Employee Engagement Writers

Add a Comment

17 Comments

Comment by Robert Morris on June 15, 2009 at 10:57am

In her recently published book, Don’t Bring It to the Workplace: Breaking he Family Patterns That Limit Success, Sylvia Lafair asserts that again and again, in workplace after workplace, “I saw certain behavior patterns so often that they began to take on a life of their own, the way characters in mythology and fables symbolize kernels of human truth.” These patterns and those they personify “transcend gender, race, cultural background, height, weight, and whether you have curly hair, straight hair, or little hair at all.

• The Persecutor: humiliates work associates with finger-pointing, demanding, judging, and blaming. The persecutor behaves like a bully and takes no prisoners. No resolutions occur because everyone is afraid to take him or her on.

• The Avoider: leaves the scene – whether physically or emotionally – when the going gets tough, so that the real concerns never are faced. Meetings get short-circuited or can=celled, projects are delayed, and resolution deteriorates into superficiality.

• The Denier: pretends everything is perfect, out of a desire to maintain the status quo. The denier will distort facts and statistics to keep situations from changing course, and only wants ‘yes people’ around. The denier’s mantra is ‘Problem? What problem?’”

Lafair rigorously examines a total of thirteen of these disruptive characters: Persecutor, Avoider, and Denier as well as Super-Achiever, Rebel, Procrastinator, Clown, Victim, Rescuer, Drama Queen or King, Martyr, Pleaser, and Splitter.

Her insights help to explain recent Gallup research indicating that only 29% of the U.S. workforce is positively engaged (i.e. loyal, enthusiastic, and productive) whereas 55% is passively disengaged. That is, they are going through the motions, doing only what they must, "mailing it in," coasting, etc. What about the other 16%? They are "actively disengaged" in that they are doing whatever they can to undermine their employer's efforts to succeed.

What do you think?

Comment by Larry Underwood on April 8, 2009 at 7:39pm

I just joined this group, which hopefully has a lot of people who like irreverent humor, especially on subject matter pertaining to Corporate America, since they are what they are...a bunch of corporate hierarchies filled with pompous bureaucrats creating a "fear based" culture of management permeating their entire organization...Other than that, they're great. Bye.

Comment by Mark Attridge, PhD on February 12, 2009 at 9:40am

Hi - here is a list of recent major research driven reports on workplace mental health that can inform works on employee engagement:

Attridge, M., Riccuiti, J, Steacy, R., et al. (2007). Mental Health in the Labour Force: Literature Review and Research GAP Analysis. Watson Wyatt Worldwide. Toronto, ON, Canada. 135 pages
http:// www.mentalhealthroundtable.ca/documents.html

Bilsker, D., Gilbert, M., Myette, T. L., & Stewart-Patterson, C. (2004). Depression and Work Function: Bridging the Gap between Mental Health Care and the Workplace. Depression in the Workplace Collaborative.
http://www.carmha.ca/publications/index.cfm

Bilsker, D., Gilbert, M., & Samra, J. (2007). Antidepressant Skills at Work: Dealing with Mood Conditions in the Workplace. British Columbia Mental Health and Addiction Services. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
http://www.bcmhas.ca/research

Bond, F. W., Flaxman, P. E., & Loivette, S. (2006). A Business Case for the Management Standards for Stress. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) [Special Report #RR431]. HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr431.pdf

Brun, J-P. (2005). Mental Health at Work: From Defining to Solving the Problem (Booklets 1-3). Université Laval, Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Management. Canada.
http://www.cgsst.com/chaire/eng/monographies.asp

Depression in the Workplace (2006). A Special Issue of Managed Care Magazine, Vol. 1, Issue 1. Six papers by various authors.
http://www.managedcaremag.com/workplace

Langlieb, A. M., & Kahn, J. P. (2005). How much does quality mental health care profit employers? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 47(11): 1099-1109.
http://www.workplacementalhealth.org/Employerprofit.aspx

The Mental Health Policy Group of The Centre for Economic Performance. (2006). The Depression Report: A New Deal for Depression and Anxiety Conditions. The London School of Economics. London, England.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/818

