0861 247 328

Employee Engagement Gap

/in , ,

Dr. Caren Scheepers

“Imagine a time when you were highly absorbed and engaged at work. What were the circumstances that caused this attentiveness and engagement? What did you feel at the time, what did you see, what did you hear and what did you smell? Make that experience vivid in your mind. Let your body actually experience the feeling now.” This is an exercise that I regularly start off with when I facilitate workshops on the topic “Employee Engagement”. As you read this article you are welcome to participate. You can even partake in the next exercise, by asking a colleague to work with you.

“Now choose a partner to work with and show your partner how you literally step into those circumstances and personal experience. What your partner then needs to do is to notice attentively what you look like, sound like, your body posture and your facial expression. The next step is to mimic it so that you can see clearly how your posture for instance changes when you are truly engaged or in the zone”. You have to take turns in this exercise, obviously. It has an added benefit of practice how to “tune in” to where other people are at by mimicking their non-verbal behaviour. Consequently, it allows us to become aware of how others feel and as a result build rapport with them. The question to discuss then is, “When last have you felt this invigorated at work?” and a follow up question, “How big is the gap between what you experience when you are fully engaged and your current work circumstances?”

Having observed numerous of these exercises, I realised that it is clear when employees are engaged and that it is actually quite contagious. Other observations were that the more upright body postures generally brought positive energy into the room and lasted long after the exercise. Neuropsychology explains this phenomenon by biochemical neurotransmitters in our brains that are activated by the imaginary incident, which also explains why we would feel fearful of circumstances that have not yet taken place (Scheepers & Jooste, 2012).

Tuning into our own awareness of being engaged or withdrawn as well as to others’ experiences, teaches us intuitively what engagement is about. Employee engagement is topical currently and mostly practitioners have been writing about this phenomenon. Lately, it luckily also grabbed the interest of academia that quite frankly wanted to find out whether employee engagement was only the latest “fad of the month”. Empirical studies followed that were published in top tier journals. For instance, the seminal work of Saks (2006) on the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement has academic rigour and provides scientific evidence for what we regularly experience intuitively in our daily work lives.

Nonetheless, mainly two exponents provided the theoretical foundation for employee engagement. Kahn (1990, p.694) defined it as ”employing themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally…in varying degrees.” In turn, Maslach (2001) who conducted more than 30 years of research, contrasted engagement with burnout, another phenomenon that we often come across in our highly stressful modern work environments. Her research revealed that burnout was the opposite of being engaged and the face validity of her study is high when we consider that vigour and dedication constitute engagement, whereas exhaustion, cynicism and withdrawal illustrate the opposite. Later research of Schaufeli et al (2002) confirmed Maslach’s notion of engagement and burnout being antipodes.

You might ask whether engagement is similar to commitment. Robinson et al (2004) pointed out in this regard, that engagement is more than commitment and more than an attitude. It is rather the degree to which an employee is attentive and absorbed in their work. Saks’ (2006) research provided evidence that commitment is actually a consequence of engagement. Furthermore, we can differentiate between job and organisational engagement. As a result, this article will focus on these two aspects.

a)         Job engagement 

Some people are highly engaged with their organisations, whereas others are actually engaged with their discipline or type of work and do not care where they conduct this job. These employees find meaning in the content of their work. Interestingly, job engagement increases when people have more contact with the beneficiaries of their work (Grant, 2012). Consequently, organisations must make a concerted effort to get back-office employees in contact with external or internal customers who are impacted by the quality of their work or lack thereof.

For the last 7 years, I have been lecturing on the GIBS MBA Module: Organisational Development and Transformation and I regularly asked these students whether they experience quality of work life. Sadly, over the years few of the MBA’s could declare that they were experiencing quality of work life. We often discussed Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) recommendations of bringing more of themselves into their work or being more engaged by: ensuring jobs are challenging, having variety, conducting significant tasks, allowing for personal discretion and making an important contribution. These students reported that getting feedback on their performance also increased meaningfulness of their jobs.

