Employee Engagement – addressing the dilemmas MAIN PRESENTERS: Andrew Lambert, Associate, CRF Rob Briner, Professor of Organisational Psychology, School of Management, University of Bath Deanna Lloyd, Organisational Consultant, Workforce Science, Smarter Workforce Solutions - IBM Patricia Riddell, Professor of Applied Neuroscience, Reading University Mike Westcott, Group HR Director, National Grid
Essential business requirement or fad? Employee engagement (EE) has become widely adopted as a core element of people strategies over the 20 years since the term was first coined. However a few voices have voiced disquiet about aspects of EE; Rob Briner is one of these.
Rob Briner’s 5 challenges •
EE is ill-defined, which raises questions about measurement and action.
•
Measurement of engagement lacks rigour.
•
Engagement is not new.
•
There is over-claiming and mis-claiming about the importance and role of engagement.
•
He cannot find proof that employee engagement causes enhanced performance, or even that employee engagement interventions increase engagement.
Briner criticised in particular the report Nailing the Evidence (2012) published by Engage for Success, which he feels does NOT ‘nail the evidence’.
Andrew Lambert, author of CRF’s reports on Employee Engagement He welcomed Rob Briner’s inherent challenge to organisations, and HR especially, to be rigorous in definition, measurement and to avoid engagement being seen as a panacea. However.... •
Workforce engagement is as old a phenomenon as human society, so of course is not new. That doesn’t negate its importance or relevance.
•
If you need scientific proof to convince you that good relationships are a basic requirement for people to work together, both your personal and work life are likely to be painful!
•
EE is an umbrella term, encompassing whatever impacts relationships between employer and employed. It is not a scientific construct; its usefulness is in being holistic and systemic, embracing many factors and variables eg commitment, satisfaction involvement, wellbeing.
•
Therefore academics and ‘experts’ seeking or demanding precision are wasting their energy, and potentially confusing any audiences they have.
© Corporate Research Forum 2015
1
Employee Engagement – addressing the dilemmas •
EE suffers more from an excessive number of definitions, rather than ill-definition, as many consultancies and academics try to get noticed. Most definitions revolve around the same idea.
•
This has the potential to confuse, but no more so than occurs with many terms used in business, such as leadership, strategy, quality and performance. They ALL need defining in context.
Discussion •
EE does not have an intrinsic, linear cause-and-effect impact on performance – improving engagement may increases the probability of better performance. It can correlate with, but does not guarantee or definitively predict, performance outcomes.
•
EE is a core component of organisational health, but healthiness doesn’t guarantee great results.
•
Similarly, it is hard to prove that advertising and PR sell anything, but organisations have learnt the hard way the cost of NOT investing in awareness and brands.
•
Is all measurement of EE and follow-up activity as good as it could be? Almost certainly not, as evidenced by the continuing need to educate managers and functions like HR and Communications in good practice.
•
Regrettably some leaders do reach positions of power who don’t value engaging their team or workforce. That can cause considerable collateral damage; de-crying EE doesn’t exactly help!
Making engagement real – Deanna Lloyd Only 42% of HR leaders felt they were effective in addressing EE challenges. •
The biggest challenge is ‘connecting with people’, i.e. relationships not measurement. This where HR practitioners need to help managers most.
•
It is important to identify and concentrate on what is relevant to enhancing relationships in the service of the business strategy. Metrics need to guide better decision-making.
•
Prioritise – avoid trying to survey everything and succumbing to analysis paralysis.
•
External benchmarks – e.g. global/country/sector – can be useful, but trends within organisations’ culture and context tend to be more important.
•
In fast-moving contexts, measurement should be more frequent than annually.
Perspectives from neuroscience – Patricia Riddell Beware psycho-babble, over-simplification, weak research – don’t believe all you hear! •
Research relevant to engagement includes how the brain reacts to positive versus ‘negative’ coaching, i.e. focusing on strengths vs weaknesses.
•
One study strongly favoured positive over negative coaching in terms of enhancing motivation.
•
However, people actually learn better when aroused – not when relaxed by too much positivity!
© Corporate Research Forum 2015
2
Employee Engagement – addressing the dilemmas •
People are not the same. They vary in how they are stimulated and learn.
