Embedded Files
Why you can't have one without the other
Summary
Engagement, the combination of motivation and commitment that typically leads to superior employee performance and productivity, is increasingly recognized as having a direct effect on organizational success. However, the link between performance-related communication and employee engagement has been underestimated as a critical factor in determining how engaged the vast majority of employees are, or will become.
Employee Engagement Levels: Still Discouraging
The statistics on employee engagement are disheartening to say the least.
Gallup has been tracking the metric of employee engagement for 20 years. In 2000, they found that just 26% of employee were engaged, while 18% were actively disengaged. Over time, these numbers remained relatively stable until recently. After a historic high early in engagement levels in May 2020 of 38% (the highest since Gallup started tracking the metric in 2000), they found this was followed by a historic drop to 31%. Meanwhile, the figures for employees who were actively disengaged stayed about the same at 14%.
Taking into consideration three Gallup measures of employee engagement in that year, the overall percentage of engaged workers during 2020 was only 31%.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/313313/historic-drop-employee-engagement-follows-record-rise.aspx
While any improvements over time are to be celebrated, it is still true that a vast majority of employees, over two thirds, continue to be “under-engaged” to a greater or lesser extent. In other words, they put in time, but not energy or passion. They remain unattached to their work or the company they work for.
Impact of employee engagement on personal and organizational success
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that employees who are not engaged are unhappy employees. In and of itself this is a problem, but the ramifications at the organizational level are also significant. Some statistics:
Employee engagement increases productivity in the workplace. Engaged employees outperform their peers that are not engaged. Overall, companies with high employee engagement are 21% more profitable.
Employee engagement reduces absenteeism. In fact, a Gallup study shows that highly engaged workplaces saw 41% lower absenteeism.
Low employee engagement is a costly problem! It costs businesses $4,129 on average to hire new talent, and around $986 to onboard the new hire. That means you lose over $5,000 each time an employee walks out the door, not to mention the unquantifiable cost of losing an experienced employee!
https://blog.smarp.com/employee-engagement-8-statistics-you-need-to-know
Improving employee engagement: The “why” is obvious, the “how” is not
The logic is inescapable. The more motivated employees are the more likely they are to commit to the organization, to make the organization’s goals their own, and to take pride in working hard to achieve them.
Tapping into this lucrative font of engagement productivity therefore remains an enduring and alluring objective. Given the potential payoff it is no wonder that HR professionals are interested in ways to increase employee engagement levels within their organizations.
But how? There were some spectacular successes. For example, as far back as 2001 FISH!* (the story of how a Seattle Fish Market was transformed when its employees became highly committed and mentally engaged by having fun at work) became a phenomenon. However, as most organizations that bought the book and tried to implement the formula found out, replicating this type of success has proved elusive.
*FISH! A Remarkable Way to Boost Morale and Improve Results by Stephen Lunden, Harry Paul and John Christensen, Published by Michel Lafon, 2001
FISH!
This huge and well-marketed success gave a tantalizing glimpse into the spectacular potential productivity gains that were possible simply by improving employee engagement levels.
What made the whole idea even more enticing was that these results were simply “out there” and free for the taking. There seemed to be no need for the injection of costly resources in order to make them happen.
The result was that many HR professionals thought that if one organization had been so spectacularly successful in transforming the attitude and productivity of its employees, then it must be possible to copy their methods and duplicate the results in others. Consequently, many organizations jumped on the bandwagon and tried to transfer the formula by providing their own employees with the accompanying “training”.
However, replicating the original success proved elusive. Certainly, as could have been predicted, quick fixes, like showing the FISH video to managers and saying, “Go forth and create fun”, or gimmicky attempts, such as flinging (hopefully pretend) fish around conference tables and factory floors, did not have the desired effect.
While well intentioned, the imposed “just change your attitude and you too will be happy and productive like these good employees” training was sometimes perceived as contrived and often ridiculous. In fact, it may even have contributed to the disillusionment that many employees felt towards their employers – especially those in large organizations who may have felt that it was another (albeit “fishier”) flavour-of-the-month initiative.
FISH! certainly made a lot of money though!
