I can’t take it anymore.
I need to tell you something.
I don’t believe in employee engagement.
I know, I know. You’re shocked.
Let me tell you something simple: I don’t think it’s the responsibility of an organization to ensure that the employees are engaged. This isn’t preschool. We’re all adults. We have college degrees, mortgages, and children. Responsibilities.
Companies have a responsibility to be profitable, respectful to their workers, and to behave in a fiscally prudent manner. Employees get paid to work. They make choices about their level of engagement based on all sorts of factors including values, personal beliefs, and faith in the organization and products/services that are being offered.
If I were back in Corporate America, I would stop worrying about employee engagement and I would start thinking about how I could offer something meaningful and relevant to my employees. A better compensation plan? (Sure.) A heartier benefits package? (Okay.) A more robust product or services portfolio? (Yes.) Better earnings? (Hello.) Fiscal responsibility at the executive level? (Absolutely.) Common sense values and a commitment to open and honest communication? (Duh.) How about an opportunity for employees to make a difference and actually earn an opportunity to achieve some portion of the American dream? (That might be going too far.)
When you call it employee engagement, you stick it in the ghetto with all the other employee-focused programs. When you call it organizational or operational excellence, you’ll get somewhere.
Employee engagement is for those who want to host team building events and run a Meyers-Briggs session for IT professionals in Overland Park, KS. I speak from experience here. If you really want to make a difference outside the walls of HR, treat your employees like adults and dream bigger than implementing the results of a Gallup Q12 survey.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Crazy talk.
A few potlucks. Some electronic recognition cards. Gimme some tchotskes with a new slogan. The peons will be happy for another year or two.
Hi Laurie,
Thanks for raising this point. I think you’re right that practitioners can sometimes take things too far when it comes to some of the claims about engagment (as a member of this group, I know) but at its core, the research underpinning employee engagement is very solid. The problem is that practitioners can sometimes get a little too carried away with their positioning. All of a sudden it sounds like good pay, a balanced workload, and solid leadership aren’t important. That’s really overstating the case for intrinsic motivation (as I think you’re trying to point out.) The best organizations first focus on meeting people’s basic needs in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions and then start to look at those other factors–like meaningful work, career growth opportunities, collaborative work environment, etc. that can take it to the next level. Good organizations also make sure that employee engagement isn’t the end result. Instead, employee engagement is seen (as you recommend) as a step toward something larger–organizational excellence or serving the customer better. Both of these points are at the core of the research that Gallup, Towers Watson, and Sirota have done. It just gets lost in the hype sometimes!
Bing! Sooner or later the rubber meets the road. And, all of your “employee satisfaction” initiatives get forgotten. I grew up farming. Later, in the Army. I carry a huge work ethic and have no problem accepting direction. Why do employees as “why” so damn much, now? I think because we have created the problem through Hotlines, 360deg reviews, blah, blah, blah.
There is a reason it is called work. But, I think it is a two-way street. Employees also enjoy a level of control that most have not significantly exerted. Are you tired of the job, don’t like the pay or hours? How about that over-bearing boss? Pack your bags. Don’t tie-up a position that you don’t like. There is someone else out there looking for that job. Just move-on and find your sun-shiny lot in life. If everything you hate about your job is true, the employer will be forced to address the shortcomings, after some turnover in the role.
Well said. I never thought we had to “believe” in engagement and engagement is not a problem to be solved but a working experience to be lived. I like the term organizational or operational excellence and don’t see that as excluding engagement, to me it does not have to be one or the other and when the two are connected that seems stronger.
To High Priest. Although I agree that if you are unhappy with your job, or the bad outweighs the good, then it’s time to move on. However, I have seen too many times that an employer will allow a bad dept director or manager go on for years. The turnover will be high and yet Senior mgt does nothing to find out what the reason is for the turnover. Even after several exit interviews with similar complaints, nothing is done. The worthwhile employees move on and 20 years go by with that same horrible person still at the helm.
Anginita – I agree with you. And often the senior manager is the core of the problems – and don’t want to deal with the director or manager in case the spotlight is turned on themselves.