•
Synapses in the brain are constantly re-generating, like skin, enhancing brain plasticity. The implication is that behaviour traits are not irrevocably fixed at an early age. Learning can continue late in life – the only thing stopping you changing your behaviour is your own belief.
•
In conclusion, neuro-science aids understanding of workplace behaviour, but does not yet offer anything to shape particular initiatives to enhance engagement.
Boosting engagement at National Grid – Mike Westcott
Organisational context •
26k employees (60% in USA), serving 20m customers and 1m shareholders (in FTSE 20).
•
An ageing workforce with long tenure, highly unionised, legacy of a nationalised industry.
•
Now experiencing significant external and internal change.
•
Business and people priorities - Deliver operational excellence, sustain networks for the future, outperform regulatory demands. - Enhance leadership/ workforce skills, performance culture, customer service and attract new talent (in a market where engineers are in short supply).
Performance and engagement •
Improvements in engagement and performance have correlated. The ‘Living Our Values’ and Performance indices are up by 16% and 20% respectively 2012-14, reaching 86% and 80%.
•
Effort is being focused on the bottom quartile (54% ‘engaged’ vs 91% for top quartile); safety and ‘customer’ scores are progressively higher in each quartile.
•
Big range of scores across 500 teams. Results supplied quickly, highlighting action areas.
What’s difference has it made? •
Alignment with goals – focus on ‘line of sight’, better communication, use of storytelling.
•
Improved teamwork – identifying and removing blockages, enhancing collaboration.
•
Recognition – our ‘Appreciation’ initiative is now a mainstream activity.
•
Opportunities to grow – individual capability development assessments, using Academies to focus on core capabilities.
•
Productive work environment – initiatives to enhance excellence and performance management.
Looking forward •
Engagement priorities are in CEO and 500 top managers’ objectives and performance reviews.
•
Keeping it simple and consistent.
•
Using local engagement champions (line, not HR) to facilitate better response rates, action plans.
•
National Grid’s Chairman is championing a culture where it is safe to speak up.
© Corporate Research Forum 2015
3
Employee Engagement – addressing the dilemmas •
Paying attention to both engagement and wellbeing in order to enhance sustainability. This includes ‘social wellbeing’ – good relationships, volunteerism (aids our community contribution).
Key issues and emerging challenges – policy & practice
Perennial challenges •
Challenging engagement – so what’s the alternative? Who would want a disengaged workforce?!
•
Analyse the issues before pulling the engagement ‘lever’. Is more engagement the best solution to the issue? Other interventions may be more appropriate and effective.
•
Engagement endeavours in a toxic context will come to naught. Clean up the act first.
•
Engagement starts at the top. Role-modelling is critical.
•
Clear definition – what do you mean by employee engagement? Ensure all stakeholders – BOTH full-time and contingent workforce – understand the process and outcomes you are aiming for.
•
Ensure clear accountability for positive engagement results – starting with the CEO/top team and then how it is reflected in the objectives and performance expectations of all managers. Focus on insight, not data, and on delegated ownership of improvement at team level.
•
Embed a relationship management approach to cover the employment lifecycle - recruit to alumnus.
•
HR to focus on OD, not administration, i.e. its capability to enhance organisational design, learning, skills, talent, performance and change; become in-demand coaches of leaders at all levels.
•
Fair rewards, genuinely stimulating/recognising contribution, not creating ‘them and us’ culture.
•
Transformation is rarely seen, we should aim for constant incremental improvement.
Fit for the future? •
Adapt to a world where Millenials and their traits will become dominant – savvy in using technology and social networks to learn/work, non-deferential, questioning, work-life balance.
•
The connected organisation – smarter use of communication/collaboration technology and pulse surveying. This is as much about leadership and behaviour as it is about systems.
•
Include EE in corporate performance reporting as an indicator of organisational effectiveness.
•
Focus on job interest, organisation design and growth, especially given increased automation.
•
Leadership that is schooled in effective relationships and team management in a digitised world where there is little hiding place for self-interest, narcissism and destructive game-playing.
With thanks to our event partner, IBM.
Meeting notes prepared by Andrew Lambert.
© Corporate Research Forum 2015
4