Employee Archetypes and the Satisfaction Spectrum

I recently came across a 麦肯锡 article that I wanted to summarise for others; How companies can improve workplace productivity | McKinsey.

According to recent McKinsey research, employee disengagement and attrition could cost a median-size S&P 500 company between $228 million and $355 million a year in lost productivity. Over five years, that’s at least $1.1 billion in lost value per company!

With hybrid patterns here to stay, executives should seek to provide the best possible experience regardless of working model, including offering structure and support around activities best done in person or remotely. This includes helping managers measure performance based on outputs and objectives completed rather than on input factors such as time spent or location.

The central challenge for organizations is to move as many workers as possible away from the highly dissatisfied group (which is probably larger and more destructive than most C-suites realize) and toward greater engagement and commitment. Such a strategy would give workers the opportunity to develop their skills, reducing dissatisfaction and attrition rates and bringing clear financial and organizational benefits over the long term.

THE QUITTERS

The quitters are not necessarily the lowest performers in an organization, but they may be some of the least satisfied and committed. Eventually, those feelings can affect their performance and cause them to leave. Employers should do everything they can to re-engage niche or formerly high-performing talent who have become disillusioned and fallen into this segment. One exception in this cohort is a small percentage of individuals who may have been satisfied but have been offered a better position at another company. These are typically highly coveted top performers who don’t necessarily leave because there’s anything wrong but because they feel they can do better.

Actions companies can take:

Identify high potential and high-performing workers who may be exploring other options utilising strong people leaders who are connected to their teams can keep a pulse on morale, helping to make people feel valued and ensuring that the organization’s compensation packages and benefits are on par for the market average. Also, they can ensure that career paths are clearly designed, with meaningful changes to role type or scope of responsibilities. To do this, companies need to have clear, simple (e.g a few paragraphs at most, not a 10 page novel), regular (e.g quarterly) and accountable (e.g done prospectively not retrospectively) performance reviews.

THE DISRUPTORS

This group has the potential for the largest negative influence. This is not necessarily because of their behavior but because of how an organization treats them, coupled with the perception of their peers. By staying and either “quiet quitting” or loud quitting, these employees aren’t disruptive in the positive sense of accelerating change at an organization. Instead, they are productivity and energy vampires, sucking the motivation out of work and workers around them. They also create more work for others and can undermine morale—especially when companies issue blanket pay raises or rewards.

Actions companies can take:

These disengaged employees lost trust in the organization over time and began to behave in a counterproductive way. Leaders should both address those who are already in this category and prevent strong performers from falling into it.

THE MILDLY DISENGAGED

Mildly disengaged workers, who report below-average commitment and performance levels, are neither satisfied nor actively disengaged and disruptive in a way that harms the organization. They do put in the time and effort to fulfill minimum job requirements, but they are not proactive, lagging behind in well-being and self-reported performance. This group’s sagging productivity—along with the financial costs associated with the previous two archetypes—can cost companies dearly in lost value. Taken together, the Quitters, Disruptors and Mildly Disengaged comprise more than half of a typical organization’s workforce.

Actions companies can take:

Employers can target similar EVP factors as for the disruptors, while adding flexibility. This means considering not just where a job is done but also how and when it gets done. As workers who are dissatisfied but still doing the bare minimum, they may recapture their zest for the job with the help of an increased sense of agency. If they are micromanaged, they may further disengage and risk falling into the actively disengaged group.

THE DOUBLE DIPPERS

Double-dippers are uniquely dispersed along the satisfaction spectrum and hold two or more jobs simultaneously, likely without their employers’ knowledge. These employees, also known as “polyworkers,” sound like bad news on the productivity front, but are they? Our analysis indicates that the answer is “it depends.” These workers are almost evenly split between those who are engaged and contributing and those who are disengaged and chipping away at an organization’s collective efforts. While these workers may hold two or more jobs, their reasons for doing so vary depending on where they are on the satisfaction spectrum.

Actions companies can take:

Mandating a return to the office is unlikely to be the solution. Double-dipping, especially from the lens of juggling multiple jobs and managing workplace relationships, is unsustainable or undesirable for the majority of the workforce. Leaders are best served by focusing on the dissatisfied double-dippers. To further address these issues, managers can work alongside HR leaders to carefully map career paths and role responsibilities. This can help to ensure that workers don’t feel trapped in roles without advancement opportunities or in jobs that lack clarity of scope.

THE RELIABLE AND COMMITTED

On the positive side of the satisfaction spectrum, this archetype represents the organizational core: reliable performers who execute on business-as-usual activities. Because they are satisfied and committed, they will go above and beyond for their employer.

Actions companies can take:

This group has all the right ingredients for sustained strong performance if mixed the right way. To uncover the hidden gems in this group who need the right elements to take their work to the next level, companies can consider re-creating the conditions that work best for their high performers.

THE THRIVING STARS

The thriving stars are the top talent in your organization: these are the rare employees who bring disproportionate value to the company. They achieve high levels of sustained well-being and performance because of a virtuous cycle of factors. They create work–life balance because they are adaptable and resilient. They have found meaning and purpose at work, allowing them to achieve stellar performance not just for themselves but also for the people around them. Thrivers can have a hugely positive impact on performance and productivity by, among other things, creating psychological safety and trust in a team setting.

While natural ability limits the number of people who can be stars, the right conditions can help organizations uncover workers who have the right traits and motivation to get there.

Actions companies can take:

It is crucial to protect these value creators and drivers of innovation from the deleterious effects of the actively disengaged. Moreover, high performance without high well-being is likely hard to sustain. To prevent burnout and create sustainable conditions, managers can limit both the number of projects these stars are deeply involved in and those for which they are asked to provide input. Tapping into meaning and purpose also helps the EVP for these employees.

Hope you liked it!