An article by Martha Teichner seems to say just that very thing. In her article, here http://cbsn.ws/1C270hU, Ms. Teichner points out the research to shore up her statements and looking at the graph it appears that those companies who are rated "good to work for" do indeed outperform their cohort. By almost double.
We've all heard the moaning and groaning in many posts and a myriad of articles about the lack of engaged employees. How do we get our employees to be more engaged, companies complain. In the article it talks about the numbers of dis-engaged employees and what effect that has on the bottom line. Gallup estimates that actively-disengaged employees cost U.S. business up to $550 billion a year in lost productivity. We could easily extrapolate that number to come up with a global cost easily doubling that figure.
I've posted before about the Wholefoods phenomenon and WL Gore, these guys have been doing this for as long as they've been around. Wholefoods should not have won marketshare from large grocery chains – the grocery chains should have shut them down. They didn't. Much to their chagrin. Wholefoods has a loyal customer base directly attributable to their loyal employee base. Wholefoods employees know their customers are everything.
The thing about most of these "disruptors" is they start as they mean to go on. In other words, the ethos was built into the company from day one.
It's harder to change an existing, well-established practice within most companies. Just ask SAP, Nokia, IBM and other large, over-wieldly companies and the culture that comes with that.
There are exceptions but not many.
So the big question is: Why, when there is potential for double digit growth do most companies do nothing or their efforts come to nothing?
Food for thought.