@Laurie Here here!!! Couldn’t agree more. If you have the basics in place, you will by default have far more engagement. And if you don’t HR and/or Marketers can talk about engagement all day long but when you try and skip too many steps taking it to the next level, you just fall on your face.
Throwing out the baby with the bath water, are we? Call it what you want (and by the way, Operational/Organizational Excellence doesn’t sound any better… just different), but I do not discount the tons of evidence that screams that “Operational Excellence” deserves our attention. Your passionate dislike of buzzwords and “what everybody else is doing” is clouding the more important point that the elements of engagement/excellence are highly correlated to operational results.
It seems that your Punk Rock-ed-ness is getting the best of you. When study after study point to EE links to increases in sales, earnings per share, revenue growth, customer retention why not just give in? All of the things you mention in your post, connection to the company, values, open/honest communication, opportunity to make a difference… are nothing BUT factors of employee engagement. I pay attention to EE because I have a responsibility to the organization to produce results. EE is a way to not only measure, but to predict, and more importantly, to intervene if necessary to make sure that the results continue to improve, even if it means showing a little love to the human beings I work with.
Decisions should be based on eveidence. It seems that people being emotional at work really rubs you the wrong way, but damn Laurie, just read your own blog. You are one of the most emotional people I know of. Try not to let that emotion cloud your decisions. You are just like the rest of us stiffs out here, you’ve got a need to be heard.
Laurie,
I’d like to point that “offering something meaningful and relevant to my employees” is the whole point of employee engagement. The reason why organizations should be taking on engagement as a critical part of their business objectives is that it is a driving factor for profitability. Regardless of why employees are engaged–those companies that have higher engagement are better contributing/producing organizations across the board. I definitely agree that engagement should not be a 2-day training session but it should also not be discarded because it seems like a fad. It continues to be a factor in determining profitability so organizations need to pay attention and generate a strategy to increase engagement—regardless of what they call it.
Potato, Potato, let’s call the whole thing off (said in a Frank Sinatra sing-songy way).
You seem to dismiss employee engagement as a trend, but really what you’re referring to is HOW you create employee engagement without overtly calling it what it is. I think what you’re trying to say is that you can’t “train” or “talk” about employee engagement and get results. I wholeheartedly agree. However, when you make your organization a solid choice for employment via continuous employee training, competitive pay, generous benefits, appreciation for work/life balance, flexibility, autonomy, attractive career paths, strong leadership, adherence to values, etc you create employee engagement. It’s mike magic.
awe man…I meant “like” magic….not some dude named Mike Magic. That’s it- I’m done with this Monday.
@salescomp How about free pizza in the breakroom?
@David Witt Both of these points are at the core of the research that Gallup, Towers Watson, and Sirota have done. It just gets lost in the hype sometimes! I have some serious experience with employee engagement from my work as a HR Generalist, and by and large companies don’t meet the first set of needs. Furthermore, when you give HR the project of addressing employee engagement, you ruin it. The whole point is to foster a culture where profitability is core & critical, communication is solid, and no one brings a gun to work. Anything else feels paternalistic to me.
@HighPriest I think the jump from farmer to Army to HR makes sense in a weird way. We need to get you back to work.
@David Thanks. I don’t want to get hung up on semantics, but ‘employee engagement’ sounds similar to ‘employer of choice’ and that didn’t work out too well for most companies.
@anginita That’s performance management at its worst. Boo.
@Corey No, really, we need a splashy implementation website and a cross-functional corporate project team to address employee engagement.
@steelworker Ah, the psychoanalysis of the blogger. I deserve it.
I don’t care what you call it (& really, I don’t) — just don’t put engagement into a program that is managed by Human Resources as a step outside the normal everyday business practices. Also, I don’t care about emotions and being heard at work. This isn’t the issue for me. The issue is that we treat employees and management as an extension of our families and American corporations are suffering from the soft bigotry of low expectations. “How can we expect our employees to perform if they’re not engaged? How can our company offer a unique value proposition if we don’t have an engaged workforce built on the talent of A-players?” Those are questions I hear on a daily basis, and I argue, those are the wrong questions.
