Image via Wikipedia
I was having coffee yesterday morning with a friend and colleague. She was asking me how my success survey was going and what else I was writing about. I mentioned that my last two topics were on employee engagement. So she asked: “What really do mean by employee engagement?” So I went into my long speech based on my first post using the Wii as an example. I explained that while employee engagement encompasses the old motivation and job satisfaction “techniques” it was so much more. Karen, ever so pragmatic, immediately asked again “But how is this different in the 21st century than in the last 50 years with good leadership?” I tried to explain the element of collaboration. Karen replied: “Hey the one who has put in the money gets to make the final decision.”
Then I had to explain that collaboration was not management participation or decision by consensus. I began to ramble. When I realized that it even sounded full platitudes, motherhood and apple pie to me, I decided it was probably not a good idea to recount my reasons as listed in my blog post: Do We Really Need Engaged Employees? Derek had made a comment that employee engagement has been around for 100 years. Good to know but I was trying to figure out how is it different today OR is it?
In further support of the benefits of employee engagement, we need only to look at a recent study: Employee Engagement Is Key To Improving Service Delivery by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) by Kingston University. The CIPD defines employee engagement as: “being positively present during the performance of work by willingly contributing intellectual effort, experiencing positive emotions and meaningful connections to others”. While I do like this definition, it does sound a little to new age for my down to earth friends. So I decided to look elsewhere. I turned to David Zinger and his Employee Engagement Network (of which I am a member). There you will find this wonderful eBook full of great definitions and quotes on the subject: Employee Engagement Manager Free Ebook.
So while I am working on my own definition, here are a half dozen that capture some extra aspects of why I think employee engagement is going to be different for the 21st century. Italics are mine and represent the uniqueness that makes it different from the past 100 years. Enjoy.
- Open yourself to influence by others and they will open themselves to your influence. (Fred Nickols)
- Listen more than you speak, stay curious when challenges arise, and be brave enough to create the engaging environment that your employees deserve. (Mary Engels)
- Share your power willingly; soak up the knowledge others possess; and be open to outcome, not attached to it. (Jim Taggart)
- The most important priority for leaders is to cultivate, appreciate, and leverage the vast untapped potential of every employee in their organizations. (Michelle M. Smith)
- Engagement is to be seen not as an activity but as the only way society works. (Rajan Sharma)
- As a leader it is your job to facilitate progress - be the agent of change not the barrier to it. (Judy McLeish)
- You must make the choice to be engaged with your employees every day – for engagement is a decision before it is an action. (Michael J Hart)
- Recognize that employee engagement is not a fluffy extra but the fundamental way you will get work done with others through conversation, co-creation, community, mutuality, and other inclusive approaches to achieve results that matter to organizations, customers, leaders, employees, and yourself. (David Zinger)
I would love to hear what your definition of employee engagement.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=66d90846-2713-4aae-b7af-a4d67b27d5e5)
Popularity: 100% [?]
I think one could argue that employee engagement can be encapsulated quite simply by the following:
An employee who is willing to go the extra mile.
No need to further complicate it, in my opinion. Derek was indeed correct to imply that employee engagement has been around for years and in many guises.
Although many organisations are now striving much harder to engage with their employees and create a wider group of truly engaged employees, a trend I have begun to notice is that when people do start to become more engaged, motivated, productive, involved etc some organisations start to 'expect' that engagement as a given.
This is worrying, I don't believe it is right or fair to expect your employees to go the extra mile. You cannot 'expect' that of your employees. If, as an organisation, director, line manager you create an environment where that happens, one piece of advice – don't take it for granted!
Gary, thanks for your comments and definition. Simply stated – difficult to accomplish. If it is up to the org, director, line manager to create the environment (I concur) – is there a responsibility that it is co-created with the employees? Another way of asking this would be: Is it OK for employees to sit back and say to “others” you go first?
To a degree I would say yes, the majority of employees are 'entitled' to sit back and wait for others to go first.
Managers, Directors and the Organisation as a whole should foster an environment where employees find it easy to go the extra mile, voluntarily, not a pre-requisite.
What is interesting here, is that many organisations don't realise they already have engaged employees. A percentage of their workforce is already pre-disposed to being engaged and going the extra mile, it is part of their psychological make up. Add to that a percentage that are high performers and you have a base, a good base to work from.
As a starting point, managers, directors et al should identify and then work with this group, it is important not to take advantage however.
In terms of engagement being difficult to accomplish, I personally think it depends on what you, as an organisations or manager want from an engaged employee/s – if your targets are unrealistic and if there is no quid pro quo then it will be difficult. if you are realistic in your approach, be it at team or organisational level and employees can see they benefit also then the chance of success, in my experience is actually quite good.
Hi, Roberta. Thanks for the shout-out. My advice for encouraging engagement in David Zinger's e-book was: Say thank you – it’s really that simple – pay attention to what your colleagues are doing and thank them for their efforts and contributions.
However, if you want my definition of engagement, I would say, creating a work environment/culture in which employees WANT to lend their skills and talents to help you achieve your greater objectives because they believe in the value of those objectives and know how they contribute to achieving them.
Who's responsibility is this? Equal parts the organization (creating such an environment) and the employee (delivering in it). More on this thought of responsibility here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/08/whos-res…
And not my definitions, but the employees of Mars, Inc. (discussed in a forum by the head of engagement at Mars and cited here:http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/10/engagement-is.html
“The Engagement Is campaign has produced really interesting responses from around the world. Some of the best statements include:
• “when associates try to make a change every day” (Germany)
• “having the opportunity to succeed and develop in a positive, fulfilling work environment” (UK)
• “being fully involved within your team and taking responsibility for your actions” (US)
• “being part of something and doing your part to make it live and breathe with energy and a passion to achieve” (Australia)
• “give yourself generously, from the heart, to the common vision and you will engage others along the way” (Dominican Republic)
• and many more!”
All the above is true and/but it always was – the only difference I can really see today is that people articulate these things quite specificailly and fasten on one aspect or another… It has always been a good idea to treat people with respect, to be actve listeners, to recognize the contributions others make and by the way I never said ” Hey the one who has put in the money gets to make the final decision.” I said that the one with the most at stake (not just his/her commitment/passion but resources has the right to make the final decision, a right (s)he can choose to exercise or not! K.
Dear Me, the dangers of (mis)quoting from memory. My paraphrasing is never quite as elegant. Karen is completely correct in her statement. I do not think that senior managers, who may have some vested interest in the company due to shares, options and bonuses, have the privilege of exercising any final decision. They have the same amount at stake IMHO.nnNo matter how socially responsible a company may be – they do it because makes good business sense and not just “the right thing to do”. Similarly, I also think that any program to engage or not engage people must show a positive result or ROI. It makes good business sense to engage people as it always has. However, the shift in social norms and historical conspicuous consumption by the developed countries (and now emulated by others) requires a different approach to engagement. This involves seeing things as a whole system and not as individuals who make up the whole.n
In your article “Can you explain Employee Engagement so EVERYONE Gets It?”
Posted on February 2, 2010 Roberta Hill, you have a link to a free ebook “Employee Engagement Manager Free Ebook.” This link does not work. Do you have an updated link to the book. Thanks.
Sorry the link is no longer valid. That is always a concern on a blog – as time goes by there is no guarantee that links remain current. That said, The Employee Engagement Network IS going strong. If you go to http://employeeengagement.ning.com/ you will see lots of related materials for download. The one you are looking for might be there too. Best of luck.