There is a lot of buzz around the concept of employee engagement with more than 1,500 academic articles published in 2020. Personally, I was curious about the connections between the great resignation and the study of engagement. It seems that there is no single definition for engagement and translating science into practice might require a little more nuanced than saying happy employees are engaged. Happiness is too simplistic a perspective, and monetary rewards do not lead to lasting feelings of connection. Let’s consider that this complex process requires a deeper understanding of values, contributions, and mutual success.
The Origins of Engagement Surveys
The origin of the employee engagement survey dates back to the U.S. military World War 1 morale surveys. Companies then utilized the survey to figure out how to fight unions. Then, employers wanted to determine how satisfied their employees were with pay, benefits, and work schedules. The 1980s analyses indicated that satisfaction was not a predictor of positive job performance. Researcher William Kahn explored the concept of the employee bringing their “full selves” and energy to their jobs.
Given the diversity of the workplace, what would it take to bring one’s full self and energy to work now? The latest news about the Amazon unionization indicates the force that employees have to change work culture. What is the bridge that we need to cross to deepen our understanding of the employee engagement landscape? As a society, we are at an inflection point, and understanding deeply what both the employee and employer need to function in a mutually beneficial way is being redefined.
Who completes the engagement surveys?
When asked, “how engaged do you feel at work rated on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high) engagement?”, typically:
- An employee who is overwhelmed and works beyond their scope might feel very engaged, rating their engagement at a 10, but needing a break.
- An employee who feels they’ve struck a relatively good work-life integration, rates their engagement at 5, believing that’s an ideal amount of engagement.
- An employee who feels that they are being micromanaged and not able to contribute at their potential, does enough to get by and rates their engagement at an 8 given the situation.
An executive reviewing these data points might determine that a high engagement score is indicative of happy and satisfied colleagues. However, data provide clues not insights, meaning individuals are more complex than a survey response.
Many employees do not respond to employee engagement surveys because they fear that their comments might be misused, not be taken seriously, or that nothing will change. In fact, individuals completing these surveys are a self-selecting, non-representative sample, and not a true representation. Remember that surveys have limitations, and mostly measure perceptions rather than root causes.
Drawback Of Overly Engaged Employees
Garrad & Chamorro-Premuzic note that there is a potential drawback to overly engaged employees. They warn that there are four potential threats to high levels of engagement:
- Embracing the status quo: it is possible that proud and motivated workers resist new ways of doing things because change seems counterintuitive or even suspicious.
- Pushing employees into burnout: studies have found that highly engaged workers tend to suffer work/family harmony and those who fail to take downtime often face health challenges.
- Giving an unfair edge to certain personality types: employees who are naturally more optimistic, positive, emotionally stable, agreeable, and extraverted tend to be more engaged regardless of their circumstances.
- Undermining the benefits of negative thinking: defensive pessimists often perform better because they prepare for worst-case scenarios and try harder to remediate them.
A balanced approach to employee engagement
Organizations are a representation of individuals and groups with shared identities, norms, and purposes. In general, people feel more enthusiastic about their work when they are empowered to achieve something meaningful, connect with others, and the organization treats them fairly and ethically, while rewarding them for their contributions. Engagement is a function of the cultural value-add – shaping the energy, behaviors, and attitudes over and above personal preferences and styles. It is understanding how the representatives of the organization function and work together given their varying social identities and value in the service of the organization’s mission and value. The exploratory question is where is the synergy?
Although engagement has been tied to performance (example: absenteeism, turnover, performance appraisal scores, self-reports of performance), it doesn’t directly impact individuals’ performance.
There is no universal formula to engaging employees, yet there are leadership behaviors that serve as a bridge to amplifying engagement. They include leaders who
- communicate well and provide clear direction with their team members
- can inspire and generate loyalty, commitment, passion, and enthusiasm
- excel at creating a positive work environment
- engender trust by “walking their talk” and showing that they can be trusted
- focus on helping team members see themselves in a very positive light
- ask for feedback from others and work to make improvements
As Steve Jobs noted, “Your work is going to fill a larger part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.” In what ways are you doing what you believe is great work?
At the heart of engagement is choice – saying yes to an organizational value because there is an alignment with one’s personal value as well as for an organization to go beyond thinking a happy employee (given a survey result) is an engaged employee. It is about meaningful conversations about how to curate a mutually beneficial partnership.
