It seems like we live in a world when the pursuit of more is still generally seen as good.
We buy cars that have a capability way in excess of what we're likely to use. Why is it important that my car is apparently able to accelerate from 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds and has a maximum speed of 143 mph? We want devices that have more storage space than we're ever likely to use - my MP3 player can apparently store in excess of 10,000 songs! We always seem to want more money in our bank account, quicker speed on our processor, shorter cooking time in our microwave. This list could go on...
Why is it important? I've come to the conclusion that it's all about 'just in case'. I want a high performance car just in case I need to use its capabilities to get my out of a tight spot, I want more space on my MP3 just in case I want to add lots more songs. I want more money to protect me from unforeseen circumstances, shorter cooking times just in case I'm in a rush etc. By the way, I'm not writing about this because I think it's a bad thing, that's up to individuals to decide, but I am interested in how this belief might apply to engagement.
I wonder if it does apply to both customer and employee engagement.
Thinking first about customers, is there an optimum level of customer engagement? Is there a level which is 'good enough' and anything beyond this is a waste? And can any excess go into storage for potential use at some time in the future? Similar questions I guess for employee engagement. Is there an optimum level of employee engagement? Can an organisation ever have too much and if levels are higher today than is needed can it be saved just in case it's ever needed?
Does the pursuit of higher levels of engagement ever end? Is there a point at which it's about maintenance rather than development? Given the austere times in western economies cost is clearly a consideration so is it worth investing more trying to achieve tiny increases in engagement? And how should any organisation determine what an acceptable investment is?
For me the answer depends on an organisations vision i.e. where they are going and what they want to achieve in the future. The engagement strategy then needs to support delivery of those things. It's obvious, isn't it, that engagement should be in support of something rather than something that is pursued in isolation just because it's a good thing to do. Shouldn't it always be about getting a return?
Are the objectives for your engagement programme clear and aligned to deliver the strategy for your organisation?
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019
Interesting questions. I think in general, organizations want sustainably high engagement for maximum productivity. If morale seems down, there's probably low engagement. Low morale and low engagement breed an environment of mediocrity -- definitely no way to drive a high performance environment. In that way, it's not always about more, but about what can be sustained.
ReplyDeleteHi Kymlee,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that it should be about high performance and maximum productivity. The reason why the benefits of engagement are still sometimes doubted in organisations is in my opinion because some have adopted a 'pink and fluffy' approach which aims to create 'happy' employees - it should always be a vehicle to improve performance. I blogged separately about this here: http://everythingengagement.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/dont-create-nice-place-to-work.html
With that in mind, would you agree that whilst low morale and low engagement is a bad thing, happy employees is not necessarily a good thing?
Very good question. I think the answer is yes. Happy employees are more productive. But I don't know the responsibility of the business is the create happiness for their employees but rather create an environment where they feel like valued assets.
DeleteI recently wrote an article about what this looks like: http://www.tlnt.com/2012/12/12/creating-a-high-performance-workplace-it-just-takes-a-tgim-culture/
I think that the term "engagement" is used widely in literature and with a different understanding/definition of the concept. My question would be: What is your definition of engagement and how does it translate in day-to day activities of employees including change projects?
ReplyDeleteHi Jean,
DeleteMy simple description of engagement is that it's the degree of attachment and commitment individuals have for their organisation, their role and their colleagues, and how motivated they are to give their best for the benefit of the organisation. By implication it therefore results in (or should) enhanced performance. Developing it is about ROI (return on individuals).
Most companies innovate new programs to keep employees engaged, but however you try it doesn always turn out to help increase productivity. Honestly they would rather be happier with frequent appraisals, rewards and recognitions. When they are recognized orally and monetary, they become happy employees. with that,they continue increasing their productivity levels
ReplyDeleteemployee engagement = higher productivity is not always true.
I disagree Priya. If engagement is approached in the right way it does produce better performance. The evidence clearly shows that to be the case. The problem is poorly conceived, designed and delivered engagement activity - which, because of its flaws, may not deliver the desired benefits.
ReplyDeleteIf you change your equation to:
happy employees = higher productivity is not always true
then I agree but are you confusing engagement with having happy employees?