Getting Employee Engagement Practices Right

In this article on Employee Engagement, I want to explain what we need to do to get employee engagement practices right. Last month I asked many of my fellow HR Professionals and clients what is it that they understood by the term Employee Engagement, what do they do to measure it, manage it and how do they learn from what they have done. I am sure you will enjoy reading my analysis of what I came up with and my analysis in the course of my conversations with them.

First, define what you want to manage.

In my dialogue with several Chief HR Officers, I found an amalgamation of all four meanings: Loyalty, Commitment, Satisfaction, and Engagement. In reality, these four terms have very different meanings even though they are connected with different aspects of how employees relate to their organizations. In fact, these four are completely different behavioral constructs from completely different traditions and culture, and a completely different set of values driving performance and membership of collective systems. Loyalty is equivalent to faithfulness and a strong, all pervasive feeling of allegiance to the organization. Commitment refers to a mutually transactional bond of being committed to a set of actions to be performed in return for a reward. Employee Satisfaction indicates the extent to which the organization fulfills the needs of the employees, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Engagement, however, refers to the nature of the connection of the employee with organizational purpose and an engaged employee is one who is fully involved with and enthusiastic about their work.

My dialogues with several professional colleagues, found that in one organization the term Employee Engagement was linked to a ‘marriage’ of the employee and the organization, and the expectation from an engaged employee was to be ‘wedded to the company’. In another client company, the HR Head indicated that they believed that engagement was the extent to which the company has captured the ‘hearts and minds’ of people and a firm faith that engaged employees leads to committed and motivated workforce and better business results. Yet another CHRO said to me that it’s about how the employee ‘identifies’ with the organization, and its goals and works towards helping the organization achieve the same.

A desire to stay with the organization and perform through a deep sense of ownership and commitment’ says a dear friend and professional colleague; “For achieving business results, employee engagement is essential” is the viewpoint of the HR Director of a leading organisation in the Construction sector. Yet another CHRO, mentions that not only is it fun to work with and enhance the engagement of a team, but the measurement of a team’s engagement can predict company performance and employee retention!

A multinational FMCG major in India says that ‘engaged employees are employees who perform at their peak, with a clear alignment of their personal goals and interests with that of the team/organization’. At a Cement company, the HR department is working with the definition of employee engagement encompasses employee commitment (to the organization and its values), willingness to help out colleagues, and a positive attitude towards organizations goals and to give their best in achieving the same.

Then, find the right tools and decide how to measure and assess

Qualitative information about employees and what’s going on in their minds, is most often objectively understood through surveys. The popularity of this method of assessing ground level reality is unparalleled. The only difference is the survey methodology could be created by Indian consulting firms, or by multinational ones, but they all focus on employee responses to a set of questions that measure some factors either through pen and pencil tests or through internet based surveys. Different brands of employee engagement survey methodologies vary from Gallup, Watson Towers, Hewitt Associates, Synnovate, Bain & Co., and People in Business. Some had an internally developed survey undertaken globally, and one company reported that they supported survey results with focus group method for qualitatively richer outcomes. Another MNC said they used a combination of surveys, group discussions, as well as one-on-one interviews to make an assessment and create insights for HR to manage.

In an earlier blog post, I had mentioned “That which can be measured, can be managed” and it’s a general requirement of the managements of the day, to ask for specificity and objectivity of measures. It is very few organizations, and one can see these in our sample too, where a more comprehensive look is taken and a qualitatively rich measure is evolved through a multi-pronged measurement strategy. Personally, I would recommend a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures that include:

1. A 360-degree approach that assesses employee engagement from the external interface of the organization, the market, the consumer, the vendor, etc.
2. Surveys of employees. These help gather responses and capture feelings of employees. Unfortunately, most surveys are an outcome of employee satisfaction studies and do not focus on employee
3. In depth-interviews that connect with the real reasons for engagement or non-engagement. The data from here reveals the deepest causes for the symptoms of non-engagement and can lead to a truly transformational HR strategy for employee engagement.
4. Focus groups not only of employees, but also of the external interfaces that they come in contact with, where the moments of truth actually lie. Such focus groups can actually project the collective unconscious of the people’s ethos that connects with the organizational system.

The Nostradamus in me prophesies that in a few years, HR Heads will wake up to the truth that any one methodology alone cannot give a reliable and valid measure, and will search for and find meaning and relevance in multiple measures.

Yet another part of me says that it is a funny game that HR Heads play with themselves if they fool themselves into believing that the only authority to measure employee engagement is themselves. Often one comes across a fellow HR manager who thinks it is best to save all the labor and money and put through a DIY version of employee engagement surveys. Mind it! There is no substitute for an external, objective, valid and reliable measuring agency that can show you the mirror without any distortion. When done internally, any assessment only tells what you want to hear and can never touch reality.

A third input from me is that all HR heads should keep an eye open for ‘what’ they are measuring. Most of the employee engagement surveys are outgrowths of employee satisfaction surveys. They do not actually measure what you think they measure. The link between the questions asked of respondents, and the concept being measured must be established through conceptual rigor, otherwise you risk the chance of mistaking apples for oranges. You might find you have a bunch of highly satisfied employees who may not be productively engaged, instead of highly engaged employees, and you did not know the difference.

