Employee Engagement – Part I: Current Situation
Employee Engagement – Beyond the Buzzword
Employee engagement is one of those “always in your newsfeed” terms, so much so that I sometimes cringe when I see it. In addition to being everywhere, the term itself is a bit vague – we somewhat know what it means but tend to understand it better from a behavioral perspective, i.e., we know it when we see it.
The concept of organization citizenship behavior (OCB) is a precursor to employee engagement; a concept first described by business psychologist Daniel Katz in 1964 and then refined and popularized by Dennis Organ in the 1970’s. Organ defines OCB as “good soldier syndrome” – being dutiful and compliant. The soldier analogy continues to shape the concept if we think of “going beyond the call of duty” or doing more than what is required. Additional behavioral examples may help complete the definition: employees exhibiting high OCB help others before they are asked; they stay late to assist a customer with a problem; they generate new ideas; they let others know when they’re struggling or if they will be absent from work; they have awareness of their company’s culture and work to make it better.
The term employee engagement became popularized in the mid-1990s by William Kahn. Employee engagement is a broader concept which adds greater connection, commitment, and passion to OCB. Engagement includes a sense of confidence in oneself and confidence in the leadership and direction of the organization. It’s loyalty to both the cause and team members of the company. In the religious world, we often hear engagement described as a passion for work or a calling to a particular vocation, but which is less aligned with a specific organization. In addition to the personal motivation requirement, employee engagement considers the ability, skills, and training of the employee, i.e., the other side of performance equation. Of course, proactive employers want ALL team members to be highly engaged so managers and consultants (such as HLA) are constantly searching for methods to enhance engagement with an expectation that increased productivity will follow. We’ll discuss these methods in Part II of this series.
Many ask how employee engagement is related to job satisfaction; are they the same thing? There’s likely something going on between these two concepts but they’re certainly not interchangeable. Let’s look at this from the individual point of view. If I tell you I’m satisfied with my job, it likely means I feel content or gratified. I’m happy; it means my needs are being met. But this feeling isn’t perfectly related to how productive I am. How do I feel after eating a really good meal? I feel satisfied and happy but that feeling doesn’t always lead to productivity unless one considers taking a nap as productive! Engagement, with the add-on of motivation and passion likely leads to more activity than satisfaction alone. If I feel engaged, I’m likely more energized, bought-in, and focused on achieving an objective. Sticking with the meal comparison, I feel like I want more. The edge has been taken off my hunger but I’m not full and sleepy!
The Research Relationship Between Satisfaction and Performance
Given these two concepts have been around for awhile, there has been considerable research on the linkage between performance and satisfaction and to a lesser extent, between performance and engagement. That’s critical from the employer perspective: whether it’s job satisfaction or employee engagement the outcome variable must be improved profitability or some related business metric such as employee turnover or customer satisfaction. Although there is a positive correlation between employee satisfaction and performance, it is typically reported as ranging between 0.20 and 0.30. Thus, these two variables are connected but it’s not that perfect correlation of 1.0 or -1.0, where two variable move in total synchronization. Sometimes when satisfaction zigs, performance zags. Are satisfied employees productive employees? Sometimes, but not always as there are many other factors impacting productivity which go beyond how an employee feels about his/her job. Employee engagement is likely a better predictor of performance than satisfaction, given the broadness of the definition, but it hasn’t been researched and measured sufficiently to cite a correlation value.
Current Measures of Satisfaction and Engagement
The Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) has been conducting large scale studies of job satisfaction for many years. Not surprisingly, they highlight many factors impacting satisfaction, other than the employer/employee relationship, such as the general economy and the unemployment rate. SHRM reports general job satisfaction as improving over the past few years, with the most recent survey reporting 88 percent of employees are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current job and organization (SHRM Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction Report, 2015). That’s a staggering number, which by itself doesn’t seem to add a tremendous amount of value. If virtually all employees are already satisfied then what can employers do to attract, retain, and motivate their employees to increased productivity? But digging a bit deeper in the survey provides some answers that can shape employer actions and give employees greater insight into their own behavior. Two factors emerged as critical to driving satisfaction in the SHRM study. The first is a measure I’m calling “respectful treatment of all employees in the workplace,” with a resounding 67 percent of employees stating this behavior is very important work satisfaction. This represents an emerging trend as this measure has increased dramatically over the past 15 years. The second-highest driver of satisfaction is our old friend, compensation and benefits, proving once again that most of us still work for a paycheck! This survey reported that 63 percent of employees rated compensation as being very important to job satisfaction.
Given the newness of engagement measures, it’s challenging to present good data on a single measure of employee engagement. For example, Gallup reports only 32 percent of employees are actively engaged at work (Gallup Engagement Survey, 2015 ). However, Gallup is in the business of selling custom engagement surveys and training products to employers to improve engagement. Thus, their results need to be corroborated. The SHRM study doesn’t report an overall value of engagement, but rather reports employee engagement as 3.8 on a 5-point scale, which is defined as a moderate level of engagement in the workforce. Regardless of the measure, most would agree the engagement definitions and behaviors are a “good thing” to have in the workplace. SHRM provides a functional model of engagement which helps better define the concept but more importantly will lead to enhanced engagement within your team:
Conditions for Engagement
- Relationships with co-workers
- Opportunities to use skills and abilities
- Meaningfulness of their job
Engagement Opinions
- Employee confidence they can meet work goals
- Employee determination to meet work goals
- Understanding of my organization’s vision/mission
Employee Behaviors
- Encouraging employees to take action when they see a problem
- All team members react appropriately to crisis and change
- All team members never give up
We’ll unpack this model in Part II when we discuss methods to further engagement within organizations, but picking the top two satisfaction items from the SHRM survey, likely antecedents to engagement, increasing the perception of being respected and having appropriate compensation might be a good place to start.
Generational Differences – The Maligned Millennial
Like employee engagement, the “millennial effect,” that huge gap which separates the current generation entering the workforce in terms of satisfaction, commitment, and motivation compared to the baby boomers, has become a buzzword. But the SHRM study presents real data with a different conclusion. There was no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction across generations. There were some differences in engagement and the desired focus on training and need for career progression and development, but these differences are easily explained by stage in life or season. SHRM describes the millennial generation as a bit impatient in their desire for success, but isn’t that a good thing, another marker of engagement? Psychology is the study of individual differences; thus, my belief is we do a disservice to society and individuals by playing employees into broad-brush categories such as millennials, generation X, and baby-boomers and not looking at them as individuals. We should recognize that it’s commonplace for one generation to compare themselves with another, but perhaps there isn’t as much difference between generations as we see in the popular press.
We’ll discuss some tactics and strategies to increase employee engagement for all generations in Part II. Stay tuned!