Engagement in the UK

[Stephen Booth]

With all the talk of the UK going into a recession, triggered by the US sub-prime market and the failure of Northern Rock, how do you see this impacting on employee engagement in your company?

A recession increases the fear of being fired amongst employees but fear is a poor motivator and mitigates against innovation. How can we keep our employees engaged and innovating? What advantages can we take in this recession to improve the long term engagement of employees, help the company to weather the recession and emerge stronger and more vibrant when the economy picks up again.

Stephen

[Jo]

Mmm, the big question is who is to have the influence?

And going back to Stephen's question, as I understood it, now we are in a bit of trouble, at least temporarily, how can we use this time to restructure in a significant way

WWI broke down the class system and opened up officer ranks to all. WWII led to the welfare state.

Is this just a little blip where we think about the fuel we use, eat less junk food and go on a useful diet and wait for the good times to roll around again?

Or is something more fundamental going on? Gary Hamel of Harvard and LBS thought we were going into a period of fundamental change anyway. Otto Scharmer, Peter Senge and co at MIT were documenting cold-sweat fear amongst business executives four to five years ago. Maybe that was a mixture of 9/11 and sensing the credit crunch - or was it a deeper sense that we are approaching something new which will include renegotiation of structures in organizations?

Or is nothing going on? Is this a temporary zag to be followed by a zig? Chill and enjoy the chance for a quiet life for a year or so?

[Mario Gastaldi]

A very interesting debate is taking place here.
Some other points may be ... what could the consequences of talking of engagement as an explicit goal as of itself be?
What reactions do we trigger with this approach?
Is engagement a means to an end, or an end itself? How do we see different points of view of different stakeholders as to this question?

Another point about the times we are living, and Stephen's question.
I have witnessed interesting cases where crisis and tough times would obviously allow for negative conversations with a high probality of exacerbating self-defeating feelings of scarcity and fear.
Where should the focus be in the conversations that take place within organizations, in this times of difficulties, if we want engagement?

[Jo]

Good one, or rather two Mario.

1. Is engagement an end itself? I think the pertinent question is 'whose' end?

2. The positive psychologists particularly and positive organizational scholars have a lot to offer on managing conversations about real and perceived fears. I think what we learn over the next 12 months will offer greatly to the wider understanding of a positive approach. Who else is interest in this angle?

[Mario Gastaldi]

I see two main goals:
1. Organizational performance and thriving organizations
2. Going higher on social values ... creating workplaces where people live a fully rewarding life in healthy environments.

The two circumstances mutually support each other.

Employee engagement is a byproduct of a process that works in order to achieve those goals.

Too often employee engagement is seen as a quick-fix and a goal of itself (would you help me motivate John ... or let's start a project in order to motivate the Xdepartment).

All this takes us to the other topic.
Positive psychologists, positive change thinkers, among many others, have developed approaches as to how to craft/design powerful conversations, within organizations, that will lead to strong alignment and convergence between organizational goals and people motives.
Do employee happen to be engaged as a result? Yes, they certainly do.
But their engagement does not emerge as a result of a specific effort in order to create it.

In my view, talking about engagement as a goal of itself could lead to cynicism and refusal.
Just my views.
I am very curious to hear other ideas. Thanks
Mario

[Ian Buckingham]

From the organisation's perspective, engagement is an enabler rather than an end in itself, surely, since it's what the employees do once they are engaged that really counts is it not?
However, if you're charged with engaging employees (Head of Internal Comms/OD etc), then you could argue that your role is to enable engagement to happen and that the next stage is down to those most important chief engagement officers - the line managers!

Good chat this one J/M. Where's everyone else?

[Mario Gastaldi]

I agree, if you are in charge of that goal, you enable engagement to happen, and surely the most important engagement officers are the line managers.

What is the quality of the connection between the efforts of OD (or others in charge of engagement) and the efforts of line managers as to engagement?

I have some views ... and I am curious to hear from you all, thanks to those who will share.