@Kris I’d like to point that “offering something meaningful and relevant to my employees” is the whole point of employee engagement. Maybe. I would just offer that most solutions to the issue of “engagement” are often soft and don’t consider the real needs of the workforce.
@breanne Meh, maybe. But sometimes I’m just really asking for HR to stop talking about engagement because it undermines the good work that is being done by real leaders (line managers, supervisors, stewards, influencers, CEOs, and just peer leaders) to improve engagement levels.
HR ruins everything.
Also, I’d like HR to run a program to make me feel better about myself and help me overcome my food aversions, my fear of germs, and my dislike of public toilets. I’d be a more engaged worker if I could pee in a public restroom. I wonder if Gallup could help me?
I get what you’re saying…it’s not fluffy. BTW, HR’s solution to your peeing in public restroom’s issue would be the Fish Program (http://www.charthouse.com/productdetail.aspx?nodeid=11986). You know what I’m sayin’.
Another euphemism. Companies offer the right combination of respect, salary and benefits. Employees meet them with smarts, tenacity and completion. Each screens the other to be as sure as possible it’s a match.
And operational excellence is only excellent when we measure the contribution it makes to net income.
Start with a nice spread of bagels, muffins, toast, fruit every morning— and go from there. Cheaper than salary negotiations across the board— and it’s a good start— People like food.
@Breanne: I think Laurie is attacking the people that treat it like a trend rather than an outcome of a well run business. Many organizations do not want address the real issues so they look for a band-aid instead. e.g. Hawaiian shirt day in Office Space.
The trendy band-aid fixes get old. Anyone that has been around for awhile knows these programs when they see them. They just roll your eyes and get back to work. Maybe they laugh if it is really stupid or blatant.
@Laurie: No free pizza. It costs money (a no-no). It makes your employees fat which also drives up health insurance costs (a big no no).
Finally it requires ongoing effert. That’s a biggest no-no. The best engagement improvement programs are implement & forgot. Mass produced things like posters, buttons, or certicates are excellent choices.
Here’s my theory and it’s one I’ve shared each manager and director in my office.
Treat your employees like adults. Communicate whats going on, let them eat cake on Fridays if they want to, let them screw around once in a while. But, and its a big but (no pun intended), Hold. Them. Accountable. Set realistic goals, tell them their progress, and chat with them if they dont make those goals.
We play stupid team building games but they are games the employees created and enjoy. We had a party a few weeks ago, in the office, with a giant cake, jump roping competition, hopscotch, balloons, and of course catered bbq. No work was done that day but we are still on track to blow the numbers out of the waters for March.
So yeah, my office rocks. And on a side note, watching grown men and women play hopscotch is hysterical.
I’ll second this motion. I loved this! We are an ESOP and we do tons of employee activities – some are loved and some aren’t. It does give us a sense of being special though and our employees love that. They also want to be heard and want to get an honest response back to concerns. Good communication that is timely is the key to everyone’s success. “Engagement” or whatever you call it, comes from the top-down led by example. Always has and always will be.
@Breanne I taught a FISH training class at Kemper and I threw a fish at someone and she was like ‘don’t do that again’. I wanted to slit my wrists.
@Marsha Hm. Okay, but let me ask you something: do you think we overstate an organization’s ability to make a great match? Or do we overstate the existence of a great match?
@MattyMat The way to my heart is through my tummy.
@SalesComp Outcomes? Oh we gotta measure shit? I’m out.
@adowling Hey, I’m with you. Also, I’ll admit it: I’m the woman who arranges to have ice cream & fixins brought into the office so we can all fuck off and make sundaes on a Tuesday afternoon. I love that kind of stuff. I don’t think it has anything to do with engagement or bonding, but rather, because life sucks & sometimes you just need to eat ice cream with the people in your life. #fact #ikindamissmyHRbudget
Love this. Fortune’s Best Companies to Work for is out and as always, it’s not rocket science – it boils down to:
–Pay me fairly
–Recognize that I’m an individual
–Let me do my job
–Let me manage my time
And the last three are inexpensive, so why is this hard?