What we know about what employees need to be engaged
If such manufactured approaches to improving employee engagement levels don’t really work then what does? It is generally accepted that the following twelve factors are those that are most relevant to employee engagement. These happen to be taken from and old iconic management book from 1999 (First, Break All The Rules), but a modified version of this list is still used by Gallap in 2021 to measure the metric of employee engagement.
What is particularly striking about this list is that a full eight (those highlighted in blue and in italics) of these 12 items require that managers “talk” to employees about their performance and potential.
Know what is expected of them.
Are provided with the necessary materials and equipment to do the job.
Have the opportunity to do what they do best (i.e., there is a good “fit” between their talents and skills and the type of job they are doing).
Receive recognition or praise for doing good work.
Feel that their supervisors care about them.
Have someone who encourages their development.
Know that their opinions count.
Believe in their company’s mission/purpose.
Think that peers and coworkers also do quality work (i.e., chronic poor performance is not tolerated).
Have a best friend at work
Have a manager that talks to them about their progress.
Are given opportunities to lean and grow.
First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman .Simon & Schuster, May 5, 1999 (1st edition)
The critical role of the individual manager in employee engagement
What stands out about all the research on engagement is that so much of what employees need to be engaged requires that their direct managers show employees that they care about how they are doing, help them to do well, encourage and give recognition for good performance and help them to grow to achieve their potential. It also requires that this communication happen in a way that fosters good working relationships.
To illustrate why it is so important for managers to talk to their employees about performance, think about a great manager you had or have heard about. While he or she undoubtedly had many good qualities, what makes this person stand out in your mind is probably related to the extent to which he or she helped you to be successful in your actual job and helped you to reach your potential. For example, this great manager probably:
1. Helped you to do well in the current job
He or she probably went out of his or her way to do everything possible to help you to do a good job. You probably had good training, were given the proper tools and resources, and received excellent coaching, and guidance to do the job.
Whatever form this coaching and guidance took, it definitely involved “talking” to you about “how you were doing” with a view to helping you to succeed to the best of your ability. For example, when you did not do well, he or she let you know without making you feel bad or “rubbing your nose in it” and then provided helpful information that showed you how you could do better. (Remember, even if they tried to be "nice" they could easily have inadvertently created these negative effects.) On the other hand, when you performed well, he or she also took the time to recognize and appreciate that performance in a way that made you feel good about yourself and your performance.
"The secret principle of human nature is the craving to be appreciated." William James.
Always Money?
Note that this recognition and appreciation did not necessarily, or usually for that matter, mean that you received a monetary reward. Money can be a reward, but recognition comes in many ways, not the least of which is simple appreciation for a job well done and the satisfaction that comes from knowing that you did good work and that others admire and respect you for it.
For a more detailed explanation see Article #6: “How Can I Motivate My Employees”?
2. Helped you to develop to your potential
Your manager probably also gave you guidance that helped you realistically identify and pursue your career aspirations.
This may have involved discussing your talents and strengths, the areas where you could develop further, and areas that you needed to work on with a view to helping you to identify the best match between your strengths and potential and organizational requirements. He or she may then have provided advice, training, and other kinds of opportunities that prepared you to realize your goals.
Always Promotion?
Note that this did not necessarily, or usually, mean continued upward promotion. What probably was important was that you were happy doing your actual job. If you hadn’t reached your potential at that time, then you probably believed that you still had the opportunity to reach it. Good feedback enables employees to have realistic expectations about how far they can go. It is those employees with unrealistic aspirations that are the ones who are constantly disappointed when they do not get promoted.
If your manager did both these things well, then the chances are that you did better in the job. As you did better and received praise and recognition for your efforts, you probably felt better about yourself and more confident in your abilities – which almost certainly improved your motivation to want to continue to work hard and make the organization’s goals your own. In other words, it is unlikely that you ever had to be pushed to work hard. In fact, you probably became more proactive of your own accord, looking for opportunities that would help you to do a better job. In other words, you were a proactive, highly engaged, and therefore productive employee.
