought up.
You can immediately see a button that says “download report” when you click on that link. I wouldn’t call that “digging for sources”.
It’s not independent, co-ops let you vote on managers which allows productivity to increase.
EDIT: I have apologized to (and thanked) tailcalled via messages, and have added the document as the third source. Once again, thanks for the suggestion.
I have downloaded the report. When I searched for keywords from the sentence “This is not only terrible for the workers but also for the economy, since businesses with engaged workers have 23% higher profit, while employees who are not engaged cost the world $7.8 trillion in lost productivity, equal to 11% of global GDP.” in the report, the main section that appeared was this:
The other potentially relevant section that appeared was this:
Neither of these sections give any idea of how Gallup came to the conclusion, but the link in the first section contains a link to a different document that probably forms the foundation/primary source for their analysis.
I mean if the independence of employee engagement doesn’t hold, then the causal inference doesn’t go through, and you can’t infer that engagement has this much effect on productivity...
… however this sounds like a different form of independence than the one I brought up.