[Ian Buckingham]

A good qualifying question. I fear the reality is that even most large corporates carry out relatively little measurement at a central/corporate level and it's not usually very timely. If we acept that line managers are key comunicators/engagers it's not only important that measurement is more effective at a coprorate level but that this is traced throughout the organisation, that the skills required to be an effective engager are well defined in terms of values, behaviours and competencies and these are measured as part of the performance management process. This is the only way to send out a message that we measure the things we care about. We care about employee engagement. There's a business case for it. We therefore actively seek to encourage and nurture these skills where they count most. Sounds very "process" driven but it's an area where people processes really count, in my view.

[Jo]

Yep, I agree Mario with your comment on point 2. When we make the use of our tools the goal, then we engender (rightful) skepticism.

That takes me back to my first question - whose goal? Or, am I asking a taboo question?!!

[Mario Gastaldi]

Jo,
Whose end? ... it is not a taboo question! :)
The ends (the two I proposed above: organizational performance and healthy workplaces) are collective and are shared among leaders, employees and other stakeholders in an organization or community.
The very shared nature of the goals leads to the occurrence of engagement which emerges as the process unfolds.
I am actually saying that what could create skepticism is not making the use of our tools the goal, but making "engagement" itself the explicit goal.

What is the average reaction disengaged employees have when they are told that a big engagement effort is going to take place in the organization, and some experts from within and outside the organization are going to support the project?

[Jo]

Hi Mario, I think we get closer to a common understanding. I'm impressed with your staying power!

The ends (the two I proposed above: organizational performance and healthy workplaces) are collective and are shared among leaders, employees and other stakeholders in an organization or community.
The very shared nature of the goals leads to the occurrence of engagement which emerges as the process unfolds.

So could we say: We are going to use the recession to negotiate greater clarity about who gets what in this organization? Are the employees, the shareholders, the customers, the community, and other stakeholders happy and could we not go into the future with a better agreement?

[Or has a group hijacked the process and already decided what is good for everyone else?]


I am actually saying that what could create skepticism is not making the use of our tools the goal, but making "engagement" itself the explicit goal.

What is the average reaction disengaged employees have when they are told that a big engagement effort is going to take place in the organization, and some experts from within and outside the organization are going to support the project?

And how would they feel if we began with the statement above and we continued: We've retained people used to helping organizations who are making a comprehensive review of their working processes. They will
a) be available to talk through ideas you have
b) facilitate meetings, keep records, run a social media site
c) walk through our systems and make suggestions
d) sum up agreements and the resolutions that are proposed
e) present them back to us on this date for us to decide what we will do in future.

And this comes back to the crux of the matter, which is how are things decided around here? Or rather who decides what on what basis? Unless their views are being taken seriously, why engage?

Where do I take the wrong turn?

[Ian Buckingham]

A thought but this strikes me as a great time to address what I call the HR lag factor. HR in particular appear to have people process management skills that are designed for the former or existing culture. They are seldom in tune with the desired future culture (if they have even taken the time to articulate what that needs to be).

As a response to a potential downturn this is just the time to be creating a compelling story which links the legacy of the business (building confidence from sound foundations) to the Vision (the bit where the desired future culture comes in).

The current HR model means they are usually behind the change curve. Succession planning and talent management is so often linked to the values, behaviours and core competencies of a previous generation. How energising would it be to meet a Visionary looking to recruit and retain employees to meet future challenges rather than past. Rather than operating to a script of "culture fit" based upon an outmoded employer brand, it's time to shift to an employment brand (the difference between the brand espoused internally and the reality).

Anyone have any positive examples of HR heroes?

Ian

[Mike Healy]

HI Ian

I thought it was very interesting that this post ended on you seeking examples of HR Heroes...........and then nothing for almost a year ( this post)

I am an HR professional ( FCIPD) with experience at director and VP level. I think I have seen many unsung heroes in HR who were appreciated for what they did for employees by the employees themselves, but were never viewed that way by lne managers who saw them, at best, as a recruitment agency or, at worst, a policing function which limited them.

I thnk heroes need to challenge the market/establishment/enemy/big company/brand in support of the little man/deserving cause/smarter approach. Its hard to do this when you are inside the corporation. I think the only HR heroes that will ever be publicly acknowledged are whose who have left the system and then challenged it.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi