Defining Engagement?

[David Zinger]

How do we define employee engagement and make sense of this sometimes very elusive construct?

[Tim Wright]

Earlier this year I posted a comparison of mine and several others' definitions. It's at Culture to Engage

[David Zinger]

Hi Tim,
We talked on the phone. I think it would be a good exercise on this network to work at an encompassing definition of employee engagement. I wondered if you would consider taking a stab at it to offer to the network and then get feedback from others. Let me know what you think about this. I believe the process of developing a definition may be as important as any final product.

[Courtney I]

The company I work for defines it as staying with the company despite opportunities to work elseware, talking positively about the company to people outside the company, and make the extra effort to do a good job.

It's a pretty simple definition, but I think it's true.

[Tzvi]

This corresponds to Hewitt's "Say, Stay and Strive" mantra.

[Sarah Adams]

I have a quick question about "Say, Stay and Strive". Did Hewitt develop this or did it come from ORC International? I am doing a paper on employee engagement and I'm trying to trace the source of this model.

[Mike Hawkins]

David,
When I think of engagement, I think of 'involvement'. So, for me, Employee Engagement is about keeping people involved. And I think there are multiple levels of involvement at work (this gets complicated, doesn't it?). On one level you want your people to be 'on task' and to stay focused on what they need to do to get the job done. On another level, it's beneficial for employees to be engaged in the social culture of a company. And, it is important for team members to buy into the overall goals and objectives of the firm. It all has to work together to make employees feel good about what they do, and for the company (and its employees) to be successful. That's my two cents worth.

[Lisa Cox]

Interesting challenge! I believe Commitment is the foundation of employee engagement. Specifically my work has examined the levels of Affective Commitment in the Employee Engagement formula. I believe if you don't have an emotional connection in place, there is little to no significant meaning to the employee. Without meaning, engagement is anywhere from shallow to disingenuous.

[Deri Latimer]

I believe employee engagement is about being a 'part' of the organization - 'part'icipating in organizational developments, 'part'nering with your leader and team members, 'part'icularizing by being treated as an individual and treating others likewise, being 'part'isan and supporting the team and organization, and 'part'ying (making sure there is a high fun factor)!

[Tim Wright]

Deri -

I like the fact that in the organization you describe, the whole has to be greater (in every sense of the word) than the sum of its "parts."

And for sure it will not be coming a'part' at the seams.

[Deri Latimer]

Ha! Thanks for adding that 'part'icular comment, Tim! I like it!
I'm new to the network so am looking forward to connecting more with you, and everyone else!

[Terrence Seamon]

Like the proverbial elephant, there are many definitions and descriptions, depending upon what you see from where you stand.

Where am I standing? From the vantage point of what managers can do to promote greater employee engagement. So from this vantage point, I'd say that employee engagement is what good managers do to connect and bond people to the mission and goals of the organization.

Some years ago, I worked for a large telecom company. In those days, the Company had published something called "Our Common Bond." It was a credo that all the employees knew. It expressed what the Company believed in and stood for.

Whether you bought into it or not was an individual choice you could make. And there were cynical employees who dismissed it.

But viewed from above, it was a good move by management. The intent was there. Management understood that it was in business for more than just short term profit. That there was a higher purpose. And that you needed to communicate it. And call people to it.

[Stephen Booth]

As I see it, an unengaged employee comes to work because they need to pay the rent/mortgage,. an engaged employee comes to work because they get to do something interesting or/and like th epeople they're working with.

To facilitate engagement I think you have to lean towards the Theory-Y, start from the presumption that your people and intelligent people who want to do a good job and be rewarded for it (rewards need not be financial and probably shouldn't be anything as cheesy as an "Employee of the month" award, something as simple as "Hey Sue, when you get the monthly report to the directors delivered a day ahead of the deadline it makes me really glad you're on my team" can work wonders).

Open, frank and constructive two way communication is, in my opinion, the bedrock of engagement. I've seen a lot of very unengaged employees over the years and a common factor has always been a hierarchy that dictates that communication goes down the organisation and "If I wanted your opinion I'd give it to you!"

If an employee disagrees with you on something and suggests an alternative, what is your response? "Me Boss, me crush you like bug.", "Hmm, interesting but I think we'll stick with my way." (without actually considering their way), "OK, can you send that to me in an email with your reasoning, a couple of hundred words will do, by this afternoon and I'll get back to you tommorrow?" Which of those will improve engagement? I'd go with the last one, maybe not appropriate in every situation (it does assume that you've got time and they have the requisite knowledge to develop and alternative) and you may look at their alternative and decide not to use it. They do, at least, feel that they have been listened to and you may have gained some insight into a development direction for them (part of any manager's job should be to develop the people under them, if for no other reason than it eases their own promotion as there is a ready supply of people available to step into their post when they are elevated out of it).

A good way to unengage staff is to treat them like replaceable machine parts to be hired and fired at whim and used to fulfil goals that they are too meanial to be allowed to know. Conversely treating them as valued individuals to be developed and supported in roles that contribute in a measurable way to the company's goals that are known to all staff, will foster engagement.

I heard a story once, it may be apocryphal, about a senior manager walking around NASA in the 1960s and bumping into a janitor. He asked the janitor "what are you doing?" And got the reply "Helping put a man on the moon!" I don't generally go in for management fables (most of them are a total crock of the unmentionable) but, that's an engaged employee!

I'd define an engaged employee as one who believes that what they do matters to the their employer and concurs with the goals of that employer so they will work to achieve those goals. Whether the goal is to put a man on the moon, build a better mouse trap, deliver aid to the needy, clear land mines from arable land or just make and sell more widgets at a lower cost per unit this year.

Stephen