Why is employee engagement a growing problem?

Who is engaging the leadership? Engagement flows down (and sideways - meaning we each have responsibility for our own engagement - the 50/50 discussion) and we seem to think our leaders are either immune, or at the very least only engaged by money & position. If the CEO is doing nothing for his/her direct reports, they won't for theirs ad infinitum.

We will only get employee engagement when all are working toward it - top and bottom.

Additionally, we always want to believe that employee engagement is something you can create with all employees. The fact is that in many instances, the wrong person was hired and will never connect with the mission/values of the organization to a degree that will drive a great relationship and the desire to contribute discretionary effort. Until we get the hiring part right - the engagement part can't happen. Or won't happen to the degree we "expect" it to.

And... since it rarely impacts quarterly profits - it rarely get's full attention. Engagement is a slog - and businesses don't like those kinds of solutions (in general.)

Engagement is the buzz word in every organization, however there are tremendous external influences in the ecosystem, which fails to garner the needful buzz around this initiative.

Especially markets like India, where an employee is being targeted by various headhunters on a full-time basis, with ludicrous job offers (sans any reference to their employability, experience), the engagement push is never a winner.

If at every levels of the organization, if someone is able to poll in 10% of their immediate reporting structure to be engaged with the corporate vision/strategy & deliver, I think organizations have acheived something.

Ray -- All of your suggestions are reasonable assuming the cost is not prohibitive but....................... What is the employee's responsibility in engagement?

It seems to me that it is at least a 50/50 proposition with the employee perhaps having greater than 50% of the responsibility for their own attitudes belief systems, biases and behaviors.

Too much externalizing about why there is a lack of engagement on the part of employees seems to be coming from HR Departments. Employee engagement is an inside job (just as motivation is) and if the leader of the company understands that, he or she will create that culture.

It is always the leader. Leader engagement is at an all time low. As the leader goes, so go the employee(s). Amazing, clear, possible vision often takes second seat in a leader's (read: person who holds the position at the top of the organization) mind to keeping the job versus doing it. Top down, invigorating alignment, communication and trust with accountability for results in an authentic way are worth working for, around and with. If an employee doesn't have that environment, created by the leader, in exchange for pay, they probably are just fine with it and stay.

I suggest never ever blaming lack of engagement at work on anyone. Go look in the mirror and engage yourself in a conversation of gratitude for any little or big thing you can do to engage others and yourself whether your leadership group gets it or not. Get up in the morning and decide to engage. And (shameless plug here) be sure you are personally accountable for your success at work http://www.85percentsolution.com/assessment.aspx A peek into your own mindset and engagement with your definition of success for yourself at work never hurts.

IMHO: 'Engagement' is just a label crafted to conveniently bundle the myriad problems, issues, challenges, influences, dynamics, and multi-dimensional characteristics that define the relationship between employer and employee (and work). I submit that we need to stop trying to solve for this illusive concept; yes, it has been defined and quantified and is broadly accepted as the benchmark for employment success, but it's old and tired and quite frankly a cop out. Much of what we're talking about is inherent to any human interaction - it is in our dna. It has evolved, but it still goes to the root: how do you find "meaning", "purpose", and/or "reward" in what you do. And it can't always be the employer's responsibility to provide that meaning. They can certainly try. But ultimately, it's up to the individual to find that (and the institute or the "work" that can provide it) themselves.

I believe there are two primary problems: Lack of corporate commitment and the challenge of managing generational differences.

As companies are pressed to pinch every penny, resources that don't directly contribute to the bottom line are consistently being taken away. HR departments are being downsized and expense budgets are being cut.

Additionally, companies and their respective managers are finding it increasingly difficult to manage the personality types of multiple generations (boomers, Xers, Ys and Zs). Each generation has different values and needs - most companies barely recognize this, let alone take action.

"Engage" What does this word mean in context? I agree with previous comments that this word is mainly a catch-all for a myriad of employee problems and issues. Most of these problems stem from a basic dichotomy between what leaders say vs, what they do. That dichotomy breeds distrust, and it really does not matter what else we do or say if distrust exists.

Engaged, to my thinking, means an employee is actively a part of the team, not only performing their duties well but also assisting others and working full circle to the benefit of the team as an entity.

For this to occur, managers must understand team dynamics and build a culture that supports those dynamics. This means a culture of beliefs and trust, not rules and policies.

When a true team begins to emerge, engagement comes automatically from winning as a team.

Think about it; what happens when a sports team wins, especially when the win results from a hard fought battle? Euphoria, right? And that euphoria is infectious, spreading to extended team members and even fans. That euphoria also causes a team to desire winning again, and to work hard in the next context.