An interesting theory that could be associated with job engagement is the Social Exchange Theory or (SET) that implies that employees, who are provided with challenging and enriched jobs, feel obliged to reciprocate by responding with higher levels of engagement (Saks, 2006). On the other hand, when employees do not feel supported by colleagues or they do not get appropriate recognition and rewards, it leads to the burnout syndrome (Maslach et al, 2001). Kahn’s (1990) research revealed that our careers could constitute a series of leaps of engagement and falls of disengagement as well as that the person-role dynamics are complex.

b)         Organisational engagement 

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found that engaged employees have a greater attachment to their organisation. As a result, they have a lower intention to quit. Furthermore, they are involved in extra-role behaviour or being good organisational citizens and contribute to the greater organisation and not only to their own department or division.

I found it disappointing that in contrast, numerous executives on Senior Management Programmes found it difficult to articulate the social value that their organisations were creating and rather focused on financial results, whereas without financial results the organisation would anyway not be able to sustain itself. Nonetheless, through firstly meeting human needs by producing products or delivering services, organisations are able to declare financial returns and sustain the business. To the contrary, luckily organisations in South Africa like Nedbank, Woolworths, Nampak and FNB utilize corporate social responsibility projects as team building exercises and to build pride in their organisation’s contribution to society and subsequently organisational engagement.

Perceived procedural justice or fairness with regards to distribution of resources also influences organisational engagement (Rhoades et al, 2001). Conversely, a lack of fairness can exacerbate burnout (Maslach et al, 2001). Another dimension to consider is the Psychological Contract (Rousseau, 2004) with the resultant two-way relationship where employees receive economic and socio-emotional resources from the organisation and they respond in kind and repay the organisation by being psychologically present or engaged. We found in a specific study around this psychological contract that the human resources practice that had the most important relationship with the relational contract was training and development (Scheepers & Shuping, 2011). Consequently, investing in employees’ development would result in them perceiving that they are important to the organisation and they would reciprocate with loyalty to the organisation.

In closing, it is important to note that in the USA the engagement gap or lost of productivity cost due to employees being disengaged is estimated at $300 billion per annum (Kowalski, 2003). We do not have South African statistics to report however, the engagement gap remains an important phenomenon to investigate and I invite more researchers to conduct qualitative and quantitative studies to provide scientific evidence of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.

Follow Dave Ulrich on twitter: @dave_ulrich

References: 

  • Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (2), 458-476.
  • Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4), 692-724.
  • Kowalski, B. (2003). The Engagement Gap, Training, 40 (4), 62, as cited in Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600-619.
  • Maslach,C., Schaufelli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
  • Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organisation: the contribution of perceived organisational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.
  • Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate, Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 120-127.
  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600-619.
  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analysis approach, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 (3), 71-92.
  • Schaufeli, W. B & Baker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25, 293-315.
  • Scheepers, C. B. & Jooste, M. (2012). Neuroleadership informs internal business coaches on change, COMENSANews, Nov 30.
  • Scheepers, C. B. & Shuping, J. G. (2011). The effect of human resource practices on the psychological contract at an iron ore mining company in South Africa. South Africa Journal of Human Resources Management, 9(1), 1-19.

GOOD LEADERS FALL BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES – AUTOCRAT OR ABDICATE?

/in

In the lead up to the upcoming elections “Collective Leadership” is receiving some pretty bad press. Professor Dave Ulrich the world thought leader on HR practises believes Collective Leadership is the key to sustainable future intangible value, be that, in a corporate organisation or political community. So I asked Dave Ulrich to clarify his thinking around Collective Leadership. Are our political and corporate leaders practising good leadership?

