I heard a phrase I really like earlier this week: "ROI – Return on Individual".

I’ve obviously heard it used in the context "return on investment", but not in this context. It seems so obvious that I feel I should have been aware of it before. For me it’s a powerful expression of the benefit of employee engagement. Ultimately isn’t having engaged employees about growing their contribution to the business OR increasing the return on individuals?

I also came across some powerful statistics to illustrate the point. In a Directive Communication International study undertaken in 2007 involving the marketing, human resource and finance departments of 72 similar organisations, evidence suggested that an engaged workforce is greater than the sum of its parts. The study reported that "If there are 100 employees in an organisation with a poor corporate culture, they will produce the work of 63. In an average culture they will do the work of 100 and in an enriched culture they produce the work of up to 159 employees."

The report described the enriched culture as being "Leadership enriched", meaning that people felt emotional gratification and fulfilment at work. They also felt they were an important part of the organisation and that their job equipped them with the opportunity to grow as an individual. These descriptors bear a very close resemblence to those resulting in engagement.

So the difference in ROI from the worst to the best performing was equivalent to 96 people. Some return on individuals!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Thank you! Your subscription has been confirmed. You'll hear from us soon.