Putting a Value on Engagement

[Derek Irvine]

Not as comprehensive or definitive as The Value and ROI in Employee Recognition research, The Economics of Engagement out of the Human Capital Institute and the Enterprise Engagement Alliance offers several interesting points on engagement, if not the practical steps for successful employee engagement so many are seeking.

Three points of interest in particular leapt out at me.

1) The observation that the Gallup Q12 survey asks about recognition received in the last seven days, indicating the importance of frequency of recognition. Up to 65% of Americans say they do not receive enough recognition on the job. A negative answer to this question will quickly tell you if your recognition program is being used to its full capability.

2) A statistic from Towers Perrin showing workers in organizations with higher business value were significantly more likely (68% versus 49% for underachieving organizations) to agree that their “immediate manager recognizes and appreciates good work. Line managers are a critical factor in creating an environment in which employees want to engage and therefore must be held accountable for recognition practices.

3) Charts that clearly illustrate the bottom-line value of improving employee engagement by eliminating the disengaged and increasing the number of fully engaged and engaged employees. The charts are available in the research.

What’s the attitude towards employee engagement in your organization?

[Derek Irvine]

Doug, unfortunately, your observations on your former employer are all too common in many organizations. Command-and-control style has been used by so many, for so long, they cannot fathom any kind of "engagement" activity that cannot also be controlled through the same approach. Creating an environment in which employees WANT to engage, now there's a radical idea!

Cisco's CEO is apparently working hard to overcome his C-&-C management tendencies, however. Will be interesting to watch the outcome over the next few years. I have a feeling a book will hit the Business shelves on it soon. http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/09/rerouting-collaboration-with-cisco.html

[Doug Shaw]

Hi Derek - I am a big fan of the 12 questions, and the Towers Perrin stuff. I tried and failed to get my previous employer to use the 12 Qs as their employee attitude survey. I got all 12 questions included and wanted to leave it at that. Trouble is, the senior sponsorship I reluctantly had to obtain to make the change drew so many oters to me that I had to include more and more questions. We reduced the survey from 97 (no that's not a misprint) questions to 50. Not good enough - I fear the vital 12 are still lost in the noise.

OK - drifted a bit there, in the organisation I've talked about above, the focus was waaaay too much on dictate, not engage. As such I and many others become disillusioned and move on. As a way of simply lowering headcount this was seen as OK however there is now a recognition that the wrong people are leaving. Slowly, things are changing but I still see way too much top down stuff going on in there. Doutbless other folk will have more uplifting stories :)

[Derek Irvine]

Sounds like it matters to many, David. I think a movement is afoot!

[Robin Hickman]

"An experience to be lived..." Yes! The best employers in my experience create 'liveable companies', where creating an environment where people are able to do their best, is a primary concern of management.

[Richard Melrose]

David,

Yes! Talent Management stands as the consummate leadership and management responsibility. Within that arena, employee engagement represents the biggest productivity and retention lever available to business, today. As Peter Drucker put it: "Making the right people decisions is the ultimate means of controlling an organization well. Such decisions reveal how competent management really is, what its values are and whether it takes its job seriously." Employee engagement is an experience to be lived. It is also and enterprise opportunity to pursue (vs. problem to solve) and a direct reflection of management's competence, values and diligence. That's why management must own (and fully engage in) the employee engagement agenda. Finally, to manage well we must measure well. We must measure more than just a "score" we must measure the drivers of employee engagement scores and reveal/understand the differences among employee segments and employer groups. One size does not fit all.

[Derek Irvine]

David, I can but wholeheartedly agree. My only suggestion would be to take that one line and post it on the home page of EEN. Now THAT is a mantra I can get behind.

Also, high praise indeed from Wally Bock on his own blog for you, David: "The great thing about Dave Zinger is that he's just concerned with helping you create a better and more productive workplace. And, for the record, Dave was writing about this stuff when some of the other 'experts' thought that engagement required 'a ring and a wedding date.'" -- Great stuff and couldn't agree more.

Much sincere appreciation for all your efforts to lead this thought practice to make engagement a common state of being in the workforce.

[David Zinger]

Derek:

I had a brief epiphany while I was presenting on employee engagement in Vancouver yesterday. Quite simply, here is my declarative statement: Employee engagement is an experience to be lived not a problem to be solved.
Perhaps it means nothing to most but it means the world to me.

David