GOOD LEADERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FINAL DECISION
Leaders often fall between two extremes of being autocratic or abdicate. Autocratic leaders command and control and tell people what to do. Abdicating leaders let people do whatever they want. Good leadership generally falls in between. Based on the competence and commitment of employees and on the situation, good leaders generally engage others, then take responsibility for making the final decision. They make sure that where they decide they are going is where they end up; leaders who do not ensure this, destroy trust.
GOOD LEADERS LISTEN & OBSERVE
Collective leadership does NOT mean leadership abdication. Collective leadership means that a leader listens, observes, and involves others before acting. The leader, by nature of the role, has responsibility and accountability. The value of engaging others is that they may have ideas the leader did not think of and that by engaging them earlier in the decision process, they are more likely to be committed to the decision once it is made.
Nicola Tyler, CEO of Business Results Group says, “The closer someone is to the origination of an idea the more likely they are to act on it.” She advocates this in her strategic interventions with many of South Africa’s C Suite leaders. This is what she believes is a key driver of strategy execution.
GOOD LEADERS ACT DECISIVELY TO GET THINGS DONE
Under the rubric of participative management, some employees think they always get their way. Not so. Leaders who practice participation, listen and make sure others are heard, but then they act decisively to get things done.
A leader told me once that participative management meant, “If you and I agree on everything, one of us is not necessary …. And it won’t be me! But, when we go public, we go with one voice.”
In 2014, BRG & GIBs will present Dave Ulrich – Live and in Person: The 13 Milestones for HR to transcend the way they deliver measurable value to their organisations. Become architects of talent, culture and leadership for 21st Century Organisations.
Professor Dave Ulrich has consulted and done research with over half of the Fortune 200. His honours exude a consistent track record of global influence and authority in human resources and business management. His research is based on collective feedback from over 60 000 line managers and HR professionals on the competencies required to improved business performance.
An accomplished and celebrated educator Dave is sought after the world over to present his findings and educate businesses. He has published over 200 articles and book chapters and over 25 books which he has co-authored with numerous fellow thought leaders.
Follow Dave Ulrich on twitter: @dave_ulrich

Good Leaders Fall Between the Two Extremes – Autocrat or Abdicate?

/in , ,

In the lead up to the upcoming elections “Collective Leadership” is receiving some pretty bad press. Professor Dave Ulrich the world thought leader on HR practises believes Collective Leadership is the key to sustainable future intangible value, be that, in a corporate organisation or political community. So I asked Dave Ulrich to clarify his thinking around Collective Leadership. Are our political and corporate leaders practising good leadership?

GOOD LEADERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FINAL DECISION
Leaders often fall between two extremes of being autocratic or abdicate. Autocratic leaders command and control and tell people what to do. Abdicating leaders let people do whatever they want. Good leadership generally falls in between. Based on the competence and commitment of employees and on the situation, good leaders generally engage others, then take responsibility for making the final decision. They make sure that where they decide they are going is where they end up; leaders who do not ensure this, destroy trust.

GOOD LEADERS LISTEN & OBSERVE
Collective leadership does NOT mean leadership abdication. Collective leadership means that a leader listens, observes, and involves others before acting. The leader, by nature of the role, has responsibility and accountability. The value of engaging others is that they may have ideas the leader did not think of and that by engaging them earlier in the decision process, they are more likely to be committed to the decision once it is made.
Nicola Tyler, CEO of Business Results Group says, “The closer someone is to the origination of an idea the more likely they are to act on it.” She advocates this in her strategic interventions with many of South Africa’s C Suite leaders. This is what she believes is a key driver of strategy execution.

GOOD LEADERS ACT DECISIVELY TO GET THINGS DONE
Under the rubric of participative management, some employees think they always get their way. Not so. Leaders who practice participation, listen and make sure others are heard, but then they act decisively to get things done.
A leader told me once that participative management meant, “If you and I agree on everything, one of us is not necessary …. And it won’t be me! But, when we go public, we go with one voice.”
In 2014, BRG & GIBs will present Dave Ulrich – Live and in Person: The 13 Milestones for HR to transcend the way they deliver measurable value to their organisations. Become architects of talent, culture and leadership for 21st Century Organisations.
Professor Dave Ulrich has consulted and done research with over half of the Fortune 200. His honours exude a consistent track record of global influence and authority in human resources and business management. His research is based on collective feedback from over 60 000 line managers and HR professionals on the competencies required to improved business performance.
An accomplished and celebrated educator Dave is sought after the world over to present his findings and educate businesses. He has published over 200 articles and book chapters and over 25 books which he has co-authored with numerous fellow thought leaders.
Follow Dave Ulrich on twitter: @dave_ulrich