It is a common misconception in management circles that 'individuals' need to be rewarded to increase engagement and drive. Individual success and reward may increase that individual's drive, but it is not euphoric, infectious, or motivational to a team. Instead, consider switching to a team model, rewarding team successes and creating a winning environment.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

You may have answered your own question, i.e., we know this but few companies do anything about it. Or is your question why no one is doing anything when we know what the problem is?

Chances are, companies that are taking positive action to ensure leaders have listening skills, give constructive and regular feedback, praise and recognize a job well done, invite ideas, etc., have higher levels of engagement. Whereas the ones that just passively 'know' about it probably don't.

Problem??? I thought it was an opportunity. As managers we are constantly faced with the challenge determining where to focus our time and energy. The immediate needs of productivity, cost and revenue often drive behaviour at the expense of longer term transformational behaviour. Service delivery, competition and making the numbers are our management accountabilities but what about our leadership accountability?

As part of a management team we need to ensure efficiency, controlling inputs and processes, maintaining the means of production and managing materials. We manage people too, we try to select the right people, orientate them and organise them into teams matching them to tasks and setting standards. This is a comparatively process driven set of parameters and actions. The bit that takes us the next step and delivers excellent results is about leadership and tapping into the discretionary potential that exists within each of our employees.

Discretionary effort is a function of engagement... the degree to which people are internally connected and orientated to the organisations core purpose. This is the basis of performance above which is required for the team member to maintain their employment. This is about an employee’s desire to go beyond just collecting their pay and having some skin in the game for building a high performing organisation. It is a willingness to be interested and engaged in assisting the organisation in the accomplishment of its goals.

How do leaders tap the discretionary effort that all members of their teams possess? First and foremost they create an environment where team members can contribute ideas. This means they strive to treat each team member as a partner, not an equal in terms of accountability, but as a contributing ‘grown up’ who is expected to contribute ideas and is recognised for generating ideas to make things better. This means making and taking the time to share an understanding of issues faced by the business and helping employees rise above self-interest to be more interested in the good of the whole team and/or organisation.

Sustainable change occurs when leaders engage people in a compelling future that is better than their current reality and rally them to feel they are part of an achieving team. People come to work to be treated as contributing adults engaged in producing results. They want to feel the engagement and satisfaction that comes from being recognised as being part of something that works.

Commitment is the essential element in sustaining capability in a resource constrained environment. Commitment is a function of culture, not so much the ‘soft’ intangible messages in the organisation’s values but more in the real origins of culture - the financial delegations, purchasing authorities, communication protocols and all those other ‘hard’ business processes that are a proxy for trust and which shape peoples’ behaviour. Leaders are the guardians of culture which is largely determined by how hard or easy it is to get things done. If it is punishing to follow process and rewarding to take short cuts, then that will reinforce certain behaviours. Look at your business processes to understand your culture.

The most important contribution that leaders can give their people is a "vision" of what the organisation is all about, what it is trying to achieve and how it will do this. People want to know three things;
1. what is the big picture,
2. what’s my part and
3. how will I know how I’m going?
Individuals make discretionary effort choices based on the answers to these questions. Beware the satisfaction survey. You want engaged people who are dissatisfied with the status quo.

Some great points being made. I like ---is it the right question, and there should be a contributing environment, and even that maybe employee shouldn't be coddled. Yet employee engagement problems are growing throughout the country in many industries. Way before the economy.

So let me restate -- if we know there is a problem and we know how to handle it --- why does it keep happening and growing?

Thanks for the thoughts.

Jason is certainly on the right track. We're dealing with a variety of unhealthy attitudes in the workplace (entitlement, laziness, etc) and, in some ways, we need to get back to basics.

All of the data supports the notion that what employees want most is:

1. Challenging work to do

2. Appropriate rewards & recognition for good work performed

3. A good relationship with their immediate manager

If we can accomplish these three things then people can make the choice to be engaged. We need to treat all people with dignity and respect and, as employers, we have the right to expect a certain level of performance.

Have high standards, manage to those standards (set measurable goals) provide meaningful feedback & appropriate coaching and demand excellence.

You will find that your best people thrive is this environment and your marginal performers will go to work for the competition.

