Mass -v- Customised Engagement

[Mike Healy]

Most of the material I have read talks about getting the employee to engage with the organisation. This is the organisational perspective and suggests that engagement is being pursued for the benefit of the organisation. In this case maximum employee engagement with the organisation is the ultimate goal, and most mechanisms are designed and set up to achieve that

It seems to me that total engagement is impossible as each employee has other groups with which to engage ( family, church, charity) and will share their time/energy accordingly and so each organisation will compete for the employee's attention ( just like stores do for customers) and engagement levels may shift from day to day

No organisation can meet all the engagement needs of each employee so it should only invest in activities specifically required by its own employees. So mass solutions/surveys may miss the mark. For example if 60% feel that bowls of fruit at reception help improve engagement then that will be provided but it is only one element of what they want and there are another 40% who have no interest.

This begs the question, what value do surveys or other organisations' experiences have? They all provide generic information, none of which may be relevant to a particular organisation. Similarly, what value do generic/mass solutions have since every employee has a different view on where and how his/her time should be spent.

Would we not be better providing a customised engagement plan for each employee ( bit like a personal development plan) so that the employee buys into a trade where s/he gets something they want in return for higher engagement. The accuracy would be higher and the effects would be higher too. It is not easy to do and would take a lot of discussion but as a model would this not be preferable to mass engagement programmes which might miss the mark completely for many people.

This of course is already happening ( albeit informally) in some organisations e.g. carer receives reward of healthier/happier patient, but for those organisations with more mundane work to do maybe this model would be more appropriate.

It would be good to hear your views.........for or against

[PWylie]

It's definitely important to try and address on engagement on multiple levels. Doing an organzational survey and then acting on some of the most important issues is an important, and shows that the organization is listening and takes engagement seriously. It is equally important (if not more so) to ensure that individual discussions, as well as team discussions, are occuring where engagement is defined for those individuals and action plans or activities are put in place to increase personal and team engagement. This also leads to making sure that your managers are engaged and able to lead engagement activities for their teams and individual employees. I've always thought of it as 3 pronged attack- organizational, management and employee- you have to address engagement at all 3 levels, in terms of assessing, developing and improving.
*********my 2 cents************

[Mike Healy]

Hi Phil,

I think you are right that EE should take place at multiple levels to get the best effect.

I suppose what I am looking at it the practicalities of doing this. I know from experience that managers given an EE exercise will often come up with a programme(s) of interventions which wil only raise awareness of EE i.e. why we should do it and how it works. This can take up a huge amount of money in itself does little to get employee engaged in earnest

I think we would get more "bang for our budget" teaching line managers at a personal level about how to work wth their employees on a personal level. Spending a budget this way will take a little longer, but will have a greater impact at a personal level resulting in higher levels of engagement.

Creating an environment/culture where this occurs comes mainly from the actions of managers throughout the organisation and not really from various reward/retention mechanisms which companies often spend a great deal of time on. We tend to accept that people leave/disengage from managers not organisatinons, so I guess that people will engage more with managers and not organisations. So a personal engagement plan agreed with a line manager would go a long way to assist

[David Rose]

It will take a lot of work to get all of the managers on board. I'm reminded of the resistance our local leadership program ran into from teachers when we suggested implementation of Character Counts! The teachers resisted simply because they were already loaded down with non-curriculum based programs and didn't have enough time in the day. Ultimately the program was adopted, but incorporated into their existing curriculum and not treated as an extra program. With regards to this topic, however, we may consider 'replacing' antiquated programs with this new thinking on engagement.

If I were to survey, which I haven't, and ask "What is the most worthless exercise managers put you through each year?"; I predict the answer would be the annual review. So let's replace it with what you've suggested, a personal engagement plan or 'agreement'.

I bring this up as an option because I'm currently being mentored, in my search for what I want to do for a living, oddly enough by one of my previous employers. Over and above the personal (what I 'want' to do, not just what I 'can' do), they are advising that I get into agreement with whomever I decide to work. This agreement, they say, should be continuously updated.

From my experience as a manager I just assumed that the best opportunities I would have to check in on the agreement would be during weekly one-on-ones (which I was dedicated to) and annual reviews. Like the teachers, I don't want or have time for anything extra, but would be willing to incorporate if it seems worthy. If the organization and management are on board (trained), then they can guide the employee through the process.

[Mike Healy]

Thanks David.

It also seems to me that a personal engagement plan leaves the employee feeling they have more say over their work/life balance unlike in a performance review situation where they are beng judged purely on what they achieved for the company/organisation.

[Jay Forte]

Hi Mike
I agree - engagement is a about the connecting of each employee (in his or her way) to the role. That is the foundation of the entire talents discussion - one size does not fit all and the only right employee for the role is one who properly fits.

Generic events must either positively affect everyone (making a more attractive workplace) or save the money and use it to direct a more customized response to each employee. We would never think that one size service fits all customers...then one size management or engagement surely does not fit all employees.

Millennial management success is based on the quality of the relationship that the employee and manager have. Instead of hosting a generic survey, management can get a more accurate response about engagement, employee by employee, in the recurring discussions, connversations, feedback and coaching that managers have with their employees. The stronger the relationship, the more accurate and honest the feedback will be. This allows the manager to create the right engagement plan for each employee instead of trying to host a major initiative for all.

Just a perspective.