HR the Architects to Build Their Organisation’s Collective Leadership Brand

/in , ,

Architectural advice from Professor Dave Ulrich for HR professionals to build their organisation’s collective leadership brand and inspire investor confidence.

LEADERSHIP VS LEAD-A-SHIP 

Leadership is not about one single charismatic individual leading an organisation. That could be called “lead-a-ship”. A mighty “tug boat” can, single-handedly, indeed lead an organisation, in the same way that a tug boat manoeuvres a large ship by towing and pushing it along, but collective leadership inspires more investor confidence with less reliance on a single individual.

BUILDING BLOCKS FOR COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP BRANDING

  1. Organisations with strong and effective leadership at all levels achieve superior business results.
  2. Organisations with inconsistent leadership achieve inferior business results.
  3. Leadership Brand represents the identity and reputation of leaders throughout the company.
  4. Leaders demonstrate a brand when they think and act in ways that are congruent with the desired product or brand promise.
  5. Leadership Brand results are determined by how customers and investors perceive the value delivery.
  6. Leadership rhetoric is not about fuzzy terms such as transformation, vision or aspiration; it is about quantifiable business terms of customer share and market value. Leadership ROI show up in a firm’s stock price.
  7. A Leadership Brand pushes leaders to move from generic leadership to targeted leadership.
  8. Brands are reinforced by sustained choices in design and delivery. Leadership Brand is no different; it is reinforced by dozens of decisions about relationships, resources, strategy etc..; Leaders are branded when the array of decisions they make on a daily basis reinforce and support a clear identity.
  9. Leaders who do not reflect the firm’s leadership brand must be identified and upgraded or removed.
  10. Leadership Brand must not be tied to one person, no matter how charismatic or talented. It must be embedded throughout the organisation.
  11. Leadership Brand efficacy occurs when employees, customers and investors believe and see that promises made, at any level, are promises that are kept.
  12. Leadership Brand is about an organisation’s capacity to develop future leaders.
  13. Leadership Brand final advice. Leaders need to make sure that where they are saying they going is achieved. This is how they build trust with employees, investors and customers.

Source: Leadership as a Brand – Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood.

In 2014, BRG & GIBs will present Dave Ulrich – Live and in Person: The 13 Milestones for HR to transcend the way they deliver measurable value to their organisations. Become architects of talent, culture and leadership for 21st Century Organisations. … both in the Private and Public Sector.

Professor Dave Ulrich has consulted and done research with over half of the Fortune 200. His honours exude a consistent track record of global influence and authority in human resources and business management.  His research is based on collective feedback from over 60 000 line managers and HR professionals on the competencies required to improved business performance.

An accomplished and celebrated educator Dave is sought after the world over to present his findings and educate businesses. He has published over 200 articles and book chapters and over 25 books which he has co-authored with numerous fellow thought leaders.

Follow Dave Ulrich on twitter: @dave_ulrich

HR THE ARCHITECTS TO BUILD THEIR ORGANISATION’S COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP BRAND

/in

Architectural advice from Professor Dave Ulrich for HR professionals to build their organisation’s collective leadership brand and inspire investor confidence.

LEADERSHIP VS LEAD-A-SHIP 

Leadership is not about one single charismatic individual leading an organisation. That could be called “lead-a-ship”. A mighty “tug boat” can, single-handedly, indeed lead an organisation, in the same way that a tug boat manoeuvres a large ship by towing and pushing it along, but collective leadership inspires more investor confidence with less reliance on a single individual.