Employee Engagement is a good term for it, and it matters…a lot. Team members connecting with each other and with customers, investing themselves in broader goals — these create environments where “operational excellence” exists. Unless you have a business model where individual contributors drive value independently, pursuit of “operational excellence” without regard for the fabric you weave it from will fail.
I couldn’t agree more that you can’t leave that to HR though. Leaders throughout an organization are derelict if they don’t own the responsibility and live it day to day.
The whole engagement measuring process takes a lot of time, money and another level of “engagement” to be sure actions are implemented against them. If there is a company left out there that just wants to run a good, scrupulous business, that has figured out employee communication, please let me know where. I need to go there and beg them to hire me.
“Life sucks & sometimes you just need to eat ice cream” IS engagement, IMHO. Kinda what some of the others are saying, I think – this may just be an issue of semantics, not substance.
I never gave my employees ice cream and fixings because they worked in a refrigerated space all day and were too cold. I liked to put out deli trays of the meats that they had helped make. Kinda like biting the hand that fed them – they loved it.
Amen @Beth, that’s my kinda list.
I agree with the sentiments about getting the basics; there’s a reason that a solid foundation has to be in place before you can build a solid house. This worker ain’t fixin to figure out the meaning of life @work, so if you’re paying me well & letting me do my thing, consider me engaged.
As me what i want and my answer will always be the same; treat me decent, pay me better than (or average) wages, give me good benefits and I will stay engaged without taking survey.
Or you can spend thousands on a survey to tell you what any good manager should have been able to tell you. The problem probably is that you don’t listen to that manager, or he isn’t telling you the truth. IMHO corporate middle managers do more to ruin engagement than any survey will ever fix.
I love @salescomp ‘s comment “I think Laurie is attacking the people that treat it like a trend rather than an outcome of a well run business.” I agree. Trends are empty.
Is it really the responsibility of the company to make sure employees are all friends who work nicely together? And then they put some trendy construct together that fabricates engagement? The personality tests and the retreats that force us to analyze each others strengths and weaknesses – how does it help us really engage?
I think it really depends on the construct that these engagement programs are implemented under. The best are employee-driven parties. The worst are managers trying to improve a dying culture.
Let them eat cake! And pay them for it.
@Beth Okay, you are officially the author of Punk Rock HR. I’m done. You rock. Take over from here.
@Dan The alternative — of leaving engagement to leaders — hasn’t worked, either. That’s why HR got involved in the first place. I think we need to understand that we lose our competitive advantage when we treat employees like widgets OR children OR a line item on a budget.
@Marti I’m right behind you.
@Joan Nah, ice cream doesn’t equal engagement. If anything, I did it because I’m the opposite of engaged. Fuck it, I thought. Let’s eat ice cream on the company dime and futz around. It’s not like we have better things to do.
@Geekette Thank you. Amen.
@JohnC Those surveys don’t come cheap. You’re so right about that.
@Lyn I love your Marie Antoinette approach.
Dude! I love ice cream at work! We call it ice cream social afternoons. We set up tables with every topping you can imagine and the managers ‘volunteer’ to scoop.
i would have an opinion this but i’m actively disengaged. ho hum.
@adowling I don’t want manager germs on my ice cream!!
@col No, you’re drunk.
Laurie, it’s like finding a mate. Right now, I’m hearing that companies want a ridiculous amount of perfection and skills far in excess of what’s needed to successfully perform. I’d say they’re wearing rose colored glasses with razor blades.
To answer your questions, I think people (not organizations) make great matches. Second, there are no perfect matches. It’s a fantasy – like thinking you have a type and can only be attracted to someone with black hair and blue eyes.
This is why I laugh when people say HR is going away. As long as there are business units, HR will be around. Why? Because someone has to wear the referee’s shirt and blow the whistle. And the peeps in the biz units can’t do it.
Smart hiring is critical to the health of an organization. When HR partners with hiring managers and recruiters, I’ve seen great hires made. Leave hiring managers to their own devices and I don’t think you get the best results.
Absolutely Great Post.
