Profile of an engaged employee

[Mike Healy]

We can see from the vast range of material on this site and elsewhere that there is little agreement on what an engaged employee does/acts like that makes him/her "engaged". Feeling motivated or feeling good about my job/team/boss does not mean that those feelings will be turned into engaged actions. E.g. I may feel motivated to lose weight but I often fail to act. A good example of the spirit beng willing but the flesh beng weak!!

It would be good to know what the engaged person does different from disengaged persons or neutral persons. We are looking to develop an ongoing survey, open to the general public, asking participants about the discretionary effort they take and what/who prompts them to undertake it. From this we wonder if a profile of an engaged employee can be developed.

I would like to hear views from the EE network on the questions that might be asked in that survey or what pointers they might provide.

[Ben Simonton]

Excellent question, Mike.

I managed people for over 30 years. For the first 12 years, I used the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people (the one that prevents engagement). After that, I moved away from top-down and gained more and more engagement eventually arriving at more than 80% fully engaged and was able to successfully turn around four different management disasters. I learned how to do this mainly by listening to my employees (very little from books) and providing what they said they needed to do a better job. Listening taught me what an engaged person sounded like and they were quite different from the vast majority of employees. My success was in learning how to make almost everyone engaged, all talking and acting the same way.

I define fully engaged as a person who is self-directed and applies 100% of their brainpower on their work, not wasting any on following. Since most people are followers more or less and expend much of their brainpower on following, this is a big change. 100% brainpower means that the person unleashes their full potential of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment on their work. They are more than 300% more productive than if poorly motivated, have very high morale, address and solve problems very aggressively and quickly, never complain, are extremely receptive to necessary changes, are constantly trying to improve everything, and are very cooperative, respectful, and team oriented. They constantly strive to meet the highest possible standards of all values in their work.

But that is just my experience. Best regards, Ben

[Joshua Gair]

Many of my clients tell me that engaged employees ask questions about how to make themselves better, improve and are constantly seeking candor and evaluations. Disengaged employees tend to just do their work without much enthusiasm and are often isolated and feel like they are not a significant part of the company. The other thing you want to do is constantly reward your employees, especially your top performers, not just with money, but all sorts of perks. This fosters an enviornment of engagement among employees that they are cared about.

Josh Gair - Impact Entertainment
www.impactentertains.com

[Tim Wright]

Ben's success is awesome. That there are people who actually use 100% of their brainpower is suitable for Ripley's. (Unless Ben is referring to those who use 100% of the only 10% we humans are thought to use, on average).

My general definition of EE is...

> Investment of one's body, mind, and spirit in one's work.

> Exceptional degree of emotional commitment that fuels the doing, thinking, and believing in one's work.

> Willingness (eagerness, desire) to exceed expectations and fulfill one's self-satisfaction quota. (These expectations may be one's boss's, the expectations iterated by one's job, and/or one's own self-expectations.)

To be more specific about what those engagement characteristics look like...

> Directed and dedicated attention. The visible evidence that one is "in the zone" and/or the Flow (as defined by Csíkszentmihályi). This may be the 100% involvement Ben mentions, and not only of the brain...but of the body and emotions as well.

> Emotional devotion to the work and its outcomes. This is seen and heard in one's body language (stance, posture, pace), one's facial expression (eagerness, eye-sparkle, smile/laughter...and visible intensity that precedes the "Aha!"

> Attention to the present, the work at hand in order to create a more positive future. This is one's commitment to successful job completion. Success meaning more than "done on time" or "done in time." It is also one's commitment to one's own future, specifically self-improvement. The relationship between employee engagement and performance improvement is beautifully mutually reinforcing.

[Craig Althof]

I lean toward the dual nature of engagement manifested in (1) being a top contributor to strategic results, and (2) being really doggone happy in the role. High performer and highly satisfied. I can be a top performer and be quite dissatisfied = burnout in process, been there. I can be hugely satisfied in my job and be a low contributor...new to a dream position (been there too), or lucky enough to have buffaloed those who matter so I can stick around on the gravy train (don't think I've been there!)

In another discussion Derek Irvine wrote "I want to know what an engaged employee looks like, how they behave while at work, and how to replicate that in the organization.”
My post in that discussion follows-it fits well here.

For me, I come to work with a bounce in my step and leave the same way. I love what I'm doing because it taps my strengths to the fullest, and I not only know I'm doing a great job but others let me know too. And they really mean it (specific and sincere feedback and a donut or two now and then does it for me).
I know where I fit in with my company's mission and vision, I can see the direct impact my daily actions and long-term projects have on the company's strategic goals and bottom line. And my company's values are aligned with my own. My core drivers / motivators are fueled by the work I do, and I can learn and grow as much as I can possibly take in.

Gads, I'm getting maximum pumped just typing the words. This is powerful medicine.

Craig
Roadmap to Engagement

[Derek Irvine]

Thanks for the shout-out, Craig. What I said in Businessweek was:

"The definitions of employee engagement seem endless and include increased line of sight, greater commitment, and willingness to give additional discretionary effort. Instead of trying to define employee engagement, I want to know what an engaged employee looks like, how they behave while at work, and how to replicate that in the organization. One definition of an engaged employee is one who gives additional discretionary effort. That doesn't go far enough. That additional effort, willingly and happily given, must be put toward something that matters to the company.

"The most worthwhile engagement is seen in employees who happily want to give additional effort and know where to apply it. This combination of action and line of sight results in an engaged employee who willingly works harder to deliver against your company's strategic objectives in their own daily tasks. "

Craig, I couldn't agree more with your statement "I know where I fit in with my company's mission and vision, I can see the direct impact my daily actions and long-term projects have on the company's strategic goals and bottom line. And my company's values are aligned with my own."