BUILDING BLOCKS FOR COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP BRANDING

  1. Organisations with strong and effective leadership at all levels achieve superior business results.
  2. Organisations with inconsistent leadership achieve inferior business results.
  3. Leadership Brand represents the identity and reputation of leaders throughout the company.
  4. Leaders demonstrate a brand when they think and act in ways that are congruent with the desired product or brand promise.
  5. Leadership Brand results are determined by how customers and investors perceive the value delivery.
  6. Leadership rhetoric is not about fuzzy terms such as transformation, vision or aspiration; it is about quantifiable business terms of customer share and market value. Leadership ROI show up in a firm’s stock price.
  7. A Leadership Brand pushes leaders to move from generic leadership to targeted leadership.
  8. Brands are reinforced by sustained choices in design and delivery. Leadership Brand is no different; it is reinforced by dozens of decisions about relationships, resources, strategy etc..; Leaders are branded when the array of decisions they make on a daily basis reinforce and support a clear identity.
  9. Leaders who do not reflect the firm’s leadership brand must be identified and upgraded or removed.
  10. Leadership Brand must not be tied to one person, no matter how charismatic or talented. It must be embedded throughout the organisation.
  11. Leadership Brand efficacy occurs when employees, customers and investors believe and see that promises made, at any level, are promises that are kept.
  12. Leadership Brand is about an organisation’s capacity to develop future leaders.
  13. Leadership Brand final advice. Leaders need to make sure that where they are saying they going is achieved. This is how they build trust with employees, investors and customers.

Source: Leadership as a Brand – Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood.

In 2014, BRG & GIBs will present Dave Ulrich – Live and in Person: The 13 Milestones for HR to transcend the way they deliver measurable value to their organisations. Become architects of talent, culture and leadership for 21st Century Organisations. … both in the Private and Public Sector.

Professor Dave Ulrich has consulted and done research with over half of the Fortune 200. His honours exude a consistent track record of global influence and authority in human resources and business management.  His research is based on collective feedback from over 60 000 line managers and HR professionals on the competencies required to improved business performance.

An accomplished and celebrated educator Dave is sought after the world over to present his findings and educate businesses. He has published over 200 articles and book chapters and over 25 books which he has co-authored with numerous fellow thought leaders.

Follow Dave Ulrich on twitter: @dave_ulrich

7 easy-to-implement ideas to enhance productivity by focusing on happiness.

/in ,
  1. Take the Happiness at Work Questionnaire:
    Take this quick online iPPQ snapshot questionnaire and invite your colleagues to do the same to give your company a chance to get included in the Wall Street Journal’s GLOBAL Happiness at Work Index. http://www.iopenerinstitute.com/media/104105/happiness_at_work_index.pdf

    1. Your snapshot result indicates the elements that enhance or detract from your happiness at work.
    2. Or, if you’d prefer the full version 9 page personal report, please email info@brg.co.za
  2. Who are your Happiness Heroes?
    Send us photos of your colleagues and tell us what they do to make coming to work such a pleasure for you. Remember to tell them you’ve nominated them and why. You’ll make their day, just like they’re always doing for you.
  3. Write Happy Notes:
    Identify one thing about each colleague that makes your experience of being at work happier. Write these on sticky notes and give them to the person or leave them on their desk.
  4. Have a Happiness Lunchtime Discussion:
    Bring along your lunch and talk about what matters to you, what makes a difference to you and what you pledge to do more often for others. Remember this should be all positive – no moaning allowed!
  5. Start a Happiness Library:
    There is a wealth of happiness literature out there. Here are our top three picks: Happiness at Work; Maximizing Your Psychological Capital For Success by Jessica Pryce-Jones, Positivity by Barbara Fredrickson and The How of Happiness by Sonja Lyubomirsky
  6. Make a Happiness Noticeboard:
    Post notes about the three things that made you happy at work, for all to see.
  7. Have a moment with yourself.
    Remind yourself of the things that you are grateful for both at work and in life. Make this a daily habit. Better still, keep a gratitude journal.