Regards
Deb
Yes! Well said. I just finished taking an HR course where one of the major assignments of the course was our take on a fictional employee who was definitely unengaged with his job, supposedly due to a promotion passover and who had alcohol problems, again, supposedly due to the passover. As we had to share our work I was able to read my classmates assignments and was shocked at how vehemently most had written about the responsibility of the fictional company’s HR Department to “fix” this employee because “it was all their fault” that the employee had fallen into his problems in the first place because they hadn’t treated him nicely when he was passed over for the promotion.
I felt this was taking employee engagement a little too far and yes, I know alcoholism is “considered” a disease just as obesity is now considered a disease, but really how far do we even wish to hand our lives over to an organization/employer/government with the cry of “fix” me?
AMEN. Want to engage me? Treat me like an adult, human. OMFG I’m three minutes late in a snow storm? Better call me in your office and have a “talk” with me, nevermind you just assigned me twice the amount of work than 6 out of 7 of my coworkers and that one girl, who’s been here 7 years, came in after me, and guess what, she leaves before me, everyday, too! What? She uses the corporate “flex-time” policy? Well, that’s unacceptable for you! Why? Because we say so.
Honestly, had you treated me like a human being in the first place, I might have hauled my ass out of bed before the first round of snooze so I wouldn’t have been late in the first place, but I know I’m going into a workplace where I’ve been “talked to” about things like “you’ve been out of your seat a bit much today” or “there’s perceptions that your conversations last a little too long, like, wayy over 3 minutes” or “you really NEED to take an hour lunch.” or “some people believe you’re on facebook and flickr too much” nevermind that it was PART OF MY JOB DESCRIPTION to update the corporate facebook and flickr acocunts (and btw, they could never tell me who thought that or give me an example of a conversation that lasted wayyy over 3 minutes, so I could, you know, learn from that mistake). Screw giving me ice cream once a year, treat me like a decent person (not a five year old from the streets) and be consistent across the board. If one person in a department can use flex time (like taking a half hour lunch and leaving a half hour early on occassion) then everybody should be able to use flex time. You don’t give the VP’s two scoops of ice cream and all the peons below them just one scoop during that yearly ice cream social, do you?
Thankfully (in a bitter sweet way) I was laid off in January from this job. While I really miss having a job (ok, a paycheck) I realize that I wasn’t the best employee in the world (as far as being on time every day and not calling in sick, not at all in terms of work output, which should be the more important part, IMO), but it was because I dreaded going to work SO much. I still remember the day I was told “You were out of your seat a bit much today” as the beginning of the end. Sure, I was the youngest on staff, but I have worked since I was 14 and was 25 at the time, most definitely NOT a kindergartener and it wasn’t like I was missing deadlines or slacking off (like I mentioned, my workoad almost ALWAYS was double that of my coworkers).
Laurie, spot on.
Employee engagement is a buzz-word concept where employees feel some strong emotional bond to the organization that employs them. This is apparently associated with people demonstrating willingness to recommend the organization to others and commit time and effort to help the organization succeed. Much like the Hawthorn studies of yesteryear, the data, not surprisingly, support this concept.
Consultants, managers, even CEOs are praising the efforts behind increasing employee engagement; that it is somehow this holy grail behind organizational success or operational excellence.
Balderdash (I always wanted to use that word…).
If someone is unable to otherwise gauge productivity in their workforce without looking for and identifying engagement, then whack ‘em immediately. We don’t need them. It’s not about engagement, it’s about performance. We don’t necessarily need employees “engaged;” we need them to do their jobs, and do them well.
Enter Performance Management. Yep, that’s right, good old, tried and true, performance management. Set goals, provide resources, measure to the results.
Rinse and repeat.
A highly engaged, low-performing workforce is not what we need. Give me a high-performing group of people, and they may be engaged; if so, it’s a function of their performance and satisfaction from success, not because someone somehow drove “employee engagement” as a stand-alone effort.
Manage performance. Everything else comes after that.
But seriously, Laurie… teaching a Fish class and then dogging ‘employee engagement’ sounds a lot like a classic pot & kettle dialog…
But that’s just me…
KB
@Kevin LOL, I taught a fish class for money. My salary. I didn’t have much of a choice. It was a job.
@JB Thank you for that awesome comment. Getting laid off can really give someone a perspective on this subject, too!
