The backlash against employee engagement
Though the underlying principles have been studied for decades, the concept of “employee engagement” has only been around for 20 years; it was first championed by organizational psychologist William A. Kahn in 1990. And it’s only really broken into the mainstream in the 21st century, becoming a buzz phrase that has found its way into just about every human resources department in the last decade.
In a nutshell, employee engagement is the idea that workers are happier and perform better when they have, as the start-up casualties used to say, “drunk the kool-aid.” It’s the total buy-in, an emotional connection to work that is supposed to increase job satisfaction as well as efficiency and loyalty.
It also can put a lot of stress on HR staff–it’s one thing to help an employee navigate the workplace, quite another to make them “engaged.” On her Punk Rock HR blog, Laurie Ruettimann finally lets loose about it:
I can’t take it anymore. I need to tell you something. I don’t believe in employee engagement. I know, I know. You’re shocked. Let me tell you something simple: I don’t think it’s the responsibility of an organization to ensure that the employees are engaged. This isn’t preschool. We’re all adults. We have college degrees, mortgages, and children. Responsibilities. Companies have a responsibility to be profitable, respectful to their workers, and to behave in a fiscally prudent manner. Employees get paid to work. They make choices about their level of engagement based on all sorts of factors including values, personal beliefs, and faith in the organization and products/services that are being offered.
She’s not alone. Suddenly, employee engagement as a managing principle in the workplace is experiencing serious blowback. Indian HR blogger Gautam Ghosh wrote:
Ok, I know I am going to face a lot of flak for this, but I am going to blurt it out anyway. HR people who think their holy grail is increasing their employee engagement score are sorely mistaken. Employee engagement is important, no doubt. However what it does is create energy for discretionary effort by the employees for the organization. What then? How should HR people leverage that enormous source of discretionary energy towards the really important things? Unfortunately, not too many people think about that. Not HR people. Not business heads. In my opinion they all aim low.
Clearly, the dissenters are still a little gun-shy, but the truth is everyone will be catching up to them before you know it. As early as last year, Business Week was writing about the challenges of maintaining employee engagement in a brutal economy. The story focused on Gamal Aziz, president of Las Vegas’ MGM Grand.
“Employee engagement in times of difficulties and severe economic climate is far more profoundly important now,” says Aziz. “Employees are willing to give their all when they are well-treated, appreciated. And the ability to unlock that potential is a competitive distinction…It’s their decisions, their actions, their attitude that really make the difference. Imagine taking 10,000 employees, and each and every one of them wanting to give more. That’s really the difference between [us and] a company that has its employees just punching the clock and trying to get through the day.”
Aziz sounds like a fantastic boss, and his approach won him a hallowed place in a book about employee engagement, Closing the Engagement Gap. But with the changing job landscape completely reshaping the relationship between employer and employee, HR departments are struggling to figure out how many temps, interns and contractors are even technically employed by their company, let alone how to “engage” them with their job.
But if you want to figure out if you’re fully engaged at your own job, check out the “Q12,” the 12 questions Gallup came up with to measure employee engagement. Does anyone answer “yes” to all of those anymore?
Article by, Sarah and courtesy of RiseSmart.com – RiseSmart: Search Smarter. Rise Faster.