Mental Health and the Workplace. Special Issue of HealthcarePapers, Volume 5, Issue 2. Seventeen papers by various authors.
http://www.longwoods.com/home.php?cat=350

Partnership for Workplace Mental Health (2006). A Mentally Healthy Workforce: It’s Good for Business. The Partnership for Workplace Mental Health—American Psychiatric Association. Washington DC, USA.
http://www.workplacementalhealth.org/employer_resources/business_case.aspx

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Hon. Michael Kirby (Chair) and Hon. Wilbert Joseph Keon. (2006). Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Health Condition and Addiction Services in Canada. Highlights and Recommendations. Government of Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/rep-e/rep02may06high-e.htm#_Toc133724663

Wilkerson, W. (2006). Business and Economic Plan for Mental Health and Productivity. The Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health. Toronto, ON, Canada.
http://www.mentalhealthroundtable.ca

Comment by Bay Jordan on January 28, 2009 at 3:45am

Robert

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post this comment. It certainly is worth reading and I shall consider buying the book to learn more.

The statistic that only 1 in 10 out of 88,000 feels that senior management treats them as a corporate asset is interesting and can be looked at in two ways.
1. It is shocking considering that so many executives claim "Our people are our greatest asset."
2. It is incredibly positive that 10% do feel they are treated like assets when since the start of the Industrial Revolution people have been accounted for solely as expenses, and so the management mindset is to regard them as such, no matter what they say.

I honestly believe that things won't change until we change the accounting treatment, and that is what my own business is all about. I actually have a method for valuing people so that they can be put on the balance sheet. Yet the most resistance I encounter is from HR people who fear "that this is dehumanising people"!! Tell me that making more than half a million people made redundant in the US alone in the month of December isn't more dehumanising! We will never win the engagement battle as long as that cost mentality persists and companies have little or no idea of the value of what they are discarding!

Comment by Robert Morris on January 27, 2009 at 3:57pm

Here is my review of an excellent book, just published.

Closing the Engagement Gap
Julie Gebauer and Don Lowman
(with Joanne Gordon)

What gap? Recent research conducted by the Gallup Organization indicates that 29% of the U.S. workforce is engaged (i.e. loyal, enthusiastic, and productive) whereas 55% is passively disengaged. That is, they are going through the motions, doing only what they must, "mailing it in," coasting, etc. What about the other 16%? Are they engaged? Yes. However, they are doing whatever they can to undermine their employer's efforts to succeed. They have a toxic impact on their associates and, in many instances, on customer relations. These are stunning statistics. How to explain them? Reasons vary from one organization to the next. However, most experts agree that no more than 5% of any given workforce consists of "bad apples," trouble-makers, chronic complainers, subversives, etc. How to close this gap between active, productive, and positive people and those who aren't?

In order to answer that question, Julie Gebauer and Don Lowman (with Joanne Gordon) completed on a rigorous examination of the 2007-2008 Global Workforce Study ("Closing the Engagement Gap: A Roadmap for Driving Superior Performance") sponsored by their employer, Towers Perrin. This study is based on data generated from two sources: 90,000 employees working full-time for midsize to large organizations in eighteen countries worldwide, and, "the world's largest employee normative database, with data that is updated annually from more than 2 million employees at a range of companies in more than forty companies." Gebauer and Lowman identified the top ten items that drive employee engagement around the world. (Please see Page 13.) Citing statistics somewhat different from Gallup's (i.e. 41% of global workers are enrolled but not yet engaged and 30% are disenchanted), they identify "five actions to convert the enrolled and enlist the disenchanted": Know Them, Grow Them, Inspire Them, Involve Them, and Reward Them. So far, no head-snapping revelations but then Gebauer and Don Lowman zero in companies (the "Engaging Eight") in which a rational-emotional-motivational connection with workers enables them to "willingly and enthusiastically put forth extra time, energy, and brainpower to help their companies compete and succeed." The exemplars are Campbell Soup Company, EMC Corporation, Honeywell International, McKesson Corporation, MGM Grand and Casino, North Shore-Long island Jewish Health System, Novartis AG, and Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI).