@Cath I have high hopes for you — you can work for me anytime. Or I’ll come work for you!
@Deb Thanks!
@Marsha This is why I laugh when people say HR is going away. As long as there are business units, HR will be around. Why? Because someone has to wear the referee’s shirt and blow the whistle. And the peeps in the biz units can’t do it. This kind of depresses me. You’re right — but I dunno, I’m not proud of this aspect of HR.
I totally get where you’re coming from. AND … (you knew that was coming, right?)
I’ve worked in organizations that totally suck the life out of me. Every time, I voted with my feet, as it were – I either left the organization or figured out a way to work for a different team under the same roof. In every instance, the team or the larger organization lost a great employee with good ideas. And I do think that organizations (it doesn’t have to be solely HR) can do something about organizational climates (and crappy managers) that suck the life out of their employees. Or, they can ignore the fact that their company is a life-force-vampire and end up losing a lot of good people (and keeping the crappy ones who aren’t bright or talented enough to find work elsewhere).
And it can’t just be about a better compensation package. Dan Pink’s new book “Drive” contains a lot of fascinating research about what really motivates humans. And very little is actually about external rewards. The three drivers are autonomy, mastery, and purpose – and if organizations could figure out how to grant these to a greater degree, we’d be off to a really good start. This translates into more dollars into professional development, structuring organizations so that people can literally SEE how their work fits into the larger mission of the organization, and (yikes) zero tolerance for micro-management. Provide people with a fair income and allow room for what really motivates human beings, and you’re unstoppable. Suck the life out of me, and I leave (or worse, leave without really going – I just sit at my desk and suck the resources out of the company – it’s a lazy man’s revenge).
I think the part that is missed in all of this discussion is that it is not about an employee feeling engaged with an organization. Engagement is driven by the manager-employee relationship. If you have an environment that is run be great managers employee engagement is not a problem.
Yes turning an engagement initiative over to some HR departments will seal its demise but some get it and know how to really make it work.
I have read all of these posts with interest. First, Laurie, thank you for your honest talk on employees – at the core employment is you do a job and we pay you – straight forward and simple. We do not owe employees happiness, fulfillment or development. As companies we decided to jump in this pond because we wanted to retain good workers. In all of the years I have done HR/HC work I truly believe it comes down to the work and the leader. If you have a “fit” between employee values, the work and the leader – you can pay what you want, provide what you want (within market) and the employee will stay “engaged” or productive which is ultimately more important than engaged.
Define your workplace values, train your leaders and hire accordingly and engagement takes care of itself.
Great provocative piece. I agree and disagree. How about both the organization and the employee take responsibility to create a great place to work. Employees do have an obligation to work with passion and effectiveness but employers need to always remember that they need to keep the work and workplace relevant. Maybe the best term is “organizational engagement”. I sure have seen a lot of un-engaged workplaces as well.
GREAT POST!!!
Engagement is the result of people being challenged to do their best individually & collectively (i.e., the pursuit of operational excellence)
You are SOOOOO right!!
Laurie – I just love how you keep it all stirred up –very worthwhile discussion. While not eloquent, here is my synopsis of this particular issue: Employee Engagement Flavor of the Month Initiative, sponsored by HR: FAIL vs. Having employees who will give you the benefit of the doubt, because they trust you to generally do the right thing: a good business.
After 9-11, J. Walker Smith at Yankelovich wrote a white paper about the whole issue of crumbling institutional trust, which obviously has sunk to even lower levels. I still use one of his quotes: “A new basis for trust is needed. Not big pronouncements but small promises, immediately fulfilled and tangibly delivered, one after another, time after time.” That formula works in any relationship – even the workplace.
To dismiss “Employee Engagement” because you define it as team building and ice cream socials, demonstrates that you are have not really researched or learned about the topic (i.e., that you are uninformed) or that you having tried to research it you don’t understand it (i.e., that you cannot think at a strategic level).
Either way, EE Engagement at its heart is exactly what you are calling for in terms of meaningful work with an organization that values that work. And, the realy measure of engagement is how much of a salaried workers descretionary effort he/she is actually expending.
