It has been very tempting to jump onto the buzzword bandwagon about employee engagement. Reading all the blog posts, news articles and chat sessions where this is discussed, not one single thing has been clear. If we are to discuss the engagement of someone, shouldn’t we agree on a basis for the discussion? Most of the rhetoric is frankly warmed over management thought with a new word used to describe it. My knee jerk reaction to anything new is to try and learn something from the experts while also keeping a cynical eye open for the recycled crap. It is also easier to visualize something in a familiar context, so my engineering brain sees engagement as gears meshing to move a machine in the desired direction. I don’t think this is an oversimplification of workplace engagement since its purpose it ultimately to move a company forward toward its objectives with all employees contributing to the effort.
Do we expect engagement cheaply? Only the jaded manager would expect that everybody will be on the same sheet of music without a conductor to orchestrate the movement. But the reality is often that we do want engagement without high cost or expenditure of effort. Laziness? Not exactly. There are so many factors driving success that we hardly need the distraction of dragging along unmotivated or disengaged employees. The real management problem is to know when to motivate and when to terminate… harsh but true.
How do we foster engagement? A system of honest bilateral feedback is necessary to insure that managers and employees are coming together on a common course. Management is then guided by ideas that are churned up from within adding synergy to the effort. It also focuses the attention of people working for the same cause and forming a culture of camaraderie and fostering feelings of accomplishment. Gears require lubrication after meshing. A constant power must be applied to keep them turning. The difference with people engagement is that humangears must want to be turned.
What are the tools for engagement? Without lapsing into more buzzword overload, recognition of excellence and providing incentives for performance are essential. Clarity in the motivation to work must be prevalent in the minds of managers and employees alike. These motives must not only be clearly visible, they should reek with the essence of importance and ooze value. Maintaining a culture of focused leadership and dedicated followership is the sign of an engaged company. Both sides of the conversation need to assume appropriate responsibility for their actions and actively cooperate in the achievement of goals.
Is engagement measurable? Anything that impacts productivity in the world of work and requires expenditure of resources should be justified based on a return on investment of those resources. There are costs in time and money associated with driving engagement toward an objective and those have to be factored into the planning of any project. These are direct costs, but there is an overall indirect measure that involves employee retention. Turnover is costly in terms of employee replacement, but more importantly is the image of engagement being damaged by the holes in the workforce as others fill the gaps.
I am still cynical about the difference between this concept and old school management, but there is nothing wrong with adopting sound management techniques under any name in order to promote the desired culture. Like it or not, it is never the job of a business to solve societal problems, so a positive and active management program to consolidate effort on common business objectives is preferable to sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya and trying to promote feelings without substance.
Â
Image credit: alexmit / 123RF Stock Photo