Are Managers and Leaders of the Organisation the Key Influencer for increasing employee engagement and how can we improve post-survey change efforts?

[Agnes Goh]

I read the article that Paul Mastrangelo shared in another discussion thread on "Will Engagement Be Hijacked or Reengineered" and found it to be very real and practical.

Paul mentioned that the Manager Focused model is flawed as a post survey action. I agree, coz my HR/OD has been focusing on this approach for the past few years and there has been no transformational change. Paul mentioned that we should be designing our change efforts to address what is frustrating employees and preventing them from being engaged.

I have heard some say that leaders/managers are key to employee engagement. Get that right, everything else will fall into place. But what if the business problem was the leadership or the manager (lack of direction, not walking the talk, busy manager issue, etc)?

Leaders and Managers most certainly would not like to hear that the problem lies with them. What kind of post survey change efforts can be done to address this if we don't take a Manager Focused model?

[Hugh Flouch]

Agnes, you might be interested to read this research paper undertaken in a group of leading global companies.

Out of that research an approach was developed which is now used by some of those same companies and many others focussing on supporting mangers to be key enablers of engagement.

[Agnes Goh]

Thanks Hugh for the links. It is useful and helpful research that I need. The findings again reinforce the fact that the relationship and conversations between an employee and his/her supervisor is key in building engagement.

[Terrence Seamon]

Agnes,
You asked, "Are Managers and Leaders of the Organisation the Key Influencer for increasing employee engagement?" I would say Yes they are. Though not the only Key Influencer. The other one I'd mention is Employees.

As far as post-survey change efforts, organizations need to be careful. I was recently out to dinner with some friends. One told us the story of the engagement survey at her organization. It appears that after the first survey was completed, those managers and departments with low engagement scores were blamed and belittled. The next time the survey was conducted, managers coaxed employees to give rosy responses so that they would avoid being in the negative spotlight again.

A sad story. But true.

One lesson I draw from it is that it's not enough for an organization to utilize an employee engagement survey. There has to be a culture that is ready for such an intervention. Organizations need guidance on what to do with the results so that the organization is strengthened rather than weakened.

Terry

[Jack Kennedy]

There are a couple of thoughts that come to mind on this issue. The first is that far too many organizations seem to see an engagement survey as something different than a general employee survey. As a result, they frequently forget the survey best practices that have been developed over the past decades. While the specific questions may differ somewhat, the process should be the same. Just because it's an "Engagement survey" doesn't mean that there shouldn't be clearly understood objectives and expectations for both employees and managers, an explicit plan for how the results will be communicated and utilized (developed and communicated before any data are collected), a realistic timeline for all steps in the process, open communication with employees about the purpose of the survey and their role, guidance and support for managers and supervisors in understanding their results and taking action on them, regular follow-up, and an explicit commitment to conducting the survey again after an appropriate interval. Without these elements, it is very unlikely that an engagement survey will have the positive impact that is intended.

The second thought concerns executive commitment to the process. All to often, executive management seems to expect something for nothing; the want employees to "be engaged", but they don't want to have to do anything differently than they've been doing them. The see engagement as the next great thing and think, "I've got to get me some of that." In fact, without serious commitment from executive management to use the survey results as a catalyst for organizational change, little will change. As I've learned in 25 years of survey work, it is much easier to get agreement to conduct a survey than it is to get commitment to actually do something with it.

[Agnes Goh]

Thanks for sharing your experiences.. I've also learnt that communication, communication and more communication is vital.

[Nick McCormick]

Agnes,
In my experience the reason most employee surveys are of little value is that nothing is done with the results. Sometimes select information is shared. Sometimes action plans are even put together. However, in the majority of cases, the work required to improve does not happen. In most cases management actively and/or passively puts up roadblocks. It is very difficult to get the rank and file pumped up about a survey when this is the case.

