Engagement from An Angle Other

Have we made employee engagement so important that we only want the result?

I'll back up a step and give that question clarity.

I have recently delivered three segments in a six-workshop series to an organization's employees:   

• Session 1: Concepts and benefits of employee engagement
• Session 2: Communication styles and skills
• Session 3: Team processes and successes

One-month intervals space the workshops.  And the workshops do have better titles!

Following Session 3, we discussed pending re-application of the Gallup Q12 Survey, and I heard variations of this question:

How do these sessions relate to our getting engaged? How will these workshops raise our scores on the Q12?

I remembered at once my 8th grade math teacher. As we studied pre-algebra, he constantly stressed  working the equation as more important than (just) getting the correct answer.

Now I'm wondering...

Have we made employee engagement into a "must have" whether we know (or care) how to achieve it?

If that's the case, then...

Has employee engagement become the label we want our organization to wear more than the condition in which we intend to thrive?

Thinking of this, I came up against the clincher question:

Is it important for employees to BE engaged...or to merely give the right answers to the survey?

No. I didn't become depressed. This emphasized even more for me the role a manager plays in providing the conditions, the situation, and the culture in which employees may experience engagement. If the setting is realized, employees won't worry about giving the "right answers" on the survey. They will state affirmatively that their needs for communication, opportunities, resources, and engagement are met.

Consider:

• Communication as the most valued behavior among employees. Communication from management to employees and vice versa. Communication about personal issues, job expectations, performance wants and needs, company values and purpose, individual values and value to the organization, to list just a few communication types. If this communication is present, it will be appreciated. If it is appreciated, it will stimulate engagement. If employees are engaged, it will show up on any survey.

• Opportunities as the situations in which employees can choose to engage. Opportunities extend beyond just "doing the job" (which certainly should not be omitted as the prime engagement opp.). Opportunities offer chances for interaction among employees (network), attention to individual growth/advancement (career), involvement in the company's marketplace (community), and immersion in the organization's purpose and strategy (company).

• Resources as the tools, literally and figuratively, with which employees can apply their skills, interests, motivations, curiosity to engage in some/all of those opportunities. When materials, equipment, instruction, mentoring, and more resources are present for the employee to access, the employee responds to such questions as ...I have opportunities at work to learn and grow...affirmatively.

• Engagement as the behavior that motors the organization. The manager demonstrates, communicates, recognizes, and celebrates instances of employee engagement. An organization cannot idly assume that desired behavior nor that it is inherently understood. Management defines it, illustrates it, points it out when observed, engages herself in assuring that employees understand all that it is.

None of the above is merely a result. All contribute process that builds a culture. The culture features the behavior--not the label--of Employee Engagement.

Comments

[David Zinger]

I liked the article very much Tim. A good question and an important one as the term employee engagement catches more and more attention. As you well know there are problems in just defining the term let alone living the approach. I hope employee engagement can me an approach to work and a result.