Third: Design interventions to improve the situation

Almost all companies hold fun activities like picnics, parties, motivational talks, variety entertainment programs, cricket and sporting contests, games, quizzes, hobby groups etc. in an attempt to engage the whole person beyond the role he plays at work. Sometimes CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) or community building, welfare activities count as employee engagement actions.

Diametrically opposite, companies believe in creating a link between performance and reward is the best way to improve engagement. Creating competitive salaries, variable pays, total rewards, are some practices that emphasize the material organizational values. Investment in wholistically enriching the experience of the employee at work through career planning linked to the future growth, developing competencies, Leadership development programs, rewards linked to Balanced Score Card achievement, Career Ladders, Family Connect, rewards for innovations in management are some of the practices adopted.

Others believe the answers lie in communication processes through town hall meetings, open forum, informal chats with top management over tea and coffee, emails, posters, messages about vision and mission that build culture of the company are the practices to be followed. Communication often centers around current business challenges, long and short-term business plans, so that employees can understand the link with direction and goals that the company is taking.

Positivity is reinforced in many cases, with accolades for innovation, appreciation initiatives to create culture of positive reinforcement

One of the organizations I studied recently has a genuine concern for building a vibrant and enthusiastically engaged organization, but is dealing with a great deal of baggage of old and rigid unionism and anti management attitudes. Turning around such attitudes is not an easy job and answers cannot be found in mass produced, transactional initiatives. It takes a kind of leadership quality that is compassionate and business minded at the same time to drive the messages that transform the organization.

Designing of interventions to build organization culture and engagement needs to be done in a transformational manner for long lasting results. Whatever the practices, it is the purity of intent, intensity of engagement and leadership qualities of the system holders that eventually yields results that grow organization culture and engagement in deeper ways. Without the clarity of conviction of leadership, all the practices listed  above will have only transactional and hence temporary outcomes. Its about who you are and not what you do, that matters in the end.

Lastly, review, track and improve your own processes, people and culture.

Every HR professional is compelled to do their bit of navel gazing and introspection about what they do, why they do, what they need to improve. This tracking and reviewing enables things to remain on track and to know if there is any impact of conscious efforts from HR.

Most companies have a practice of sharing the results of employee engagement activities with groups of employees in all units and departments of the company. In quite a few places I came across a feeling that the survey results were received by profit centre heads, department heads as an evaluation of their ‘popularity’ or effectiveness in interpersonal relations. There were often comparisons drawn between the engagement survey outcomes of one department versus another and the grapevine linked the numbers with the nature of the person heading that department. Some leaders were relieved that the survey revealed that they did better than their peers. Such comparisons are bound to occur and a proactive HR Manager will need to manage the outcomes of such processes so that there are no negative consequences.

Once results are shared, the employees suggestions are sought on actions to be taken by management, and a process owner (HR?) is appointed and the plans are written down and monitored. The positive outcomes of such kind of plans are that employees are likely to feel a higher level of satisfaction as their grievances are heard and resolved. HR also feels happy that the next year’s measure of engagement indicates an upward trend.

Behind the scenes, productivity, work engagement, effectiveness, human initiative at work, attitudes towards management, etc. have not really changed. Why is this? It is because interventions focus on the transactional hygiene factors that only create extrinsic reasons to prevent dissatisfaction. HR professionals tend to forget that not being dissatisfied does not equate or correlate with being engaged, and we lost sight of the real reasons why we began our work on employee engagement.

The design of a proper intervention needs to focus on three things:

1. The people who lead and manage the intervention, CHRO’s, HR Managers and executives, as well as consultants and associates hired by them. Do they have the leadership qualities, strategic thinking and implementation capability to understand the breadth and depth of the change they are trying to initiate.
2. The enabling structures in the organization and cultural institutions that support the direction of the change initiative. Is the top management interested in the right direction of employee engagement and does the overall climate of the organization support such initiatives. One of the worst things that could happen to employee engagement initiatives is that they get caught in company politics and lose sight of the original purpose.
3. The actual initiatives or process improvements that support and evoke an intrinsic level of employee engagement. The design of initiatives that create intrinsic motivation, interest in work, enthusiasm to excel, bring role clarity, reward the right outcomes, and so on.

As a closing statement to this article, I would like to say, that the essence of employee engagement is intrinsic motivation of individual human beings that comes from how jobs are designed, how roles enliven human beings, how leadership motivates, and how culture builds excitement and enthusiasm and supports positive engagement, that matters above all.

  Aneeta Madhok, MBA (XLRI), PhD. Is a global management professional. She is the Director of Open Spaces Consulting (Private) Limited and the past Chairperson for the International Council of Management Consulting Institutes. Aneeta graduated with a degree in Psychology Honours from Delhi University and completed her MBA in Human Resources and Organisation Development from XLRI, Jamshedpur. She undertook doctoral studies and completed her Ph.D. in the field of Managerial Leadership and Work Motivation in 1991. Aneeta looks for opportunities to translate management practice into theory and vice versa. She is keenly interested in the ways that individuals integrate themselves with organizations and group dynamics in teams. Her research and consulting work has led her to provide insights and management process solutions to several leading organizations. She has to her credit over 70 publications including refereed articles, consulting projects, newspaper articles and book reviews published nationally and internationally. She is also the Past President of the Institute of Management Consultants of India, fellow of Sumedhas Academy for Human Context, a Certified Management Consultant and has been the recipient of scholarship awarded by the Foreign Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, and the Best Management Teacher award of the Bombay Management Association.