The "Phenomena" Of Engagement
The whole issue of "engagement" is an interesting area for me personally and professionally. It may be that I lack appropriate "balance" in my life, but a big part of who I am is deeply connected to what I do. With that being said, the idea of being engaged or committed to the core values of organizations that I work for and with is important to me.
I also believe perhaps incorrectly that many others out there share my feelings, especially Gen X and the "millenial" generation. They seek or even demand meaning.
I have read blog posts (including response to my own) that say that expecting engagement is unreasonable and that there is not necessarily a correlation between engagement and productivity.
I struggle with both those positions. Is it unreasonable to ask employees to share the values of your organization assuming they are clearly articulated and behavior is consistent with your stated values?
Do engaged employees perform at a higher level or not?
I don't expect anyone to commit to an organization in perpetuity, but is it not acceptable to say that while you are here give me your best effort and adhere to the value and behavioral code of the organization?
Is engagement a management "myth"? Where does responsibility for engagement reside; in human resources, in the executive suite, or perhaps at the level of individual manager to individual employee, or perhaps all three?
I of course have my opinions. I have created a system called moving from Compliance to Commitment(TM), but I am looking for your thoughts, not just blind validation.
I also believe perhaps incorrectly that many others out there share my feelings, especially Gen X and the "millenial" generation. They seek or even demand meaning.
I have read blog posts (including response to my own) that say that expecting engagement is unreasonable and that there is not necessarily a correlation between engagement and productivity.
I struggle with both those positions. Is it unreasonable to ask employees to share the values of your organization assuming they are clearly articulated and behavior is consistent with your stated values?
Do engaged employees perform at a higher level or not?
I don't expect anyone to commit to an organization in perpetuity, but is it not acceptable to say that while you are here give me your best effort and adhere to the value and behavioral code of the organization?
Is engagement a management "myth"? Where does responsibility for engagement reside; in human resources, in the executive suite, or perhaps at the level of individual manager to individual employee, or perhaps all three?
I of course have my opinions. I have created a system called moving from Compliance to Commitment(TM), but I am looking for your thoughts, not just blind validation.
Labels: commitment, engagement, generations
posted by Mark at New Paradigms LLC at
12:39 PM
3 Comments:
I was thinking about this topic a lot recently. My opinion is that the keys to engagement resides to very small degree with the employees and to a great degree with their direct manager.
To make things clear I think that engagement and commitment come from being happy and being challenged. If an employee is challenged but isn’t happy working for a certain company they are not likely to give of themselves. At higher levels employees also need skills, and here too if they are not happy they may learn how to use the skills but not give of their fruits to the organization.
In my career as an HR director I often ran into people who felt they couldn’t. There is nothing you can do against a conviction of “I can’t do it”, or “I will fail” that ignores successes to maintain that stand point. That’s the extent the employee controls commitment or engagement. Everything else is in the direct control and hence responsibility of true leaders.
Thanks for a fantastic post.
Reut
Without solid internal communications, an organization compromises its ability to motivate employees, promote its brand, and grow. Working with Fortune 100 and small businesses, as well as nonprofits, I've seen how internal communications can clearly subvert or enhance the bottom line.
Two key factors to a progressive and successful organization are brand clarity and evangelism throughout the enterprise, from the C-suite to the frontline employee.
It doesn't take empirical data to support the obvious result of effective or destructive communications. We see it in our personal lives, and the same human dynamics apply exponentially within any organization.
To optimize results (including loyalty, creativity, and productivity), solid internal communication is essential between individual staff members, teams, departments, and between managers and their reports, and between executives and management.
Marketing the brand begins within the organization. Ask Google, Nike, and Apple employees what their company represents and how they feel about the product. Naturally you'll never see (nor should you expect) 100% brand advocacy by all employees. That doesn't preclude the benefits of an effective internal communications strategy.
In large and small businesses, I've seen individual and team productivity increase immediately with improved communication tactics. Some manufacturing jobs with routine functions may or may not not benefit from an "engaged" employee, but I believe this is the exception not the rule.
Silos or convoluted communication processes (or lack thereof) can isolate great ideas that may be overlooked; or, potentially great work may need the cross-functional skills of other teams to flourish. And, we've all seen how poor communication can generate misinformation or ill-informed perceptions that kill deals or otherwise lose business.
The primary catalyst for anyone capitalizing on an internal communication strategy is belief in the brand. From my perspective, the real issue is simple: are stakeholders just doing time or do they care about the quality of their work? In order to care, they need to clearly understand the brand. We all need purpose, it's a core human value.
As a consultant, I've experienced corporate cultures where you can feel energy in the air. Employees may or may not put in 12 hours, but in this type of culture, employees can and do articulate and evangelize the brand in their personal lives. They believe in the products or services. Or, at a minimum, they understand the vision and why it's in their best interest. This is vital to engaging any employee and sustaining a prosperous brand.
Ken Grimsley
800.473.1283
I think the notion of engagement is probably one of the most over looked elements in employee vs employer relations because most companies are just trying to meet the basic needs of the employee (paycheck, insurance, 401K) rather than fulfilling higher level needs (commitment, engagement, loyalty, growth, advancement, long-term goals, and work/life balance).
I think companies are more productive if the employees are engaged. Engaged employees are more interested in your company and how it is doing so they are working towards increasing your bottom line in creative ways. When your employee is engaged they know that when you do better they do better and that means achieving more of their higher needs.
I also think there are three categories of employees. They are the engaged, the disengaged and the employees in the middle that don’t feel strongly either way whether or not your company succeeds. They are just there to do the job and collect the paycheck. Personally, I think this latter group is the most damaging to the company and your engaged employees.
Companies are always trying to do better whether that is by increasing their market share, providing better service or lowering operating costs. They are always trying to improve their current status. When you have a group of employees that is not interested in improving that status you are accepting the current process and strategies and you lose creative ideas and development. If you want to grow your company to it’s full potential you must engage all of your employees and acknowledge with the same importance the higher needs of your employees with the higher needs of your company.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home