OPINION: Getting to grips with employee engagement
Take a few moments to reflect on what engagement means in your organization and how you can make sure your communication efforts are engaging to the best effect.
by Rodney Gray, principal consultant and managing director of Employee Communication & Surveys, Sydney, Australia
Every communicator I know seems to be trying to communicate to "engage" employees. But there's some confusion about what employee engagement actually is, and how to achieve it.
Many executives, human resources people and a few communicators (e.g. Roger D’Aprix, Jim Shaffer and I) define employee engagement as "discretionary effort" (as measured internationally by the Hewitt Engagement Survey).
When employees are engaged they are more than motivated, committed or accountable. They go above and beyond the normal 100% performance expectation and (in Hewitt's words) "exert extra time, effort, and initiative to contribute to business success". Hence "discretionary effort" as the typical (and my preferred) definition.
Less common is the meaning used by most communicators: "to get the attention of employees" (i.e. they are more than just "aware"). For example, in some UK communication models such as those from John Smythe and Bill Quirke, engagement is shown as being in the middle of "the communication staircase" between compliance and awareness on one hand, and commitment and empowerment on the other. For example, Smythe's outcome hierarchy is: "compliant, aware, engaged, committed, empowered". Engaged here means "interested".
Going beyond the dictionary definition
Yes, I know that a dictionary definition of engagement is "sharing in activities" and that a common synonym is "participation". And certainly no dictionary will define engagement as discretionary effort. But use of the Hewitt survey is so widespread globally (e.g. most of my clients participate in it) that in the workplace the more stretching meaning of engagement should be embraced by all communicators.
You should be working with executives to encourage commitment and empowerment.
If you're communicating merely to get employees' attention while your executives believe you're communicating to encourage discretionary effort, it's inevitable that your efforts won't be regarded highly.
I'd argue that all communicators should be working with executives and line managers to encourage commitment, empowerment and discretionary effort. It's not enough to simply get employees' attention.
Engagement is a two-way process
Clearly, employee engagement partly depends on what the organization is trying to achieve. If your employees enthusiastically embrace the corporate vision and business goals you're half way there. But complete success depends on how you treat or manage your people.
Engagement must be mutual. You can't "inject" engagement into people with some kind of clever communication or motivational strategy that will cause them to go "above and beyond" normal performance expectations.
Engagement must be mutual.
The difference between engagement and satisfaction
For more than 25 years I've been conducting qualitative and quantitative research about both internal communication and employee engagement (although we used to call it motivation and commitment). Over this time, at least when it comes to professional employees (e.g. accounting, finance, IT, law, engineering, HR), I've come to the same conclusions that Frederick Herzberg came to studying accountants and engineers back in the 1950s (see Two Factor Theory).
What I've found repeatedly in my research is that certain factors statistically correlate strongly with employee satisfaction and commitment. These include such things as the nature of the organization and the jobs themselves, personal growth, training, careers, recognition, quality relationships, leadership, and employee involvement and consultation about matters that affect them. When these "motivators" are present there's a much greater chance of employee engagement.
When these 'motivators' are present there's a much greater chance of engagement.
There's a separate set of factors that are "dissatisfiers" (or hygiene factors) that usually don't correlate strongly with employee satisfaction. These include pay, working conditions and work-life balance. Having great scores on these doesn't mean employees will be engaged. It just means they aren't dissatisfied.
What can communicators do?
So to engage employees you'll need to pay attention to at least the factors I've listed in the diagram I've put together based on my research. And you'll see that communication is one of a number of things to which you'll need to pay close attention.
Figure 1: Rodney Gray's guide to engagement
But communicators can support managers in the other factors too, by ensuring the personal growth of employees, positive working relationships throughout all parts of the organization, quality leadership from executives and managers, as well as ensuring employees are consulted about and involved in workplace changes. All these things require excellent communication.
If you're asked to communicate to support employee engagement this means you can get involved in all of these aspects. Be brave. Don't limit yourself to just trying to get employees' attention.
Rodney Gray is a consultant specializing in employee communication research and teaches in the communication masters program at the University of Technology, Sydney. He was on the committee of the IABC’s Research Foundation for many years.
Have your say
How does engagement work in your organization? Are expectations of an engaged workforce different around the world? Share your opinions with us, below.
NOT A MEMBER?
Sign up nowSign up for a free 7-day trial to the Hub and receive a free report - An Employee Engagement Toolkit!
Other recommendations:Essential techniques for employee engagement
OPINION: Take the journey to find the magic pill to engagement
Skyrocketing engagement results at AMP
ONLINE LIBRARY Access all change communication articles