What EXACTLY is an engaged employee?

[Ian Buckingham]

Some time ago I was interviewed on the world famous Cranky Middle Manager Show. As the axe-wielding paladin for the downtrodden middle management Wayne pointed out that a deal of cynicism abounds about the term "employee engagement". Wayne's provocative proposition was that it smacked of marketing speak and was potentially another clever invention by "weasels" cloaked as gurus reinventing the proverbial leadership wheel.

There's certainly an awful lot being written and spoken about what is essentially a familiar theme, namely that if marketers are promise makers, employees are promise keepers and engaged employees are most likely to deliver the best outcomes over the longest period of time. But is much changing as a result or is employee engagement simply another act of HR empire building or PR or Marketing turned inward upon itself?

I have my own convictions. But what do you think? What EXACTLY does an engaged employee look, sound and even feel like?

[James Hayton]

This is a really good question, and one that I hope a lot of people care about, After all, we keep hearing about why it is important, but what exactly is 'IT'? We can hardly be surprised if cients/consumers/stakeholders are skeptical.

I have one hundred dollars - no, make that euro (!) for anyone who can make a convincing argument for employee engagement that also effectively distinguishes employee engagement from job satisfaction, motivation, job involvement, or organizational /occupational/task commitment.

[Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D.]

But first.. you have to answer this question:

Engaged in what?

[Ian Buckingham]

Now surely a DR can do better than that Theresa - or is that the "philosopher" coming out in you LOL?! Ian

[Terrence Seamon]

Two thoughts on a beautiful Friday morning in New York...

~ An engaged employee makes a commitment and then follows through to deliver on his/her promise.

~ An engaged employee is probably also a disengaged employee whose day-to-day life is a balancing of the two states.

Terry

[Jo]

I know what an engaged employee is. Look at the guy in flow, eyes shining - not just engaged but also experienced pleasure and belonging. It's visible. You can't miss it. And you cannot miss its absence either.

I also know what is required for engagment/pleasure/meaning to be possible. And it can never be some plastering over a fundamentally unsound job design or organizational arrangement.

When a Cranky Middle Manager starts up, we are getting their learned helplessness. We need to address that first. Why are middle managers feeling helpless? What have we done to them that is the equivalent of sticking dogs in psychology laboratory and shocking them randomly?

The acute answer to CMM, but far too direct on air or without a longstanding, healthy resilient prior relationship, is that an engaged ee, or engaged anyone, is someone who doesn't feel like you feel right now - discouraged, despondent, negative, and . . . unloved? Isn't the last the key?

This rendition feels too direct even for a forum of professionals but aren't we pitter-pattering around the key issues - belonging, acceptance and organizations that are not built with these features at their core?

How can we make middle managers a little more positive and therefore able to hear a positive message?

[Jo]

@ James

How is this for a distinction. All the earlier concepts are measuring the worth of the employee to the company. Employee engagement asks a simple question : what is the worth of the company to the employee?

I logged in to leave this link as a topical example of employee engagement: the pressure on the Chinese team.

Have a winning week,
Jo

[Fraser Marlow]

There are many definitions out there, but here is a quick "rule of thumb" that might help articulate the difference. This comes out of our 2008 research report where we looked at engagement levels and factors respondents claimed would improve their performance and satisfaction:

Engaged employees have a primary focus on adding value to the organization - helping achieve the goals. Their secondary focus (or the result of their primary focus) is what the organization gives them in return (status, security, income...)

Disengaged employees see the world the other way around: their primary focus is on what the organization gives them (status, security, income...). Helping the organization achieve it's goals is seen as a necessary chore that has to be done to achieve those rewards.

Having discussed this topic at length with dozens of leaders in HR and in the line functions, I find this is a good "rule of thumb" to help people quickly identify engaged vs. disengaged behavior.

Hope this helps!

[Ian Buckingham]

Interesting differentiation Fraser and a great contribution to the debate! Works on a Maslovian level as well and hints of the sort of symbiotic relationship that for me represents the ideal ("we sctach each other's backs because there's mutual respect and benefit"). I've certainly witnessed many examples of this relationship within SMEs - usually independent (i.e. equity shared between the members). But, other than the John Lewis group and potentially pockets within Virgin, how many examples of large corporates and multi-nationals can folk bring to the table?

Ian

[Lisa Wojtkowiak, SPHR]

From The Conference Board, 2006

“A heightened emotional and intellectual connection that an employee has for his/her job, organization, manager or co-workers, that in turn influences him/her to apply additional discretionary effort.”

[Phil Gerbyshak]

Fantastic question! When I think of an engaged employee, I think of someone who comes to work every day with a smile, who gives her/his best on everything they do, who provides solutions not just problems, and who is proud to recommend others to work alongside them at the company they choose to share their talents with.

[Marilyn Leccese]

I think we can describe the behaviors we would see in individuals -- regularly going over and above what's asked, exceeding expectations, improving processes, willingly helps out with projects and tasks outside of immediate responsibilities, etc., etc. And, these things, I think are in line with Fraser's "focus on adding value to the organization."

[Derek Irvine]

An engaged person is one who chooses to give discretionary effort to their work and their company, usually because they are excited by their work, their company, their clients, their managers, their teammates, or any other number of factors. The magic lies in caring enough about your employees, teammates or colleagues to understand what it is that would/does engage them. That requires paying attention to people as people, looking outside of your own work for a moment to see what others are doing and contributing, and thanking them for those efforts.