Why is the Gap? Academicians vs Practitioners >

[Vijay Shrinivas Nanduri]

As most of you would be knowing, my dissertation on Employee Engagement was given a perfect start through this forum, during the weeks, I had the opportunity to review plethora of literature pertaining to Employee Engagement. 

I am curious to know

1. Why is it most of the authors state that there is lag in academic research literature with regards to E.E?

2. The recent surveys tells us the less than 50 % of the employees around the world are completely engaged. Despite the awareness that EE has close relationship with individual performance and business outcome, why haven't we, as practitioners unable to make an impact?

I would be interested to know your views?

Thanks

Vijay 

[David Bowles]

Rob, I am saying that some people see a binary world in engagement, either ...or.....

Not that I do! They are the machine dominated ones, not moi.... :-) That does not mean I don't like using machines....I much prefer doing my banking online, don't you? Do you drive to the bank and wait in line for everything? Do you mail credit card payments in or go online and pay? If you say yes to any of these then you too are putting some humans out of work...but of course supporting the job security of IT people. Its like the people who bemoan Wal-Mart in the US and how it is driving the small guy to the wall, but when you ask them if they go there, they say yes, about once a week!

Ironically outsourcing has created a backlash of its own where even people in other countries' jobs are threatened. Case in point: I would prefer interfacing with a computer instead of someone in Bangalore who has changed their name to Chuck but doesn't sound at all Chuck-like and has to be told, by having it spelled out time and again, that the city we are talking about is F-R-A-N-K-F-U-R-T (this with one of the largest travel organizations in the online world)....happened the other day. I have nothing against Indians or Bangalore, in fact they copy-edited my book and I loved the way we worked together.....so this relationship isn't always bad....but sometimes its terrible.

The question is, how does any organization deal with this Darwinian process which I described above, which is causing relentless pressure to cut costs to meet global competitive pressures which are only getting worse? When I was growing up in England mammograms were not shipped via high speed lines to India overnight to be read by doctors there, with the results back the next business day. This is a new world, and people are a big expense. Its not like the "corporates" as you call them have a choice, they must adapt, cut costs, or become something very difficult to become (like a pharma with a blockbuster drug and a long patent, a Google with a unique search algorithm, etc.).... or go under. How would you do it? And what part do you play in all this? You use a computer or you would not be here, so I suspect you are not without some responsibility!

yes this is fun....

David
www.moraleatwork.com

[Rob Fox]

David,

I would do it the way I do it: by recognising that people are a tactical necessity versus a strategic desire. Accepting this fact of corporate life, rather than accept the hogwash hyperbole that people are a corporates' 'greatest assets,' blah blah is liberating.

Of course I enjoy the rich benefits of corporate endevour: Yet of course I ask the question but at what cost?

And in so far as engagement is concerned, then engagement, in a deep and enduring sense, must be self-determined. We as people or as organisations, can help, but only in so far as we are candid.

Fact frees.

Best,

Rob

Best,

Rob.

[Paul Marciano]

Two reasons. First, most of the so-called research is based on an assessment of engagement that lacks construct validity -- Gallup's 12 questions is a good example of such an instrument. There are more than 50 different conceptual definitions of engagement and certainly as many "tools." The field will get nowhere until we begin to model clinical psychology and foster collaboration, testing and agreement.

Second, the interventions being used are largely based on ones used to motivate employees. Motivating employees and engaging employees are two entirely separate constructs. In order to impact engagement, you must impact the culture of the organization -- and no program will do that.

If you interested, my book "Carrots and Sticks Don't Work" was just published by McGraw-Hill. You can visit my website for more information -- www.paulmarciano.com.

[Craig Althof]

Folks, let me say up-front that I understand this is a PhD responding to a question from a Masters candidate researching his dissertation, so the terms are academia-intensive and I have no business wading into these waters. But this illustrates what I feel perpetuates the gap. We speak different languages. Please allow me to play this out by responding as a good-old-boy plant manager. Just a little tongue-in-cheek, no harm intended. I love the academic community and environment-sitting in a lab at the college responding to this, and I don't even have to be here right now!

With my Joe Ops Manager hat on....

Don’t talk to me about construct validity! Tell me what you are going to do, how much it will cost, and what the ROI is. If there are more than 50 definitions, what you are telling me is that everybody is clueless…or maybe that YOU have the right answer?

You’re recommending modeling clinical psychology? Not in MY plant!

You’re telling me that no program will impact the culture, which is the only thing that can impact engagement? Then what the heck are we talking about all this for? I have a plant to run, and our absenteeism is sky-high! Fix THAT for me and I’ll listen a little more next time….

[Vijay Shrinivas Nanduri]

Thanks a lot to all those who have contributed in this thread, it certainly helping me in shaping my research. I shall soon publish the research findings to all.