Throughout the balance of their book, Gebauer and Lowman devote a separate chapter to each of the aforementioned "actions" needed to close the performance gap between between active, productive, and positive people and those who aren't. I think it was a brilliant decision to take that approach rather than devote a separate chapter to each of the "Engaging Eight" because how companies achieve a given objective such as "growing" people varies (sometimes significantly) between and among them. However, profiles of the exemplary companies suggest a wealth of possibilities for results-driven executives to consider. Readers will also appreciate the "Key Acts of Engagement" recommended in Chapter 7 (Pages 236-255) It remains for them to determine how to increase their associates' engagement. In the final chapter, Gebauer and Lowman assert that most organizations "have a ready, willing, and capable reservoir of talent, energy, and dedication. But it's up to them to tap it in meaningful ways. And, as we have shown, direct bosses are critical catalysts of engagement, but without engaging programs and policies set up by the organization - and engaging behaviors from the most visible senior leaders - direct bosses' efforts will fail to deliver full engagement."

My own opinion is that "full engagement" is the ultimate destination of an on-going, never-ending process but seldom (if ever) reached. And even then, it is possible but unlikely that full engagement can be sustained. The point is, and here I completely agree with Gebauer and Lowman, all supervisors must create the conditions that drive engagement, including C-level executives' actions and behavior, learning and development opportunities, and the company's image and reputation. It is no coincidence that many of the companies that appear each year on Fortune magazine's lists of those most highly admired and best to work for also appear each year on the magazine's lists of those most profitable and most valuable.

One of Gebauer and Lowman's concluding points really caught my eye: "Only 1 in 10 of the 88,000 respondents in [the Towers Perrin] Global Workforce Study agreed that their organization's senior leaders treat employees as vital corporate assets." That is an astonishing statistic, one that underlines the importance of trust within a workforce. Fred Reichheld has much of value to say about it, characterized as "organizational glue" in several of his books, notably The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value (2001) with Thomas Teal and Loyalty Rules: How Today's Leaders Build Lasting Relationships (2003). Trust must be earned over time but can easily be lost and seldom regained. Presumably Julie Gebauer and Don Lowman agree with Reichheld that if there is an absence of trust within a workplace, it will be impossible to "unlock employee potential for superior results."

Comment by Susan Stamm on January 11, 2009 at 11:10am

I will be hosting a one hour conversation with Peter Block and his most recent book called "Community: The Structure of Beloinging" It is a powerful book with some challenging ideas. All are invited to this free session by registering here

Comment by Michael Kanazawa on December 11, 2008 at 11:54pm

Bay, I would agree with Ian's comments. What seems most successful for me so far is to work to create pieces in collaboration with the editor that will be interesting to their readership. Sometimes that is easy work and sometimes you have to get creative on how to make your work interesting for their readership. Publishers and editors exist to entertain and inform their readers, not to help individuals get their stories out. So, it works best to make contact first, agree on a topic, and then take the time and effort to write the article. Otherwise you can end up with a stack of masterpieces that never get distributed.

Comment by Sanna Wolstenholme on December 9, 2008 at 5:36am

A question to Robert Morris, well anyone else can reply as well ;-) I am writing a MBA dissertation on EE. I have been going through a lot of material, academic and written by practitioners. The antecedents of EE, I would say are organisational citizenship behaviour, motivation and org/employee commitment. Some authors discuss about employee commitment or empowerment exactly the same way than others describe EE, has anyone come across a workable way of differentiating these three themes?? Please feel free to comment (and would be more than appreciated!) Thanks.

Comment by Bay Jordan on December 8, 2008 at 3:37pm

Thanks Ian. That sounds like pretty good advice and I shall certainly try to bear it in mind for the future. Unfortunately, it may not be so easy! :) My brain seems to work the opposite way: I pick up an issue from something I read or hear and "cogitate" over it in a semi-conscious state in the midddle of the night and then refine that the next day when I am in a more conscious state of mind.

Comment by Ian Buckingham on December 8, 2008 at 2:12pm

The article/paper sounds interesting Bay. How's it coming along? In terms of publication, the approach I've always used is to target the publications I read or those which are particularly relevant to the subject an/or client base and then to write to the editor/commissioning editor to find out about their forward pipeline. I then write the article to suit the need rather than develop the article and then try to make it fit. I hope that helps. Ian

• 1
• 2