Dumb and Dumber....

We all like things to be simple. Why shouldn't we?

Even Einstein had something to say on the subject.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

It makes sense. We all have so many issues to contend with in our lives, why would we want anything to be more complex than it needs to be?

But it seems like we have taken this philosophy to extremes and we are in danger of breaking Einstein's guidelines and making something's a little too simple.

Take politics for example. Those on the right are convinced that a free market?and trickle down economics are all you need to build a thriving economy,

Those on the left believe in state run industries, high taxation and publicly funded social services produce a better world.

The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

People have simplistic views on issues like immigration. Build the wall, keep them out, protect our jobs say some.

Let everyone in, see value in diversity, let people contribute say others.

Solve the housing crisis by building more. Reduce cholesterol by taking a statin. Reverse climate change by driving a hybrid.

The latest place to suffer some serious dumbing down is the world of work.

A good example is the Sunday Times best places to work survey.

I get the idea. Let's try and find out which companies are doing the best job of providing an outstanding work environment.

But perhaps the way it is being done is a tad too simplistic.

Entrants answer 26 questions based around 6 key dimensions.

In the listing that is produced there is no mention of how the scores are calculated, what weightings (if any) are applied to any of the attributes, or indeed what evidence there is that these are even the right attributes to track.

The language used is also confusing.

The report talks about employee satisfaction, happiness and engagement as if they are interchangeable - they are not.

Each one is different. Two are actually impossible to sustain across an organization (can you guess which two) and only one of them has the capacity to drive productivity and performance.

Let's take a look.

Satisfaction is based on what you are expecting. If you visit a restaurant that everyone has been raving about, chances are they are going to have to pull out all the stops in order to impress you.

Yet if you stumble across a place with no real expectation, they can probably produce a much lower quality meal and experience but you could be more satisfied than you were in the highly recommended venue.

The real challenge with satisfaction in the workplace is that no matter how hard the researchers try, no-one has been able to prove a relationship between satisfaction and performance or productivity.

I can be very satisfied, have a great salary, fancy job title, nice perks and benefits, not too much pressure or stress and turn up everyday and do the minimum amount possible.

This is what Gallup refer to as the disengaged and they estimate around 67% of the global workforce falls into this category.

In fact they are engaged -just at the lowest level possible - transactional engagement - but more of that later.

So having satisfied employees doesn't mean you are a great place to work. It just means you have met their expectations.

But what if they were expecting a big fat salary and a cushy job? How does that help your business?

So let's look at the flavour of the month - happiness.

Firstly this is difficult to pin down. Just what is happiness to you? For most of us me say we want it but when you ask people what happiness is or what actually makes them happy, it becomes harder to define.

Most people, given time to think about it usually explain happiness as follows:

"I'll be happy when the things I want to happen actually happen and when the things I don't want to happen actually don't happen.'

In other words, wanted things happen, unwanted things don't happen.

Can you see the issue with trying to build a workplace where this is the case for all employees?

I can make one person happy by giving them a promotion but in the process I am probably going to upset the other 10 people that applied and got turned down.

I can make one of my team happy by giving them the new challenging project but disappoint another who feels they are equally ready to step up.

Just to make matters worse, as with satisfaction, there is no relationship with how happy I am and how hard I am likely to work.

Even though we know engagement is the only real measure we should be concerned with, there are dumbing down issues here as well.

Organisations say they are measuring engagement and often they haven't even got a standard definition of what they mean by engagement and how it differs from satisfaction or happiness.?

Most organisations look at engagement as a binary choice.?The vast majority of measurement tools that claim to measure engagement (most are still tracking satisfaction) talk about employees as being engaged or disengaged as if that were the only two options.?

But life in the corporate world is not so simple.

It is actually impossible to be disengaged from your workplace. If you don't believe me, look up the dictionary definition of disengagement.

One definition is "to become physically separated from something" and another is "to stop being involved in something".

You can do this with a family member or a friend that you fall out with.?

But can you really do this in the workplace? If I stop coming to work or stop being involved by not replying to my boss or colleagues, what do you think is likely to happen??

I will be permanently disengaged before too long as they are going to send me packing!

Everyone who is still employed is to some degree engaged.?But the type of engagement varies.

At the lowest level as we eluded to earlier, we have transactional engagement.?

I see my job as a exchange.?I agree to give my time, skills and abilities and efforts everyday, and my employer agrees to give me a salary and certain benefits.

This form of engagement does not give your extraordinary performance - just compliance.?I'll do what is required of me - BUT no more.

If you want people to go the extra mile then you need to build emotional engagement. Here employees are committed and passionate about what they do, they can see the value of their contributions and they go the extra mile not because someone is watching them or there is something in it for them, but because they feel genuine pride in what they do and they want to make a difference.

Perhaps the Sunday Times survey is a good example of being a little too simplistic.?There doesn't seem to be any attempt to differentiate between the various types of measures - are they tracking satisfaction, happiness or engagement? If it is engagement which type are they tracking? How have they established the different drivers of transactional versus emotional engagement?

It is actually even more complex.?There are various aspects of my work environment that I can be engaged with.?

I can be engaged with my boss but not the organisation.?

I can love the product or service we deliver but hate the management.

I can love the work that I do and the value we offer to customers, but feel no attachment to the corporation or the values we embody.

Whilst I applaud the general idea of helping companies try and create a better work culture, surveys like this often do more harm than good.

For every organisation that scores well in the survey I can find you plenty of employee reviews on Glassdoor complaining about the culture, management and general work environment.

Are there any checks in place to make sure management aren't saying to their teams "give us a good review and we'll give you a bonus" or worse threats if they don't post a positive score?

Most people recognise that Einstein was right on many things.?Perhaps he was right here as well.?Let's not oversimplify this issues of creating a motivating work culture.

And beware, if you have scored well on this survey (by hook or by crook) you have now raised the expectation for anyone looking to join and are going to have to work much harder to make sure they are satisfied - the lowest of all the key measures of employee productivity and effectiveness!