Do we want to measure engagement or increase employee happiness?

The topic of engagement surveys is hot within HR departments at big organizations. They spend a lot of time and resources on annual employee surveys that do not seem to be particularly useful. The most common problem with the surveys is the focus on measurement rather than improvement. No action comes as a result of the measurement and management is primarily responsible for increasing employee involvement.

We must start by asking why we want to measure employee engagement. Is it because we have a need to feel satisfied with the results of top management? Are we saying, “Check our high scores of engagement! We’ve done our job in this area. Everyone can see that, right?” Or is it because we actually want to increase engagement scores, regardless of how high the numbers are at the last measurement? Do we want to make employees feel satisfied and let them know they can contribute to the organization’s goals with the right tools and other prerequisites?

Using statistically advanced methods and ways to measure is certainly a good practice, but it doesn’t solve the problem of increased employee engagement. The companies that sell the surveys have access to benchmark data, but rarely can they help customers choose the right questions and support in the design of the survey. That alone is problematic; but, even if we could elicit a perfectly correct measurement, the point is it’s about engagement, not measurements.

Motivation can only come from within. It is triggered by people’s inner drive and desire to make something happen. You cannot delegate the responsibility of a central function to an external company and then believe it will increase engagement.

Business executives and HR departments function by themselves. They are free from the responsibility of creating a good workplace by hiring external measurement companies with great references. They show off the (often high) scores and say, “Look at our high employee engagement scores. Our employees are really satisfied with the company.” Then, they don’t need to think about employee engagement again until the next year when they repeat the whole procedure again.

There are a few pitfalls associated with the approach detailed above:

Delegation to external vendors: The employees themselves have the best skills and insight into what it takes to keep people engaged. You don’t have to pay for expensive surveys where someone else has formulated the questions and answers. If we ask the employees what would increase their satisfaction and their ability to contribute to the organization’s goals, we would get really good answers. Then you can work together to increase it.

There is no need for one hundred questions: You can simplify and reduce the scope of the surveys. Too many questions are posed, and there is a risk that it will become a “filling in answers” exercise, where they only want to get through the survey. Asking fewer questions more often allows us to measure trends and see how commitment develops over time.

Centralization: Instead of making HR responsible for measuring, companies should decentralize the responsibility and delegate it to teams instead. That’s where the knowledge of what creates engagement sits and also what to do about the possible lack of it. HR should support the right tools, guidelines, and coaching to help the teams take responsibility for their own engagement.

Who is responsible: Who is actually responsible for one’s commitment? Is it society, the company, HR, top management, the boss? Or is it the employee? Sorry for the slight sarcasm here, but it’s very common that employees believe that somebody else should take responsibility for their happiness at work, when, in fact, it’s only you who can influence and increase your engagement—assuming you can claim the right prerequisites for it (this is a job for HR and/or management).

Continuous process that never ends: Once a year is too rare to focus on engagement. Working with motivation is a process that never ends; it is ongoing, from going to work in the morning until you go home in the afternoon (and even when you get home). Ultimately, it is a matter of mindset. We need our businesses to create a culture where it’s easy to be committed and positive, where it’s easy to understand the company’s overall goals, and how the team and I can help to achieve them. And, where I feel respected, listened to, and valuable.

Here’s a concrete suggestion on how HR could work if you’re stuck in the yearly engagement survey trap and want to move toward a more Agile approach in a stepwise manner:

1. Start by measuring your commitment quickly and easily. I like Gallup’s twelve questions because they are simple, fast, and work for all industries, cultures, and sizes of organizations. In addition, they are tested on 25 million people and there’s loads of benchmark data to dig into (though it’s not always necessary and desirable).
2. Analyze the results together with your colleagues in HR—a first look at the results to see how “bad it is” and what we should base the discussion on when we involve managers and employees.
3. Involve managers and employees for input and action proposals. Tell them about the results of the measurement and run a first analysis and action workshop together with the team manager and the rest of the team, where everyone can come up with concrete suggestions on things we can do to increase our commitment. Share the results from the workshop with other teams in, for example, a “world café” exercise.
4. Delegate the implementation of actions to managers and employees. Take action on a regular basis and measure each week/month with three questions (use Excel or another simple tool. It’s not important exactly how it’s done): What feels best right now? What feels the worst right now? What can you/your boss/HR do to increase your satisfaction?
5. Delegate more responsibility gradually for both measurement and actions. Continuous improvement and follow-up of actions are never “ready.” It must be an ongoing process that never ends. To delegate more and more responsibility to employees for both measurement and actions increases their feeling that they are indeed responsible and is, in itself, engaging.
6. After six months, measure again with Gallup’s twelve questions. Note improvement and celebrate success. Then measure every six months and continue with improvement efforts within the teams in between each time period.
7. Evaluate and adjust the method continuously using monthly retrospectives. In the retrospective, you look back and think about how the method can be improved using the questions below:

What did we do well?

What should we keep doing?

What can we improve?

What can we stop doing?

What should we change?

What should we start doing?

The important thing is to continue the work between each measurement, on continuous improvement, and to delegate responsibility to the teams 100 percent. HR’s and managers’ role will be to encourage all employees to take responsibility for their own commitment and for transparent communication about what can be improved to create a workplace where people can use their full potential and together create real results.

FROM → TO for Employee Engagement Surveys

The Traditional → Way The Agile Way

Ask once a year → Ask a lot more often

Ask one hundred questions → Ask just one or a few questions

HR is responsible → Teams have the responsibility

Central follow-up → Delegated follow-up

Measuring more important than actions → Actions are more important

Expensive → Cost-effective

Small effect → Large effect

Purpose to measure is central control → Purpose is to increase motivation

Read more: https://amzn.to/2mXz85b or join a workshop https://www.agilepeople.se/events/