You have probably worked for the odd poor manager as well as a few “acceptable” ones and can therefore compare your experiences. If so, then you can probably relate to the situations outlined below.
Poor managers: Luckily, chronically poor managers (like chronically poor employees) are in the minority. They shouldn’t even be in a managerial role because they either they lack the understanding and skill to manage employees properly, or because they are not motivated to care about them or help them succeed. However, and for various reasons, some inevitably find their way into such positions. If you’ve ever been unfortunate enough to work for a manager like this then you know how depressing it can be and there is no need to outline the negative effects that he or she had on your motivation to want to go the extra mile.
Acceptable managers: Most managers (like most employees) fall into this category. They are just trying to do the best they can with the knowledge and skills at their disposal. Any negative effects that their behaviour or actions have on their employees therefore tend to be inadvertent. For example, these managers, while they were nice enough and also made sure that you had the necessary resources in order to do the job, probably had a more neutral effect on your motivation and engagement level because they did not demonstrate the same level of interest in your success. Nor did they actively help you to achieve by talking to you in a meaningful way about how you were doing. This is generally not deliberate. Most managers don’t know how to do this and/or don’t fully appreciate the negative consequences to employees of not doing it. It is a good example of the old saying, “When we know better, we do better.”
Important Note: This is not to say that people cannot succeed under less than ideal conditions. Some people can and do rise above poor circumstances. However, what it does mean is that the success they experience happens (to a greater or lesser extent) in spite of what their managers do rather than because of it.
IMPLICATIONS: Are Mediocre Performers: Born or Created?
If acceptable employees don’t get what the need from their work or their manager then it is not difficult to imagine how they could begin the slide from being bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on their first day on a new job down the the slippery slope from engagement to rational endurance. In other words, many of these employees end up viewing the work primarily as a means to an end (a paycheque).
For a few employees, this transformation can happen relatively quickly. For others, it can take years and years to succumb. It is not that these employees necessarily become chronic poor performers (in fact very few people end up in this category), but that they remain moderately engaged “acceptable” employees, doing a fair job but unwilling or unable to go the extra mile. In other words, what the organization has lost is their vast potential to do better.
If you have not been as energized or as willing to work as hard for one manager as for another then you also recognize that this change in your motivation was not due to a change in your basic talent, personality, ability to do the job, or learn what was necessary in order to do it. Since you remained the same person with the same skills and abilities, the change had to have occurred (all other things like job quality etc. being equal) as a conscious or unconscious reaction to the person managing you.
Logical Conclusion
Managers need to “talk” effectively to employees about “how they are doing” in order to positively influence engagement levels
The degree to which an employee is engaged and productive is affected by the interconnection of three main factors. The fit between the individual’s personality, talents, knowledge, and skills, the job he or she is doing, and the organizational environment in which he or she is doing it.
While an individual has to take the ultimate responsibility for his or own development, helping employees find this fit is more a managerial role than an organizational one. As Buckingham and Coffman point out:
Great managers think, “I know the person better than he knows himself”.
Great managers therefore help their employees to find their right “fit” in the organization by assessing their talents and abilities, and providing them with feedback that will help them to make good career choices.
The Kicker ....
The role of the manager in influencing employee engagement cannot be understated. The problem is that most managers lack the perquisite knowledge and skills to fulfill this role because they cannot “talk” to their employees successfully about how they are “doing” - how they are perceived and what this means for their career.
If managers could give honest and effective feedback about performance and behaviour (especially the “tough” stuff that they would rather avoid) then they could easily tell employees what they should continue doing, start doing, stop doing, or do differently in order to be as successful as as possible in the current job and have the best opportunity to develop in order to reach their potential.
The genius of communication is the ability to be both totally honest and totally kind at the same time. John Powell
This is what PAF Feedback is designed to do. It provides a straightforward, easy to learn, 2-step technique that enables managers to find the exact words to give enough the toughest feedback a manager can imagine. And to be able to do so effectively in approximately 30-60 seconds. Effectively means that the employee will:
Understand the feedback
Accept it as valid
Know what to do to fix the situation and be motivated to do it
Keep the manager/employee relationship intact
Page updated
Report abuse