Employee engagement is a problem in those organization where personal factors are missing or there is lack of two way communications. With email being dominant communication mode and virtual working places, now a days a different engagement strategy is required.
We have started a structured communications platforms :
1. Telecon & Teleconference meetings
2. Quaterly Performance Reviews
3. Senior Executive Management Business Meetings fortnightly which forces them to interact with their immediate Managers & Vice Presidents for analysis of their work.
4. Luncheon group meetings frequently
5. Safety Talk and Health Newsletter frequency increased
6. Morning Department Meetings
7. Company Medical Check-up twice increased and Scope increased
8. Company T-Shirts with different designs are given twice a year.
9. Training for happiness and mental health introduced
10. Changing mobile phones with new models every 3 months

Liz,
As some point out this maybe the biggest productivity improvement opportunity we have seen in 40 years.
The issue I believe is that "leaders" want to apply systemic (technological) solutions to relationship issues. Engagement is about relationships between individuals and between individuals and organizations.
I have been teaching organizations the upside of "engagement" (although I haven't always called that)for the last 15 years.
Up until now it has been cheaper in the short term (we thought) to outsource, downsize and other short term methods rather than address root causes. We still refer to things like settin g clear performance expectations, giving feedback, and good hiring as "soft skills".
John is also absolutely correct that much of the responsibility for engagement (at least 50%) lies with the individual employee.
I would assert we have to retrain them. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution we created a social contract that moved away from personal competence and to a kind of corporate/organizational codependency in exchange for compliance. Now the codependency has gotten expensive so we don't want to provide anymore.
If you or anyone else is suffering from insomnia I have written about these things pretty extensively in my book, my blog, and a series of articles. They are all available at my website.

Liz,
As some point out this maybe the biggest productivity improvement opportunity we have seen in 40 years.
The issue I believe is that "leaders" want to apply systemic (technological) solutions to relationship issues. Engagement is about relationships between individuals and between individuals and organizations.
I have been teaching organizations the upside of "engagement" (although I haven't always called that)for the last 15 years.
Up until now it has been cheaper in the short term (we thought) to outsource, downsize and other short term methods rather than address root causes. We still refer to things like settin g clear performance expectations, giving feedback, and good hiring as "soft skills".
John is also absolutely correct that much of the responsibility for engagement (at least 50%) lies with the individual employee.
I would assert we have to retrain them. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution we created a social contract that moved away from personal competence and to a kind of corporate/organizational codependency in exchange for compliance. Now the codependency has gotten expensive so we don't want to provide anymore.
If you or anyone else is suffering from insomnia I have written about these things pretty extensively in my book, my blog, and a series of articles. They are all available at my website.

Employees have not changed, circumstances have. Labor turnover rates are at an all time high. In today's world employees are thankful they have a job, they keep their heads down and maintain business as usual. To do anything else is, in their minds, risky.

The environment in many companies is unstable. Employees have seen leaders come and leaders go, with each change the vision has shifted. Employees who were brave enough to engage with leaders who have now left the organization are at risk.

Of course I generalize. There are some great companies out there who have a constancy of purpose and leadership. In these market leader companies you find employee engagement is not an issue. Everybody feels like they are on a winning team and are more than ready to play.

So, in short, to answer the question, the apparent increase in employees not well engaged is directly related to economic uncertainty, at home and in the business. If you want to fix this issue you need to make your business successful and to do this you hire the best leaders.

Mark -- I'll be looking for your blog posts on the subject. It would seem that we are of a mind on most of the engagement situations.

When I was doing the research for my book, "Running The Corporate Rapids" (Amazon.com), I began with the Industrial Revolution and chronicled American workers and management attitudes from then to the present.

We're all in need of some retraining about how we see the employer/employee agreement these days.

The answer is that hiring managers never stop recruiting (attracting the potential recruit) when in fact they should start the selection (rejection process) process.

They never pay the price up front of their own volition by practicing interview techniques which are designed to uncover the one condition which exists that would almost certainly lead to the recruit experiencing the 90 day blues and subsequent disenchantment and failure to merge with the corporate values and style.

Result; another vacancy to fill.

Lots of in-depth analysis in the answers, great. That helps us understand "engagement" as non-HR pros as we concentrate on social strategy and the social enterprise and see that being built from the inside out. We've called that "engagement", but reading above perhaps that's too loose a term.

While we are to learn more about "engagement", what ever it is, we believe that it is fundamental to a business becoming a social enterprise. We explain that here Demystifying Qantas and Social Media http://igo2group.com.au/blog/demistfying-qantas-and-social-media/

Walter @adamson

Enough already on the over cooked hyperbole on generational differences. Most of it is all air. We know for a fact that the core issues of engagement are shared across all employees and are not age or generationally variable.

You might enjoy a piece I wrote a while back called the New Social Contract. It is posted on my website. I will also be publishing an ebook on the topic shortly.
Have a greatt holiday!