Where's the Chicken? Who's Got the Egg?

Which comes first: employee engagement or one's sense of purpose?
Is it necessary for the employee to have reason(s) to engage in work fulfillment in order for her (work) to have a viable sense of purpose?

Or does the feeling of value for one's work stimulate engagement?

Which is the chicken? Which is the egg?

Does purpose entice engagement

or does engagement provide purpose?

Does it matter?

You've seen--perhaps read--thousands of words about how an employee's knowing what is expected of him contributes to his willingness to engage in his work. I've posted a few hundred of those words encouraging clear communication of, repeated attention to, and frequent discussion about what is expected of the employee. I've yet to hear sensible argument against the idea that it is easier to engage in well-understood expectations.

And now I'm about to say there's something more important than expectations. Purpose.

When one sees and feels true and valuable purpose to the work she performs, she will more probably immerse her energy, time, creativity, and eagerness in that work.

Or

 When one has motivation to expend his those personal forces upon his work, he is more likely to create/discover meaningful purpose to that work.

As manager, where (and how) does purpose fit among your responsibilities?
I'll offer three distinct areas. I would hope to hear more from you. Notice the Comment option below this (and every) posting.

Company-Product/Service-Community. Formally and informally you can verbalize and so validate the relationship among your company, its offerings (products/services) and the community served. This relationship offers the basis for the company's reason for operation: purpose.

Component Contribution. This refers to purpose(s) the department, team, and individual serve in contributing to the overall corporate purpose (see #1.) You can assist your employees in knowing that (and how) what they do, what their team produces, what your department offers are meaningful parts of the total corporate endeavor.

Training. Whether your organizational prefers classic classroom training, on-line and e-training, or on-the-job training, individuals--especially "next-generation" want to understand the purpose of the training. This means more than mere learning objectives. When you offer or assign training options, make time available to clarify and verify the purposes of the training.

What others?

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phae/2782158985/

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chongchiang/2695178913/

Comments

[David Zinger]

Tim,
A very purposeful post that got me out of having to decide between scrambled eggs or roast chicken.
I so much appreciate your perspective and writing on employee engagement.
David

[Andrew Meyer]

Tim,

interesting post. What level are you talking about? A corporate purpose or the individual purpose?

At a corporate level, if a company or department has a clearly defined purpose, it makes it much easier for people to engage. Whether it is for the military, an investment bank or a start-up firm focusing on producing anti-aging games for the elderly, having a clear purpose definitely increases people's ability to engage. Provided you find the right type of people.

On an individual level, maybe I've been brainwashed by "First Break All the Rules" thinking, but your manager is the most significant determinant as to whether someone's going to engage or not.

For an individual, don't you think finding too much purpose and self-identification in a job is fraught with peril?

It seems to me that there's a nuanced difference between being engaged and finding your purpose at work.

Engaging in the workplace means you know what you have to do and you meet or exceed those expectations and take pride in what you do.

Finding your sense of purpose and interlinking your identity with your job is risky and unfortunately, very common.

In an ideal world or with certain jobs (missionaries, the military, company founders and maybe a few others), having the two interwoven maybe desirable. But in too many cases, people interweave their work a little too much with their identity and purpose. While this might produce short-term gains, in a dynamic, competitive and litigious environment, isn't it fraught with peril?

Having someone engage at work is a good thing. Encouraging people to find their sense of purpose and identity at work is a little risky, don't you think?

Andy
http://alignmentinquiries.blogspot.com/

[Tim Wright]

Andy
Thanks for making the time to offer such a thorough comment. Some of our "disagreements" may be merely semantics.

First, an organization (mega, large, or mom&pop) that has a purpose does offer a base for engagement. However, if the purpose of the organization is not clearly and repeatedly communicated, the individuals may not so readily engage.

I agree that the manager is the "first determinant" regarding engagement. However, the management doesn't engage the employee...or force that engagement. The manager offers the communication, opportunities, resources, and exemplifies engagement. That's the CORE discussed in numerous other postings here.

I need to know more about what you see as risk and peril to interweaving the individual's purpose with the business purpose....before I take an opposing stand, for we might not be in disagreement.

I just know from 30 years' experience, 400 hours of research/interviews, and work with just over 220 clients that the individual who can identify with her company's purpose, values, commitment is more likely to appreciate the work required.

Appreciation makes the work matter. Work that matters attracts engagement.

Tim