- \n
- Have higher productivity<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Generate higher revenue<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Exhibit greater innovation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are less likely to leave<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\nThis is why it is such a sought-after quality and is a metric for organisational success. However, despite the proliferation of pulse surveys, historically there has been limited consensus about how it is defined and measured.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The history of employee engagement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nWilliam Kahn was the first researcher to use the phrase \u2018engagement\u2019 over 30 years ago and advocated that a key component was the sense of meaning an individual drew from their work. Researchers such as William Macey and Benjamin Schneider advocated for more conceptual clarity. They highlighted the need to separate this psychological state of being engaged from the drivers that lead to being engaged (e.g. job and organisational characteristics) and the outcomes (e.g. productivity, innovation), which are historically combined and packaged as \u2018engagement.\u2019\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem with employee engagement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nThe term \u2018engagement\u2019 has been used to refer to overt positive behaviours (e.g. effort), job characteristics (e.g. autonomy), organisational features (e.g. brand), or an amalgamation of them all. This merged set of useful constructs seems to be the most common conceptualisation of engagement, with very few keeping the most important element \u2013 the human being \u2013 at their centre, whose experiences and psychological state is what defines engagement.\n\nFor almost 30 years, employee engagement has been measured by organisations soliciting employee opinions and asking whether they are satisfied. Despite being used extensively as a core tool for gaining insight into employees, the relationship between organisations and engagement surveys has been relatively complicated.\n\nMany employers have grown frustrated with the process and would argue that they have not got the value they were hoping for. Many employees are similarly frustrated, seeing it as a box-ticking exercise and feeling like the opinions and feedback they share are not being heard.\n\nFrom an employee\u2019s perspective, the lack of action is probably the largest problem with the employee engagement survey process. However, I would argue that there is another significant problem with engagement surveys that impacts both employees and employers, but is not typically discussed: Are engagement surveys actually measuring employee engagement? Are we measuring it accurately and are we capturing the real issues that are leading people to resign?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is \u2018real\u2019 employee engagement?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nBased on our work with organisations over the last 10 years, we define employee engagement as a positive work-related state in which an individual experiences a sense of meaning, enthusiasm, and absorption in their work and identification with their organisation. More details of those four pillars are provided below:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Meaning:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an individual experiences a sense of meaningfulness and purpose that they can draw from their work<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Enthusiasm:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an individual draws excitement and energy from their job<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Absorption:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an employee becomes immersed and absorbed in their work<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Identification:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an individual feels emotionally attached to their organisation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
How do you measure employee engagement?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nOur own research has shown that the state<\/em> of employee engagement is actually more predictive of performance, productivity, and a desire to stay at the organisation than any job characteristic that is typically highlighted (i.e. effective leadership, salary and compensation, etc.).\n\nSince the state of engagement is at the heart of employee engagement, like any state, it can fluctuate depending on the work environment. In order to quantify this sentiment, you need to have a benchmark of the state of your workforce and then make it a point to collect updated data frequently. Therefore, when trying to address employee engagement you need to understand and measure three explicit areas:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Drivers of engagement<\/strong>: These are the features of the work environment that drive us to feel connected. Examples of these drivers can be having a supportive manager, having autonomy in your role, having opportunities to learn, and having role clarity to name a few. Ultimately these are job characteristics that help facilitate a sense of engagement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Engagement<\/strong>: This is the psychological state of being engaged at work. This is \u2018real engagement\u2019 and is characterised by employees who experience a sense of meaning from their work, feel enthused and absorbed by their job, and have an emotional attachment to their organisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Engaged behaviours<\/strong>: These are positive behaviours and outcomes that are related to being engaged. Examples of these behaviours are when employees promote the organisation among friends and family, proactively support colleagues across the organisation, and put in additional discretionary effort.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\nBy being able to measure engagement accurately, not only can we understand the true levels of success, but organisations are also better able to diagnose issues, identify impactful solutions, get to the heart of the human experience, and address phenomena such as \u2018quiet quitting<\/a>,\u2019 \u2018The Great Resignation<\/a>,\u2019 and any future trends that develop.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why is employee engagement important?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nThe human element of being an employee is so important and needs to be acknowledged. Organisations need to ask themselves:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Are we providing a work environment that gives employees meaning?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are we creating an identity that they are proud of?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Do we provide jobs that energise our workforce?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Are we invested in employee development<\/a> opportunities and prioritising the employee journey<\/a> to retain our top talent?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\nBy focusing on these more fundamental human needs, you will be amazed by how much more employees can contribute and the increase in employee engagement as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/talogy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/cta-whitepaper-cover-hiring-for-cultural-fit.jpg\")
<\/figure>\nHiring for cultural fit<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What you need to know to get started<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Organisations are increasingly turning to the concept of \u201cculture fit\u201d for successful recruiting and hiring. Ensuring that new hires have values and beliefs that align with those of the existing organisational culture can be even more important than skills, qualifications, and experience when it comes to successful hiring decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Engagement<\/strong>: This is the psychological state of being engaged at work. This is \u2018real engagement\u2019 and is characterised by employees who experience a sense of meaning from their work, feel enthused and absorbed by their job, and have an emotional attachment to their organisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Enthusiasm:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an individual draws excitement and energy from their job<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Meaning:<\/strong>\u00a0The extent to which an individual experiences a sense of meaningfulness and purpose that they can draw from their work<\/li>\n\n\n\n