Why how employees feel matters to business success, and what leaders can do to change it
 |
| www.farhanadhalla.com |
For those of us who have worked in employee engagement, or even just been engaged employees, it makes perfect sense that engagement has an emotional component: when we're engaged, we feel good. We're energetic, focused and committed. We're enthusiastic and excited. We bring a little extra umph to what we do.
I have yet to find a serious employee engagement model that doesn't acknowledge the "feeling" part of being engaged. From an academic standpoint, the affective part of engagement is one of the better understood components. Schaufeli et al. (2002) say engagement is made up of vigor (energy and resilience); dedication (commitment and pride); and absorption (getting lost in one's work). These emotive descriptors of engagement are widely accepted in the academic community, and I used this model to capture the emotional component of engagement in my dissertation research.
But for companies, the real challenge is not to characterize which emotions are part of engagement. It's to understand how to change the way employees feel about the work they are doing in their organization. Changing how people think can be done through logic, argument and persuasion. But to change how they feel requires a different sort of approach: it requires connecting at a deeper level.
How can your company start connecting with employees at a deeper level? Well, think about what works best in your one-on-one relationships with other people, then scale up. Feeling good in a relationship stems from trust. How do you build trust in a relationship? You do it through open, honest and respectful communication. You do it through being trustworthy over time. You show one another that you care through small acts of consideration. You acknowledge when things are going well, and give each other the benefit of the doubt when they aren't so smooth.
As with many things, this may be easier said than done. But, as leaders, we can do something about turning the tide in our own areas: we can practice these behaviors in the best ways available to us in this moment. When we do this, we may even find ourselves more engaged!
7 comments:
Hum... I wonder how well the dimension of reciprocity had been explored in the literature? Engagement has been identified as a worthy characteristic because of all the benefits if provides for the company. However, in practice it seems to be treated as an expectation -just like professionalism is- rather than the outcome of a carefully managed, mutually satisfying relationship. The best leaders I have had the privilege to work with have created an environment in which employees wanted to be engaged ongoingly. Thank you for the thought provoking
Thanks for your comments, Isabelle. I think you are absolutely right. There are very few things less engaging than an employee engagement program created in a "check-the-box" kind of spirit!
Your comment touches on a critical and under-explored aspect of engagement, which is the degree to which the individual leader manifests the employment relationship for staff, becoming the focus of engagement on a day-to-day basis for employees. As leaders, we may be hesitent to acknowledge how important we can be, because none of us are perfect and many things that effect engagement are out of our control. Nevertheless, when we are engaged in our roles as leaders, we create a powerful example and a nurturing environment in which engagement can thrive!
Hazen- check out this article (link below) regarding hiring "competent" people. The comments are mixed, but the author makes some interesting points. I think the main point is that we should not be hiring for only "competence," but rather looking at the whole individual. How does this jive with your research? Are competent people engaged? Or do they become less engaged?
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130623225812-15454-the-top-10-reasons-not-to-hire-competent-people?trk=tod-home-art-large_0
Thanks for sharing, Ted! I agree that Adler's tone is likely deliberately polarizing to encourage rich debate, and he doesn't cite any studies to back up his assertions... but that doesn't mean he's not onto something!
My research shows that believing one's self to be competent and having a motivation to contribute are BOTH components of employee engagement, which in turn leads to good business outcomes like creativity and productivity.
However, as a practitioner, I've also seen what happens when someone is so capable that they aren't being challenged in their role and they perceive no opportunities for growth: they can disengage. So it's critical for leaders not only to hire the right people into the right roles (as you and Adler suggest), but also to find ways to develop and grow employees who want to develop and grow. It's true that skills can be trained, but the story doesn't end there. Once the skills are trained, if you've hired someone intrisically motivated, you've got to continue to help fulfill that drive.
At least that's my perspective :-)
Agreed; but there is more to it as well. Managers must assume some ownership of there employees careers. A manger who stands in the way of an employees advancement- even when that means said employee would leave the direct supervision of the manager- does more harm than good. Although the employee may have a heightened sense of pride and self-worth based on the implied compliment "you are too valuable to me/us", that will not last. Eventually, the managers blocking tactics will be seen as self-serving and controlling. So while the manager thinks he is getting the best out of a competent employee for the benefit of the organization, he is really sewing the seeds of discontent and disengagement. She is also setting the stage for truly motivated and engaged future employee prospects to remove themselves from a career path that travels through the managers employ. This could reduce the available competent AND engaged employee talent pool, thus reducing the potential for success.
That's how i see it.
Hi Ted,
Good point. There is no question that the manager plays a critical role as an amplifier or "blocker" of engagement! I think you'll recognize this as a "moderation" effect ;-). It's a shame that in many organizations, first-line managers receive little training about how to facilitate engagement through building relationships with reciprocal trust and open communication. They are often selected for their technical skills (Adler's point again!) and fail to develop management practices that nurture employee engagement.
Great article. Keep posting such kind of information on уοur site. I am really impressed by it. See more at:- http://www.blanchardinternational.co.in/leadership-development-strategy
Post a Comment