For us, that's the whole point of strategic employee recognition -- frequently, meaningfully and in a very timely fashion, recognize an employee for the good work they day. Make the recognition very specific to what they did, how they did it (unique to their personality or approach, for example), and tie it to a company strategic objective or value. That way the employee begins to understand how their efforts are contributing to achieving the objectives or reflecting the values. And you couldn't do it in a more positive way.

[Mike Healy]

Thanks for the feedback, Folks.

You'll see we have developed a survey which focuses on tangible evidence of engagement to check if engagement or engagement patterns become observable, possibly measurable and even predictable. See here

Couple of comments I would make here:

I agree that happy /satisfied employees are not necessarily engaged ( and vice versa)

I don't agree that there needs to be alignment with strategic objectives. Many employees have no idea about the direction their company is taking but they are fully engaged and work hard to deliver team objectives or their daily tasks. The sense of engagement comes from knowing that what they do is worthwhile to them and valued by those around them.

I believe engagement can only occur when the organisation and the employee are getting mutual benefits - it is a symbiotic relationship and although one side may receive more benefits than the other, both are happy in the relationship

I believe ( and this belief is the basis of the hypotheses behind the survey) that engaged employees actions/behaviours are observable and in that sense engagement is not a sense of well being that is retained inside the person. It is manfested in the behaviours and actions of people.

I believe that engagement is mostly temporary but the more periods of engagement which occur the more engagement becomes normal. What is innovative for one company/organisation may be old hat in another. Similarly, one person's/organisation's engagement ( discretionary effort) may be another's expected routine behaviour

[Stephen Randall]

Mike,

You said you believe that engaged employees actions/behaviors are observable. Are you saying that ALL actions that increase engagement are observable? And are you saying they are IMMEDIATELY observable, or eventually?

While I agree that many are, I would say that many more are not. Consider the many simple yet fundamental internal--and often external unnoticeable--mental changes by which we break through our emotional resistance and increase our involvement and engagement. We have common words and phrases to describe 'levels of engagement' of these changes: We can hold back from doing something, be reluctant,  resign ourselves to doing something, “get into it,” be involved, or be preoccupied, engrossed, or absorbed (these words seem roughly equivalent).


Steve Randall

[Mike Healy]

Steve

I tend to take the view that for someone to move from being "neutral" to " engaged" there needs to be an observable change in behaviour. The time frame may vary but there will be a change.

I do not think one can be truly engaged without following up with some action. Belief in a cause, project or outcome without follow up action is what dreamers and theorists tend to do. Engaged people, I would argue, demonstrate their engagement. Therefore if there is only a change in mental state I do not believe this is enough to be considered "engaged". While I agree that actions do not always indicate engagement, I think actions must take place for engagement to occur.

I hope this clarifies

Mike

[Doug Shaw]

Nice useful discussion - weekend zooming in so for now, I'll start with something brief.

Engaged people are.....interested, genuinely.

More later

Cheers - Doug

[Nancy Kato]

Hi MIke. I agree that we don't necessarily have a good vision of what engagement is. It's certainly not about the corporate strategic plans and my alignment to them. It's intrinsic and needs to be supported. One has to take responsibility for feeling good about what they do every day, they have to contribute to their own invovlement and 'engagement'.

I think it starts with what gets you up in the morning (besides the alarm clock, or the cat!)! If you wake up distressed, anxious, out of sorts, then your day is likely to be somewhat the same. So your "engagement" at work may be down and it may have nothing to do with your job. For me, an engaged person is someone who is visibly involved not only in what they work at, but within the community of the company. When I see someone who volunteers for different company events, who is passionate about something, who says hello to everyone, who always seems to be up, then I assume them to be engaged (& they generally are). I think if one knows what gets a person going, you have an opportunity to capitalize on that knowledge and create avenues for that individual to utilize their energy productively, and set examples for others. Senior management needs to also be seen in this vein (walk the talk) - how visible are they in the "community" of an organization? Questions to ask: What excites you? Who do you admire and why? If you were queen (or king) for a day at work, what would you do differently and why? What actions do you do, to contribute toward enhancing engagement at work? (we all have to contribute to an organization's engagement). How do you make a difference at work?

[Jack Needham, Jr.]

Hello Mike!

I commend you in seeking a common definition of how an employee acts or displays an observable behavior that defines to a manager the employee is engaged.

I do like what the Gallup Survey said about this topic.

Here is a summary of what workers responding to the Gallup survey said they want from their managers.

• Focus me
• Know me
• Care about me
• Hear me
• Help me feel proud
• Help me review my contributions
• Equip me
• Help me see my value
• Help me grow
• Help me see my importance
• Help me build mutual trust
• Challenge me

If we take the above simple desires to develop questions that drive manager and leader behaviors the answers you seek may be evident in the questions asked.

Coach well, manage less!

Jack

[Mike Healy]

Thanks Jack

From the Galliup Survey we see what employees would like to have in place to help them become/remain engaged.................and we can prompt managers to provide these things.

I guess my focus here is....What would employees actually be doing for both they and their employers to agree they are engaged? I thnk many of us may know it when we see it, but we haven't listed what the "trained eye" should look for

As said to Steve above. I do not think one can be truly engaged without following up with some action. Belief in a cause, project or outcome without follow up action is what dreamers and theorists tend to do. Engaged people, I would argue, demonstrate their engagement. Therefore if there is only a change in mental state I do not believe this is enough to be considered "engaged". While I agree that actions do not always indicate engagement, I think actions must take place for engagement to occur.