Engagement

If employees truly are a company’s best asset, then their care and support should be a priority. Is “engagement” the way to do the caring and growing?

Engagement is an enormously appealing concept. We seem to intuitively understand what it means, and believe that it helps to explain something about how people are (or ought to be) at work. The problem, of course, is that many of us have different understandings of what engagement is. We all believe that it is a good thing to be engaged, particularly in contrast to being disengaged, which suggests absence. And yet, there are nearly as many definitions as there are writers. Checking for titles at Amazon, you will find in excess of 3569 titles on the topic. Prof Google offers 6 880 000 internet options.

The “engagement industry” seems to be going the way of the “leadership industry” (for a good expose Pfeffer’s most recent book “LeadershipBS” is a good starting point):

1. The leadership industry is huge, with estimates ranging up to $14billion per year.
2. ROI on this leadership investment is questionable, and some authors like Pfeffer state the effect is questionable (none) to damaging.
3. The lack of universal definitions or concepts shows the confusion and therefore a problem in validating concept, assessment, implementation and results. It took Gallup nearly 16 years to pinpoint the term “engagement” and come up with a valid way, and big enough data base, of measuring and tracking this elusive phenomenon. “Ultimately,” say Wagner and Harter, “what emerged are the 12 elements of work life that define the unwritten social contract between employee and employer. Through their answers to the dozen most important questions and their daily actions that affected performance, the workers were saying, ‘If you do these things for us, we will do what the company needs of us.’” 12: The Elements of Great Managing by Rodd Wagner, a principal at Gallup, and James K. Harter (source: http://gmj.gallup.com).
4. Yet: Some Buddhists believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, as many paths as there are seekers. Business philosophy, however, considers that idea problematic. Business leaders don’t want many paths to enlightenment, or in their case, to business results like employee engagement and the benefits it brings. They want one simple, straight, predictable path. (source: “Many Paths to Engagement” by Jennifer Robison. http://gmj.gallup.com). Ergo: the next best simple answer gets bought.

To consider Schuitema’s contribution to the field, I will start with a definition from the person who coined the term: “Personal engagement is the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances.” (“Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.” Kahn, William A. Academy of Management Journal; Dec 1990; 33, 4). Kahn’s thinking eludes to the worker’s responsibility to be “engaged.” Rightly, the question could then be: “what would make it so?”

As a member of Schuitema I would put three questions on the table:

1. Is the person working in an environment created by a “want to” manager (manager from heaven) where care and grow is reflected by enabling means, ability and accountability? This imply that the person would be held accountable for their engagement (“active, full role performances” – Kahn above), and is an expression of the quality of the care and grow exercised by their immediate manager.
2. Is the person in a relationship of legitimate power, wherein they give permission to be led? This process could contribute to the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional.” (Kahn above).
3. Is the quality of the relationship in terms of means and ends such that the person is experiencing themselves as the result (“achieving people through results”) and not as a resource (“means to achieve results”)? “Do you use your people to get results, or do you use results and the work environment to enable you to care for and grow your people?” “At their current stage in life, millennials fundamentally think about their role as a steppingstone and a growth opportunity. They want to feel deeply committed to their role and want to work for a manager who will invest in their development.” (Brandon Rigoni and Amy Adkins: “Millennial Job-Hoppers: What They Seek”. http://gmj.gallup.com). I would raise the rhetorical question: is this statement only applicable to millennials? Of course not!

Personally, I would be wary of any “engagement process” where the word “engagement” is not a verb but an attribute. Engagement is to be done, not to be “haved”.