Saying that we should not pay attention to the level of engagement is like saying leadership should ignore if employees “care about their work” or “do a good job”.
As a responsible blogger you should do more research before you pontificate on a subject.
@Eric Yeah, I don’t know about Dan Pink’s book. One person’s research is another person’s anecdotal evidence to support a point-of-view. I’ve learened this from blogging. Also, I’ve heard mixed reviews of the book so I’m skipping it. I thought Paul’s take on it was interesting. http://www.i2i-align.com/2010/01/drive-one-mans-review-behind-the-wheel.html
@Eric Hm, you’re right, that piece was missed in the discussion. I do think some HR people get it. Not many, though.
@EJS Define your workplace values, train your leaders and hire accordingly and engagement takes care of itself. I like this, but my friend Kris Dunn warns that we can’t overstate our values. If we say we have values, we better have them.
@Bernie It’s okay. Sometimes I agree and disagree with myself. There are plenty of unengaged workforces. You are right. I just wonder — a) why? & b) who’s responsibility is it to fix this?
@Perry Thanks! I love your take on that.
@Joni Whoa, I have to read that white paper. I get the trust issue and like it, actually.
@Stephanie I know you’re a first-time commenter so I’ll just say that my position is well researched, I have a solid background in HR, and I just happen to disagree with you on this subject. Oh well. Hope you come back again.
Nothing wrong with being the ref – can’t play the game without ‘em. Also bet they have input on rules…but I know what you mean. The power seat in a game belongs to the coach.
Employment engagement or lack thereof is a symptom and not the problem. When an organizational development approach is taken (I recommend using Jay Galbraith’s 5 star model), then the real problems or obstacles are determined and subsequently aligned goals and actions steps can be taken. Yes, agree, everyone is an adult. The problem just like with many children, the question is not do they know it, but do they want to do it?
Hi Laurie:
Thought provoking as usual. Just one point…all the things you mentioned in paragraph 3, like meaningful work, comp, and communications are actually known drivers of…..engagement or whatever you want to call it. So, I think the issue is that we approach engagement the wrong way. Instead of focusing on how engagement impacts results we focus on engagement for engagement sake…i.e. team building, picnics and t-shirts.
I also agree many drivers of engagement are intrinsic in nature, values, beliefs, etc….so all the more reason to focus on results and not try to change someone’s psyche!!
Thanks you always make me stop and pause.
Laurie, I agree it’s not the responsibility of an organization to ensure that the employees are engaged. I do think it is an organization’s responsibility to create an environment in which employees WANT to engage. That’s a big difference. It’s all about making sure employees have what they NEED (a reasonable salary, benefits, safe working environment, etc.) and what they WANT (respect, recognition of their hard work/results, a boss who listens to them and responds accordingly, etc.).
I do think it is part of the organisation responsibility to ensure that they design work to be as engaging as possible e.g. by providing variety where possible. Of course an employee can have some influence over this as well. All the things you mentioned in your post such as compensation plan, benefits package all do contribute to engagement. It doesn’t really matter whether you call engagement or organisational excellence it’s still the same things; A new wine in an old bottle. Before engagement it used to be commitment, or satisfaction or organisational citizenship behaviour. Take your pick, they are all very similar. We have been posting about this subject in our HubCap Digital Forum (http://alpha.hubcapdigital.com/).
“When you call it employee engagement, you stick it in the ghetto with all the other employee-focused programs.” STOP. Go no further, you’re winning. Don’t try and stick a new label on it, especially one that contains ‘organizational’ and ‘excellence’ in the same jingoistic proclamation.
Don’t call it anything ffs – just describe it in the same no-nonsense manner you had so eloquently been doing so up until that point. And please be gentle, this is my first visit to your most excellent blog!
Good luck hiring Gen Y – which could be renamed Gen Why. I’d rather have employees who ask why than employees who disagree, get passive-aggressive, and just do a poor job as a result. There are so many reasons for employers or managers to care about the engagement of their employees, starting with productivity, which leads to profitability, and the engagement survey data from the leading companies prove that. If you don’t care about engagement, fine. That will become evident to people who work for you soon enough, and then you can figure out what to do next.