Ch-ch-ch-changes: How Employee Engagement Can Make or Break Your Organizational Transformation
Employee Engagement Matters More During Change than Leaders Might Expect
 |
| http://www.alliancetechnologiesllc.com/ |
If you still equate employee engagement to happiness fueled by free sodas in the break room and perpetually cheery senior leaders … well, you’re missing out on one of employee engagement’s most important functions: to help organizations navigate through challenging changes.
In my dissertation research, the employee engagement practitioners I interviewed made a point to explain that employee engagement is meaningful not only during boom times, but also during some of the hardest periods that businesses face: leadership changes, mergers and redundancies. As one noted:
“During a redundancy, people may see colleagues leaving their jobs. If they understand why their jobs were eliminated and what the long-term outlook for the organization is, they may still be engaged with the organization because they know the rationale for the decision-making, and they can have a voice and say what they want to in the business if they like. But they wouldn’t be satisfied or happy.”
In fact, engaging employees during these periods can make or break an organizational transformation. Why? Fundamentally, many people don’t like change, and they really don’t like change that they didn’t choose. We may know intellectually that certain aspects of our environment are out of our control, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.
When it comes to managing through change, the best leaders I've worked with are the ones who intuitively understand a few simple concepts:
1. Change is much more likely to succeed if people are on-board. As the quote above illustrates, it is possible to align employees with the next right step for the business, whether or not they agree. All that’s necessary is to explain transparently how the business got to the decision it did. Remember that deep down everyone wants the same thing: a healthy organization in a strong position to meet its objectives.
2. People don’t need you as a leader to have all the answers, they just need you to treat them with respect. This goes back to the one most important thing underlying employee engagement: a mutually trusting and communicative relationship. Your employees are bright and capable people – otherwise you wouldn’t have hired them. They know that sometimes there are no easy answers. But if you treat them like adults, they’re much more likely to act like them.
3. Change will result in churn. It’s naïve to think that even the best leader can manage through change without consequences. Some people are not going to want to participate in an organization after certain changes. That’s OK – you don’t need everyone to like you. But you should be smart about identifying at the start of every change effort who you NEED to keep and taking actions to engage and retain this talent specifically.
Managing through change is always challenging, but having a foundation of employee engagement can help you navigate organizational transformation successfully.
6 comments:
Hazen- see my comment to your previous post. I think it also applies here. I have to disagree (surprise, surprise) to a certain extent. It's not that people don't like change, it's that they don't like change they don't understand or agree with- regardless of what others think is best or who chose it. When an organization has truly involved/engaged employees, changes are embraced and understood because they are part of the process. They can see the future impact (+ or -) and adjust accordingly. Organizations with involved/engaged employees are positioned for change and growth. Because you cannot have growth without some sort of change.
As always, thanks Ted for your insights! I would like to think that an organization could evolve to the point where change is continuously embraced, but I do not believe that’s a reasonable expectation in most cases. The experts I interviewed for my research, for example, noted that engagement levels can fluctuate a bit each day even in the most highly engaged populations, and no population is going to be 100% engaged all the time. So you've got to be practical and have plans in place that acknowledge the truths of human nature (at least, that's what I recommend).
It appears that we do agree that organizations can take steps to put programs and processes in place that facilitate engagement and through that make change more palatable to employee populations. Your point about involving employees in change efforts is of course valid and has been demonstrated in change research independent of the employee engagement construct. Have you seen any particularly good examples of organization case studies that you think exemplify best practices?
In one case, when I was with OCS, we did a process improvement project at one of the DFCS offices. Without getting into too much detail, this involved including the local workforce to determine and design the changes that were needed. Prior to the week we were on-sight, one of the Case Workers had tendered her resignation. Suggesting that the work load was too much. After the changes were made, she decided to stay because the work was no longer too overwhelming. In this process, the workers had the most "say" in what changes were to be made. "Managements" role was to approve them and help navigate any conflicts between the organization's mission and the work to be done (i.e.- you can't stop providing the service just because it is hard to do). In my experience, anytime management gives up control in the change effort, and allows the workforce to determine what to change, the changes are more stable and long lasting. But in order for this to happen, management must change. Their structure and processes must be in line with continuous improvement and change. Without that the organization will revert to what ever levels and conduct was the norm prior to implemented change efforts.
You're right, organizations can evolve, and you're experts are right also, in that employee engagement will ebb and flow over time. As organizations work to improve these things will happen, but my main point is that if organizations only focus on getting employees engaged and do not address the organizational structure, then they will continue to see ups and downs in employee engagement. By addressing the core managerial structure and process, firms can both increase and stabilize engagement levels without having to re-energize the workforce on constant basis.
PS- with the new school hear starting- I am missing these type of exchanges. Thanks for starting this blog. It helps me to keep my wheels turning. You know how I love a great back and forth discussion- even when I am completely off the mark.
Ted, you're never off the mark! Though I can't always promise to agree with you ;-).
In this case you're spot on, and thanks for sharing the example. Pati & Kumar (2010) emperically demonstrated a link between employee engagement and "organizational support" which I think is a version of the construct to which you are referring. Looping back to our original semantic misalignment, I think of it as people are going to support change that they helped create.
I also agree that leadership teams that see their role as removing barriers are likely to get the best ROI from engagement. After all, what's the point of having a Ferrari in the garage if the door stays closed and she never even sees the driveway?
I think that is among such a lot vital info for me and I am very enjoyed to reading all comment. It is really very impressive discuss. employee engagement
Post a Comment