Blog

Is engagement mania relevant for a 21st century workplace?

Helen Giles, 27 Apr 2011

I’m as good or as bad as the next HR Director in being anxious to get our employee engagement index up.

After all, not only will we get in the Sunday Times Best Companies listings, but all that research about the link between engagement and productivity is now incontrovertible, isn't it?

Yet on occasion, I am beset by doubts that our quest for greater and greater engagement is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps it's because I spent too much time analysing our Best Companies data and noticed that all the questions seem to be about how good people feel with barely a nod to how conscientiously they apply themselves to their work. Or because not long ago I was in a room with a group of HR academics getting terribly excited about how employers can create greater 'meaning' for their employees.

Thinking about all this, my mind wandered back to the days when my father was still alive and working - 45 years boy and man, interrupted only by a stint soldiering in WW2 - as a pen-pushing clerk for the Eastern Electricity Board. He worked a lot of overtime, was out from 8.00 to 8.00 most days, seldom taking a day off. He seemed to work hard and was loyal to his company. He never spoke of meaning, but inasmuch as any could be deduced it would seem to have consisted of a belief that he should provide for his family and a sense that he shouldn't let down the firm or the colleagues he relied upon for his livelihood.

OK so times have changed, the psychological contract has changed with less job security, and now people expect a great deal more out of work. Or do they? At a recent staff focus group looking at how we could improve on our staff survey results, participants brainstormed how they and their colleagues could have more 'fun' at work. After a while of pondering this, one of the group looked at her colleagues in a quizzical fashion and said, "Hey guys, you know what, this is supposed to be work". This young colleague happens to be from Eastern Europe.

So in another time, another country, people may look at our engagement mania with open-mouthed incomprehension but how is that useful or relevant to think about in relation to the early 21st century workplace? Well, I think it is, in terms of realising that anything taken to extremes can become counter-productive. The engagement industry seems to have taken on a life of its own and I really do think at times we are in danger of breeding a workforce of high maintenance namby-pambies by bending over too far backwards to make life at work meaningful and engaging.

 

5 comments on this article

Your comment

Click here to comment

Engagement is not ours to measure

Doug Shaw 27 Apr 2011

Hello Helen, thanks for writing this article. I too wonder how much time is wasted going over reports, wringing hands and wondering how the mythical index can be raised. Employee engagement indices are an illusion. I am in the process of working with a customer to develop and involve people in a communications and engagement plan. Before I started on this piece of work I gained agreement to two important things: 1 - we communicate everything we are told and learn - nothing is covered up 2 - we will not attempt to devise or implement an engagement index Together we are focussing on keeping it simple and making work better.

Messy analysis

Jon Ingham, Strategic HCM 27 Apr 2011

Engagement is important, that's why so many employers pay so much attention to it. If you don't think it is, you're probably not defining it in the right way. The problem, not exactly helped by this article, is that there is so much sloppy thinking about the area. Firstly, there are a lot of ways organisations can create engagement. These include the sorts of best practices in Best Companies, through a focus on fun or meaning, or the type of programme Doug is running. So of these approaches are going to be right in a particular organisation, and some aren't. If you're working in a production environment in East Europe where meaning doesn't seem to be important, then don't focus on it. If you're in a knowledge based environment in West Europe where it does, then this is something you need to take account of. The reason engagement indices are often, though not always useful, are that they help employers who don't otherwise feel they have the necessary data to better detect what the relevant engagement drivers are, and hence put their investments into the right place. However, if you're sure what these drivers are, particularly if engagement levels are so low it's obvious to anyone what you need to do differently, you probably don't need to measure engagement, you just need to do something to create it. But in none of these cases does engagement become any less important. http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/search/label/Engagement

Engagement Doesn't Equal Fun or Happy

Kevin Kruse, Author of "We" 27 Apr 2011

Helen, great contrarian piece and, indeed, it's a good reminder of not to become TOO obsessed with engagement. I'll disagree with any notion that it's irrelevant of course. Similar to another comment here, I'd suggest that being engaged at work doesn't necessarily mean you are "happy" or "having fun." In fact, many who are very engaged, focused, and driven in their work are little stressed at the same time! I also wonder if you would say your Dad had pride in his work, was satisfied with his job, was an advocate for Eastern Electric, and rarely thought to switch jobs. If so, I'd suggest he was engaged. Although of course the drivers of engagement then, may indeed be different than drivers of engagement in today's workforce. Research on over 10 million workers in 150 countries, and my own experience, suggest Growth, Recognition and Trust are the 3 keys to engagement, and indeed there is strong correlation between engaged workforces and financially successful companies. Best, Kevin www.WeTheBook.com

Engagement can't be measured.

Peter A Hunter 03 May 2011

The mania referred to does not appear to be a mania for engagement but a mania for measuring engagement an dsurveys. Attempting to measure engagement is evidence of a lack of understanding about what engagement is and does explain why this mania is not adding value. Engagement is an intangible, it is the way that people feel about what they do. If they are engaged they are proud of what they do and in control of their own environment. We don’t feel the need to quantify other intangibles like love or happiness so why try to put a number on engagement. The reason I guess is that senior management have heard of it engagement and the value an engaged workforce will add and have decided that they too want an engaged workforce. Since nobody in the organisation knows what to do to allow the workforce to engage the next best thing is to measure it. Setting the benchmark for engagement keeps senior management off our backs for a while then the next time that the same workforce are asked to complete an engagement survey they will either have learned what responses are expected and therefore appear to be more engaged or the survey is subtly different to show a better score. Either way the people responsible for the survey will be able to report to senior management that engagement has increased and that they are therefore doing their jobs, even though nobody in the workforce has changed their behaviour or the way that they feel about what they do. When a workforce goes from disengaged to engaged the difference in performance is so huge that it makes surveys completely redundant. The problem we are seeing is that very few people have ever seen an engaged workforce and even fewer know what needs to happen to allow the workforce to engage. When we fall in love we don’t need a survey to tell us what has happened. Engagement is the same and allowing it to happen is almost as instinctive as what we do when we go out on a date. It is all about the way that we behave towards other people, not how much we score on a survey. Peter A Hunter www.breakingthemould.co.uk

Focus of engagement

Richard Lock 10 May 2011

The link between people who believe they are engaged and performance improvement seems well established to me. There are bubbles of excitement and activity in many aspects of life - .com and property being examples. Those bubbles eventually deflate, and occasionally burst, but the underlying activity usually remains. For me the issue is about where the focus of engagement is. Do you want the focus to be engagement in the job itself, engagement in the employment practices of the business, or perhaps engagement in the management style? It is all too common for performance metrics to become the end goal rather than an indicator of progress. The tail then starts wagging the dog and decisions are made based on stats impact rather than real impact. Classic examples of customer service staff cutting off customers mid conversation in order to hit (be engaged with?) a performance target abound. Businesses do need to manage people well and create the opportunity for them to engage. It is then down to individuals. Much like love, some will be head over heels engaged, some will believe they are, but behaviour might suggest otherwise, and some will simply fight it all the way. Engagement is not a process it is an emotion and therefore volatile and ever changing. Richard Lock www.causerelatedlearning.co.uk

Latest Issue - May 2012

MA Business & Leisure Limited © Copyright 2012, All Rights Reserved