In recent years, we have observed a tsunami of books, articles, and events that focus on employee engagement. Much of the content they provide and discuss is based on research by highly reputable firms. In Flat Army: Creating a Connected and Engaged Community (Jossey-Bass/Wiley Imprint, April 2013), Dan Pontefract cites an article in the Gallup Business Journal that characterizes an engaged employee as someone who will “work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward.”
Towers Watson suggests that employees need both the will and the way in which to actually demonstrate engagement. Specifically, “Employees need the will: the sense of mission, passion, and pride that motivates them to give the all-important discretionary effort. And they need the way: the resources, support and tools from the organization to act on their sense of mission and passion.”
AON Hewitt defines engagement as the point at which employees “speak positively about the organization to co-workers, potential employees, and customers; have an intense desire to be a member of the organization; and exert extra effort and are dedicated to doing the very best job possible to contribute to the organization’s business success.”
As for the Hay Group, employee engagement is “the commitment employees feel toward their organization, and, employees’ discretionary effort — their willingness to go above and beyond=d the call of duty or go the extras mile for the organization.”
In my review of The Enemy of Engagement, I suggest that what sets this book apart from other recently published books on the problems of employee engagement and how to solve them is Mark Royal and Tom Agnew’s focus on employees who were once actively and productively engaged and have either become passively engaged (“mailing it in”) or actively disengaged and, in some instances, perhaps even hostile and toxic. During exit interviews of highly-valued employees before they depart to work elsewhere, they express frustration with working conditions (especially those who supervise them) that prevent them from personal growth and/or professional development.
These are among the subjects that Royal and Agnew examine:
o Why “top performers or potential high performers” leave
o Cross-industry concerns about supportiveness of work environment
o Why high levels of engagement do not necessarily result in peak performance
o A leader’s primary responsibilities
o A manager’s primary responsibilities
o How most admired companies use enablement in strategy execution
o “Realistic” job previews and onboarding
o Self-Assessment for Managers: to identify enablement opportunities
o What drives employee enablement
o Self Assessment for Managers: empowerment, provision of support resources, teamwork coordination
Dan Pontefract shares my high regard for The Enemy of Engagement, quoting this passage:
“Though frameworks for understanding engagement vary, the concept is commonly understood to capture levels of commitment and discretionary effort exhibited by employees. Engaged employees can be expected to display high levels of attachment to an organization and a strong desire to remain a part of it. Consequently, engaged employees are more likely to be willing to go above and beyond the formal requirements of the job, contribute organizational citizenship behaviors, pour extra effort into their work, and deliver superior performance.”
Well-said.