What can be done? If employees really take an active interest in making changes and have the persistence to keep fighting, then change is possible. I don’t think it’s the answer though. I’d be anxious to hear what Paul has to say about re-engineering.

[Agnes Goh]

Thanks for sharing your opinion and experience, Terence and Nick.

Managers and employees need to see that the engagement survey is a tool to help them improve their work environment. They need to have ownership of the tool and not view that its a HR initiative. There is a saying "What gets measured, gets done."

Then another question I have is, should engagement scores be linked to performance bonus? Will that drive managers and employees to take the post survey action plans seriously?

[George A Guajardo]

Greetings Agnes,
in answer to your second question, this is a good approach in theory. However, I have seen it executed in two different places to little effect. The first reason I think it did not work, is that the engagement score was linked to a fraction executive compensation. Quite a few other variables were linked to these performance bonuses, so the reinforcement value of each diminishes. The second reason is that employee engagement is essentially an outcome- Managers and leaders do certain things that lead to employee engagement. The bonus should be linked to behaviors the managers themselves have control over (certain types of communication, delegation, etc.).

In response to your first question, all the research I have seen indicates that employee engagement is most influenced by supervisors. Other variables matter too, but this seems to be the most important. If your goal is to improve engagement, you really have to get managers and leaders involved. The responsibility can not lay solely with employees; lack of quality supervision has a way of killing the engagement of even the most self-driven employees (perhaps they are more vulnerable than others, but I am not sure about that).

Ultimately, either your interventions to enhance engagement did not work, or your organization is simply not ready to change. We have to accept the fact that not all organizations will want to embrace change, even if it is good for them and their shareholders.

[Doug Shaw]

Two quick thoughts based on my experience.

No to a link between £ and EE scores - you get what you pay for.

Most EE surveys have too many questions, plenty of them poorly worded, less is more. I'd look to Marcus Buckingham's First Break All The Rules for guidance on some key engagement questions.

I'll try to think of two more things in the next two days. Good discussion well done for kicking it off Agnes

[Anja S]

Hi Agnes,

in my opinion the managers make all the difference to the engagement or disengagement of employees. Meaning, we should focus on educating the managers on how to recognize their team's needs, challenges, personalities, motivational drivers, etc. and how to respond to them. This is what creates engagement - for example responding to their need for information, for feedback, for trust, for respect, for more training and so on.

The data, that make such a training or intervention necessary, should always come from the employees, though. And the surveys should be done in a way that grants absolute anonymity and safety for the employees, so that they are encouraged and dare to tell the truth. Were your employees able to tell the truth in their surveys? Often when people leave an organization because of their manager, you only find out about it in the exit interview. If you're lucky. They might still not tell the truth then, fearing it might have an impact on their reference letter.
There needs to be a way for employees to voice their concerns, issues, "complaints" in a safe environment before you loose them.

In an ideal world the managers know how to manage and deal in the most positive way with their people and regularly ask them for feedback on their (the manager's) performance, so that they always know how happy and engaged their employees are and surveys become unnecessary. That should be the goal of any management training/coaching.

I also think if employees were evaluating their manager's performance once a year (rather than only the other way round, and again, anonymously) with the annual performance review, that would already give some clarity and regular feedback (though only once a year) and save costs for one off big surveys...

[Terrence Seamon]

Wonderful point, Anja, about feedback to Managers from Employees.
http://learningvoyager.blogspot.com/2004/12/upward-feedback-in-toda...
Terry

[Agnes Goh]

I'm glad the discussion is still going on. Thanks for the various inputs. I agree with Anja. Ultimately, it is the quality and openness of the conversations between manager and employee that can help build engagement. But I find that Asians tend to be more reserved in giving feedback and daring to speak up. Its the culture of 'saving face' thing. So employees don't dare to give their managers feedback to avoid making them lose face and fear of being penalized in appraisals. In a fast pace environment where KPI and results are everything, mangers also forget that its not just about producing results, people matter too. Communication and dialogue is so important and we can never have enough of it.