Approximate reading time: 2.3 mins
Is engagement more a buzz word than reality? Is it turning into a bonanza for consultants wanting to conduct free employee surveys and then offering to sell you ways to rectify the awful results that the questionnaires produce?
David Cohen a US educational specialist calls employee engagement a Trojan Horse and “to paraphrase a lesson from the Trojan War: Beware of geeks bearing gifts.” [1]
All good knock about stuff, but how far should we accept his trenchant view that because different organisations are talking about engagement in different ways, we can’t really determine which factors that indicate employee engagement really do lead to a positive score and whether the absence of those factors lead to a negative score?
He is certainly right in his complaint or perhaps observation, that engagement is a multi-faceted phenomenon. That much and more emerged from the Macleod report on Engaging for Success.
But it is unclear why we should approach the whole issue with such caution that we are likely to end up with a paralysis of analysis.
Cohen asks a number of penetrating questions of those who are conducting or buying engagement surveys and training.
For example, “Is it possible to feel engaged by your work and committed to your organisation in spite of a negative environment, a stressful job, or a boss you don’t like?”
Well yes it is possible, but how likely is it?
The whole point of general principles is that they are general, but that does not mean there cannot be exceptions. If you try hard enough you are bound to find someone who is fanatical about their work while absolutely hating everything about the place.
One pointed criticism Cohen makes concerns the nature of the surveys that test out engagement. He points out that “there is no clear boundary between an employee’s experience at work and environmental conditions that support such an experience.”
In other words what exactly are these surveys measuring? It could be a mix of what the employee thinks about working for the organisation, and what the organisation actually does to support them in the work.
In the recent VIDI approach developed by Maynard Leigh as part of its work on unlocking people’s potential, the focus is entirely on the actual experience of the individual.
It asks to what extent does the person feel Valued, Involved, Developed and Engaged? It takes no account of what the organisation thinks it is doing in these areas.
Engagement surveys though, provide only a snapshot in time, and too many focus excessively on the organisation and not the individual.
As Cohen points out: “different environments, circumstances and challenges engage different people” There probably is no absolute state of engagement applicable everywhere.
It may always come down to making a match between the employee, the work they do and the particular environment they are currently in.
Also, having completed a survey there is a tendency of managers to sit back and think they have addressed the issue of engagement, when in fact the results are only a starting point.
If you are close enough to those you manage, check there is alignment between the individual’s values and those of the organisation, and ensure the person is excited about the work they do, then you won’t even need a survey. You will already know the answers.
