Last week I was invited to present to a group of HR executives on the topic of employee engagement. I started out with a picture of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I asked the audience to remember a time when they "believed" and in particular in Santa and/or our friend the Tooth Fairy. Then I asked for stories about what happened when they learned there was no Santa Claus. The stories were, as you might guess, great. People were angry, sad, and they projected those negative feelings toward the people who sold them on the story.
So ... we talked about employee engagement. Why? I linked employee engagement to Santa Claus because it's being hailed in many cases as a magic wand to make companies better. Don't get me wrong; I truly believe and know by reviewing the data that employees are the key to long-term company success. However, employee engagement as many people "envision" it in their minds is probably not it. And the morale of the story is that when our senior executives realize all the money spent on employee engagement just may not lead to the performance outcomes they desire, whoever sold them on employee engagement is going to be the target of that negative projection.
Telling a mystical story when people are expecting facts comes at a price.
However, I remember learning about Santa Claus. And frankly, I was a bit relieved. When we were kids, we did not have a fireplace, so Santa coming down the chimney really made no sense. Then there were these kids down the street who always got into trouble, and they always got better presents than we did. So it seemed "right" but disappointing that there was no Santa.
The same thing happens with employee engagement. If you think about it carefully, you know that those survey questions you're tracking look a lot like the employee satisfaction questions. Do we really think that raising these survey questions is going to magically make everything better for all companies and all employees everywhere? If that were the case, why is the economy taking so long to recover?
The reality is employee engagement is not magic. Employee engagement surveys are probably doing more good than harm, but increasing survey scores on engagement does not improve performance for everyone. There is a thing called an “interaction effect” which we find in the research. It shows that there are “conditions under which” some employees will experience lower performance when their engagement goes up (kinda like the not so good kids getting better presents). That’s because performance is not in the engagement work being done to date (in most cases), and that’s where we think the field needs to go.
Also, maybe it’s time to start being honest with ourselves and admit employee engagement is an industry or a field of study – not a construct. If it were a clear construct, at least there would be some agreement on what it is, and there is no consensus to date on the “thing” that is employee engagement.
I vote to move on to questions #2 and #3. They are:
1. Engaged in what?
2. So what?
Focus on the performance in which you want employees engaged in and then move backwards. To do this, we have been using models from physics, looking at energy and momentum. What we want are employees moving forward vs. going backwards or standing still and then when moving forward, with a high sense of urgency, make sure their efforts are pointed in the direction needed to drive strategy.
Then please address the so what question. For employees, so what? What do they get in return?
There are a number of simple ways to move this work forward in your organizations. If you want to learn more, contact me. If you have your own stories, share them.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Take the Anti-Scrooge Pledge for 2023
Take the Anti-Scrooge Pledge for 2023
I have been thinking about teaching an executive development class focused on learning how to be a good consumer of research. I developed th...
It's been many years since we in the HR world started talking about employee engagement. And since that time the following has happened ...
2021 may become known as the the year of the employee. 2021 is characterized by more employees having more choices about where they will wor...
YOUR ORGANIZATION IS MADE UP OF MORE THAN ONE ASSET Click to get the technical report Organizations, whether small or large, global or lo...
Company Culture It's one of those words that conjures up all sorts of images. I used to think it was a very cool word. I'd pict...
Great post. I couldn't agree more -- "engaged in what" and "so what" are the critical questions.
We believe the best way to direct engagement efforts to address the these two questions is through strategic employee recognition. Recognition answers "engaged in what" by strongly encouraging the direct, specific and timely appreciation and acknowledgment of any employee who demonstrates a company value in achievement of a strategic objective (therefore, engaged in work you need them focused on).
Recognition also answers the "so what" portion by telling employees, "you are seen, you are noticed, you are appreciated." Best bet is to include rewards in the mix as well, but it's not required.
My CEO, Eric Mosley, and I dive into this in much greater detail in our new book "Winning with a Culture of Recognition." http://bit.ly/bAdR1A
I think this is a valid point. Many companies pursue employee engagement or even employee happiness to the end that they just think it is good. Because that is the limits of the thought process, it rarely gets tactical enough to be effective. It always slips because it's less important than those other important metrics. If people are clear about what it really looks like in their situation, and to what end that they want it, they can CONNECT it to their other business objectives instead of having it float out there by itself.
Post a Comment