Disengagement - Higher priority than engagement?

[Mike Healy]

Getting full engagement is clearly a worthwhile goal. Using a standard bell shaped curve of the organisation ( and in line with normal distribution in an organisation) I suggest that 20% of employees will be somewhat engaged, 20% will be somewhat disengaged and the 60% in the middle will be neither.

I wonder would it be worth while to focus on the disengaged first before attempting any engagement initiatives. This would be in line with Herzerg's theories of motiviation. i.e. no additional motivation will occur until the "hygiene" factors are in place.

Maybe it is just my own theory but I think it is very important to remove 'demotivators' ( causes of diengagement) first to get everyone to at least a neutral level. This is actually easier to do than improve from neutral to fully engaged and will have an impact on productivity/employee engagement. Removal of negativity/antipathy will reduce the drag on the organisation and put it in better shape to embrace engagement initiatives.

I have found from personal experience that this has worked well for me in managing change in organisations. Once the causes of frustration/anger/disappointment were removed it kind of cleared the air and the organisation became a more positive place. New ideas became more acceptable and once employees saw evidence that things were better there was renenewed faith in the organisation/managers. With this change in perception employees wanted to participate and improve things for themselves.

[Terrence Seamon]

Mike,

David Zinger, founder of this network, has an interesting take on disengagement: It may not always be a bad thing.

Terry

[Mike Healy]

Hi Terry

David makes a good point

I think it is quite correct that people disengage from time to time.......... we will all burn out if we are on "hi revs" all the time. I think it is necessary and healthy to do this as a form of recuperation.

Maybe there is another forum to be started here on Optimum Engagement i.e. the period beyond which you should not go as every extra mile takes too much out of you and the effect of engagement begins to reduce. This would be the equivalent of an unhealthy obsession

Maybe a graph like this might explain

[Warren Young]

I was intrigued to hear recently that there are some employees of The Gallup Organization who are not 'fully engaged all of the time' either. They still have their unengaged staff too. Gallup researchers clasify employees into 3 levels of engagement (or 4, even 5 in other methodologies) - but using Gallup their terms are Engaged, Unengaged, and Actively disengaged. Its the third group that are counter-productive where their negativity, or resistance to change, (or anything else) are an actively playing out against those who are engaged. The mddle group (recently termed "the psychologially absent") may zone out for a period - for a range of reasons. But there is a stronger likelihood that if I am unengaged I will re- engage down stream as circumstances change (eg worklife balance). However if I am Acively disengaged its less likley I can help myself to become re-engaged without external help in some form.

[Mike Healy]

I think it is useful to remember that having disengaged employees (whether they have mentally checked out or are actively disengaged) is absolutely normal in just about every organisation you can think of. We shouldn't worry about having them as sometimes we may be among them ourselves.

The current interest from employers arises because of the effectiveness/efficiency/ profits that can be gained from converting as many peope to engaged status as possible. Lets not allow ourselves to be caught in a mindset that says there is something wrong if there are disengaged people working alongside us. Sometimes diversity of opinion and ideas is what is needed for innovation and creativity, even if people are no longer aligned with a particular philosophy, company's values or objectives, or with a way of working. This does not necessarily make them objects to be fixed.

I guess what I am saying is (dis)engagment is in the eye of the beholder. From an organisational perspective it is better for everyone to agree and strive towards the same goals as those of the organisation. Where this isn't happening it might be better for those not so aligned to reconsider what they want to do with themslelves since they may be a drag on those who are keen to follow a particular path.

[Bob Gately]

"... Using a standard bell shaped curve of the organisation ( and in line with normal distribution in an organisation) I suggest that 20% of employees will be somewhat engaged, 20% will be somewhat disengaged and the 60% in the middle will be neither."

Good estimates. If employers hired employees based on criteria unrelated to engagement, we should expect to see such a bell shaped curve. If employers hired based on criteria related to engagement, we should expect to see a higher percentage of engaged employees.