It is not every day that the topic of employee engagement gets the spotlight. A lot of us know it is there; some think it is important, others not so much. Paul Hebert from Incentive Intelligence has helped develop a debate on the relevance of employee engagement in a wider forum that is customary.
While I cannot agree with Paul’s conclusions, he makes a very solid argument. Like him, I encourage everyone that studies employee engagement (and other employee attitudes), or sells a related service to join the debate. Odds are good that you will learn something. I know I already have.
Update: I have left a comment on the debate site, but I thought I should recreate them here as well. I said:
This is an interesting debate; one I hope gathers plenty of attention. I find that I simultaneously agree and disagree with Paul.
The source of my agreement lies with the idea that poor management is a very large contributor to our current economic situation. Fixing that goes a long way towards getting us out of it.
My disagreement stems from the idea that management-focused interventions are also engagement-focused interventions. Employee satisfaction with their managers repeatedly shows up as a major driver (predictor) of employee engagement.
Employee engagement is not a “let’s be happy” type of concept, though it draws considerably from employee affective reactions to their supervision, their organization and its leadership. Engagement also draws from employee cognitions to predict exemplary levels of performance. If we can accept that in every sample of employees some will consistently outperform others, then we can accept the idea of engagement.
Is promoting engagement more important than staying solvent? No. Can you stay solvent without engaged employees? Only if none of your competitors have engaged employees.
Thanks for the links. I will make sure to read through and leave some feedback.
This is an interesting conversation. I will have to check out the debate Paul has started. I agree that employee engagement is more than attitudes. However, I believe it is much larger than the manager. here are two links that talk to employee engagement:
http://theengagementfactor.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/wow-what-a-difference-and-employee-makes/
http://theengagementfactor.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/what-is-employee-engagement/
@ Paul- Thank you for beginning this discussion. I really hope it gains some traction. A lot of organizations are selling and buying engagement products and services (my own included) and it is important that all parties really understand what engagement means (and what it doesn’t mean). I think these conversations will go a long way in clarifying the concept.
I appreciate you taking the time to post a response on the Business Week site. As you alluded to the point here isn’t to reach agreement as much as it is to advance the thinking. You’ve done that with your comments.
To be clear – I do believe it is critically important to provide ongoing initiatives that help keep the employees engaged in their company. My rant was more along the lines of companies abdicating the responsibility to “programs” while operating differently.
To me it’s a yin/yang thing. You can’t have one without the other but in tough times – let’s move the needle more to the side of running a tight ship rather than push employees to be “engaged” through poorly designed and transparent programs (ie: pizza day)
I explained a bit more on my site today.
http://tinyurl.com/lh6s84
Check the post for some context for the “pro” position on Business Week.
Thanks for the comments! Great stuff lately on your blog as well.
Pingback: Employee Engagement Debate