Discretionary Effort

[Fred Nickols]

I'm just beginning to explore the topic of "employee engagement." I'm particularly taken by the notion of "discretionary effort." I see some clear links to open systems theory and to perceptual control theory, and I wonder if these links have already been explored.

[Terrence Seamon]

Fred,
I don't believe that anyone has explored these links, to open systems theory or perceptual control theory, so far here at the EE Network. Why don't you get us started?
Terry

[Fred Nickols]

Terrence:

Well, briefly (or at least as briefly as I can), one the key components of open system theory is that they are energy-based systems (i.e., they import, expend and export energy). "Discretionary effort," which lies at the heart of the employee engagement, hangs squarely on energy expenditures by employees. That opens up many, many issues (e.g., total energy vs available energy, available energy vs expended energy, and expended energy vs productive energy to name a few). So, "discretionary effort" relates directly to if it is not the same thing as "discretionary energy expenditures." In short, coming at "discretionary effort" from a "discretionary energy expenditure" perspective opens up another realm of ideas and thinking about engagement.

Speaking of perspectives, Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) views human beings as "living control systems." This means we target certain aspects of the world around us. We set preferred values or levels for those target variables of interest to us and we seek to bring those variables to their preferred states. We also seek to keep them there. Our means for doing this is our behavior, which we vary as necessary to realize the results we pursue. Our only knowledge of the state of those targeted variables and the impact of our behavior on them comes to us by way of our perceptions. This is true whether the effects of interest of our behavior are direct and immediate or indirect and delayed. When the effects of interest are indirect and delayed, our actions are profitably viewed as interventions in the structure of some network of variables. We change things "over here" so as to realize a result "over there." In all cases, we are pursuing goals of interest to us, whether we're paid to do so or doing so for "personal" reasons. In short, everything we do is "discretionary" and can be viewed in the light of a living control system pursuing a desired state of affairs.

Currently, or at least so it seems to me, employee engagement seems to be somewhat of a catchall term for simply getting more effort out of people. I think it has far more potential than that and succeeding will require far more focused and disciplined efforts than I currently see. But then I'm just beginning my investigation so I could be well wide of the mark.

Does that answer your question, Terrence?

[Bob Gately]

Hello Terrence:

"employee engagement seems to be somewhat of a catchall term for simply getting more effort out of people."

I think you are correct and employee engagement is just the latest phrase used by managers to convince others that "we really care about our employees."

" I think it has far more potential than that and succeeding will require far more focused and disciplined efforts than I currently see."

I agree again. When employers address employee engagement but then do the same things or worse do new things poorly it is sure sign they do not understand employee engagement.

"But then I'm just beginning my investigation so I could be well wide of the mark."

I think you are close to hitting the target.

Employee engagement is not something employers or their employees do.

Employee engagement is something employers get in return for doing all things well. It is the "doing all things well" that trips up most all managers.

What is common to both statements below?
1. Engaged employees were hired.
2. Unengaged employees were hired.

Yes, both engaged and unengaged employees were hired. Therefore, creating an engaged workforce starts with not hiring unengaged employees and then managing the employees effectively.

Employee engagement is what we get when an employee is motivated by the job and is successful in the job and is well managed by the supervisor and paid fairly by management. Anonymous surveys cannot measure the components of employee engagement.

Employees can do a very good job of explaining why they are or are not satisfied but they are almost incapable of explaining why they are engaged by their jobs. The insight necessary to know why we are engaged is not readily apparent to employees, managers, or executives.

From a business perspective employee engagement is a useful construct only if it can be used to help employees become more productive, longer tenured, less stressed, and more easily managed. In other words, an engaged employee is intrinsically motivated to be successful in his job. Of course an engaged employee needs to be competent as well as intrinsically motivated.

[Fred Nickols]

I'm just getting back to this discussion but the paragraph above that begins with "Employee engagement is what we get when..." is rather remarkable. I've been poking around in the area of motivational theories and the paragraph I point to incorporates something from at least three of the major theories. "Motivated by the job" clearly ties to Herzberg' Two Factor Theory; "successful on the job" ties to Vroom's Expectancy Theory; "paid fairly" ties to John Adams' Equity Theory. Might we be on the verge of saying that an "engaged employee" is an employee whose motivation is high on all the dimensions of that variable?

[Ryan Williams]

I tend to view engagement in the terms of transformational leadership. It can be an exchange that raises the game of the manager and the managed.

I like the notion of energy exchange. It makes me think about what activities create energy and what activities drain energy. Interesting perspective Fred, I look forward to reading more of your musings.

[Terrence Seamon]

Hi Bob,
Good thoughts. But just so you know, you were replying to Fred Nickols, not me.
Good conversation.
Terry