The language of employee engagement

[Olivia Sprinkel]

Hi
I am writing an article on employee engagement, which has got me thinking about the language of employee engagement. Personally, I have a problem with terms such as 'discretionary effort' - they seem cold and not connected to people. I think that there might be beginning to shift in language that is used so that it is more human. Do you agree or is this just wishful thinking? If you have any pet hates, or thoughts about what a new language might be, please share!

It is a slightly different point, but do you think that there is a case for old vs new, eg from 'cascade' to 'connect' or 'town halls' to 'people to people' or even from 'think, feel, do' to 'look, feel, be'?

Olivia

[George Reavis]

My preference is to take a user-centered approach to employee engagement. Working backwards from the front lines of daily operations by giving line managers and team leaders (do not need to be a member of Management) tools and life skills to move their everyone toward full engagement. They do this "with" their group and not "to" them. One may also work from the top-down but the only way engagement (involvement with heart and mind) is sustainable is to align with a bottom-up approach.

From a best practice which a mentor taught me the key is for everyone to learn for the 'activity' itself to provide 'feedback'. The practice does this by leading groups in 're-asking' the critical questions for "How are we doing?" This may seem counter-intuitive but most organizational (including educational) solutions prescribe additional feedback from colleagues and supervisors without understanding that they are suppressing ones ability to get feedback from their own daily activities.

No one can 'engage' another person, they can only help others to 'learn/experience' the activity itself providing feedback. Other language might be certain 'actions' which demonstrate 'behaviors' that create 'experiences' such as:

Actions -------> Behaviors ---------> Experiences

Thank ----------> Recognition/Appreciation ----------> Gratitude
Invite ----------> Intentions -----------> Commitment
Ask ----------> Reflection -----------> Learning
Feedback (activity) ------> Attention -----------> Focus
Share -----------> Connect ----------> Enjoyment

What sustains engagement is the 'cycle' of energy being delivered to the customer through the experiences and then in turn the deliverer being re-energized by the customer.

[Olivia Sprinkel]

I completely agree with you about 'with' not 'to'. And your distinction about learn/experience resonates and the cycle of energy. I have just been looking at a blog post about what's great about working at Google and I don't think the writer ever uses the term 'engage' or 'engagement'. But does use the word energy and highlights that they actually care.
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2008/02/10-insights-from-11-months-o...

[Tim Rutledge]

Hi, Olivia. In my writing on EE I define it as the state of being attracted, committed, and fascinated.
Attracted: I want to do this work.
Committed: I'm going to do it professionally and to the best of my ability.
Fascinated: I love doing this work.
While this is just a rough and ready definition, I find that people understand it easily and find it easy to internalize.

[Terrence Seamon]

Very interesting, Olivia. I think it would be quite a challenge to write an article about engagement, and not use the term "engagement" in the entire piece.

Clearly, employee engagement is about...
- people
- their feelings
- and the quality of the connection that they experience with their employer, their manager, and their job

One of my favorite EE writers is Michael Stallard (author of the book Fired Up or Burned Out) and he really gets this essence of "connection."

Good luck with your article. Can't wait to read it.

Terry

[Olivia Sprinkel]

I love Michael Stallard's work too! Vison + values + voice = connection. I don't manage not to use the word engagement, but I noticed that employees rarely use the term, if at all, when talking about great experiences at work. Will let you know when article published.
Olivia

[David Zinger]

Olivia,

The network is so rich with conversations that I have not visited this one yet.

I appreciate the importance of language.

I hate the thought that engagement is seen as sucking discretionary effort out of people.

I too love the word connection with engagement: how we connect to our work, our customers, our organization, each other, meaning, etc.

I dislike the phrases human capital and human resources and prefer that we just keep the first word human.

I love physicist Richard Feynman's quotation: You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

You make a very good point about employees not using the word engagement. I think in some ways the word is in its infancy but is also possibly becoming a buzzword like empowerment (which sounds like a high octane gasoline).

I look forward to seeing now only how the language evolves in this but also how the experience evolve. I quite liked the word flow in relationship to engagement but I am not sure it really caught on.

David

[Jon Hoel]

Hi Olivia,

I think the term 'discretionary effort' describes an important part of the puzzle. But it is jargon, and probably won't mean much to people on first encounter.

Not sure what else we might call it ... other words surrounding the issue of discretionary effort, such as 'presenteeism sound' a bit awkward.

'Doing the bare minimum' used to be something that left obvious clues, but for knowledge workers, the signs may not be so immediately obvious.

You may find Michael's post on strategic pragmatism of interest. He touches on some cultural aspects.

[Olivia Sprinkel]

Hi Jon
Thanks for your thoughts and links to Michael's post - the cultural dimension adds a whole new angle! With reference to David's comments above, I think that 'flow' is actually what we are talking about when we are talking about discretionary effort - when we are so in the moment that we are just giving our all and enjoying it - I have just realised that the problem with the term 'discretionary effort' is that it has the word 'effort' in it - whereas flow is an 'effortless' state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

[George Reavis]

Hi Olivia,

Dr C's work was a breakthrough for me in ascertaining why a best practice for engagement worked. If you notice in almost every component of Flow 'action' and the 'activity' is central. People connect with each other but it is in the framework of an activity that sustains engagement and a sense of purpose.

The quote below is from his book "Good Business" and puts it in perspective. By the way, his use of the word 'online' is an old term for connected and does not reference the internet necessarily.

I invite yourself or anyone interested to two daily free webinars where we discuss his work http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=george%40thankingcustomers... . No registration is needed.

[Olivia Sprinkel]

Hi Jon
Thanks for your thoughts and link to Michael's post - the cultural dimension adds a whole new aspect! With reference to David's comments above, I think what we are actually talking when we talk about discretionary effort is 'flow' - when we are so in the moment and giving it our all and enjoying it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29
'Discretionary effort' still has the word effort in it - whereas flow is effortless.

[Jon Hoel]

Hi Olivia,

I love Dr C’s works and wouldn’t it be great if work was a place where everyone could experience flow! I love the example he gives about the auto industry worker (the one who bought the block next door).

For a lucky few, flow is their default mode of working and living. But for many people in organisational life, flow experiences are few and far between.

A management consultant friend (who incidentally, like me, has a strongly optimistic view of human nature) would describe it this way:

O = P / F

(Organisational performance = humanPotential ÷ Frustration)

You could throw in any number of modifiers to properly take into account leadership and other important internal factors, as well as any number of external factors.

But the point he makes is that many orgs get an F for encouraging discretionary effort from their people.

[Olivia Sprinkel]

neat equation! and indeed unfortunately too many Fs.