Engagement Drivers?

Aon Hewitt puts out a survey on global engagement. However, they're not measuring engagement. They're measuring what they think are the drivers to employee engagement: "the state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best." (By the way, they think it has increased slightly this past year.)

I'm not sure if they've done correlations and regression analysis to know that their factors are indeed the elements that create engagement. A lot of times I simplify the way to increase engagement: leadership needs to engage (i.e. have constructive, empathetic interactions with the employees) and they will be engaged with the organization. Each person is looking for different levels of interaction and styles of interaction. "One size fits all," one wag observed, "didn't work for pantyhose and it shouldn't work for your organization."

Some of the sub-categories on which the survey reports include effective leadership (hmm, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?), effective communication (that's about as broad a sub-category as you can get),  HR practices creating a positive work environment (I get this), perceiving relationships with customers as rewarding (this affects how many people in your organization? not many unless you're a service or sales company), and workplace safety and security (yeah, if they think you don't care about them, they won't care about you).

I've blogged about communication a number of times. Again, there's a tendency to use a "one size fits all" approach. Many times we say what we want to hear in the way we want to hear it. This may not work for the majority in your audience--whether it's a company meeting, team meeting, newsletter, paycheck stuffer, etc. If you don't care enough to know about them and what is important to each of them, they won't care about what you think is important.

Aon Hewitt may be correct that these are the drivers of engagement. However, they're not talking to the employees. I would think that if they don't take the time to find out what "they" think, "they" don't think much of what Aon Hewitt thinks.

The Cat's Out of the Bag

Ever been to a staff meeting when a decision needs to be made about a particular issue and it seems a group of people have already discussed the proposal that's being put forth? Watched as the objections are overcome, not just by the head but also others that seem to have had some advance knowledge?

Bob Frisch in Who's in the Room? has let the cat out of the bag purporting that that's the way most decisions are made and should be made in a successful corporation. A small inner circle--"a team with no name" or kitchen cabinet--has already hashed out strategies, conclusions, tactics, decisions, etc. to be presented to the rest of the staff. I think we've all experienced this and knew it happens. We probably have been participants in some of this activity. We certainly have been the recipients of the collusion (not meant with any negative undertones). We know this happens. Bob Frisch argues that it should happen all the time in the presence of great leadership:

"The right teams addressing the right issues at the right time, a renewed sense of collective purpose for the organization's most senior and valued leaders, and most importantly an end to the boss hearing "Why wasn't I in the room?" (from the Soundview review of the book).

This is a different take on the advice to build consensus by discussing issues with other project team members and staff members so that there are no surprise objections in the meeting, and that the discussion can happen smoothly focused on the issue rather than the personality. Frisch is taking a naturally occurring but evolutionary process in most organizations and making it the model.

If you follow the Strengths Finder strategy, the kitchen cabinet and ad hoc advisor teams meshes well. You want the right people with strategic strengths hashing out strategies. You want implementation discussions with those that have execution strengths. You might want relationship strengths group around when you talking about connecting with markets, employees, other organizations, communities, etc.

Frisch's recommendations acknowledge those strengths which will increase engagement and empowerment. That will lead to a team that knows more about what it needs to do and feels positive it can succeed. What more can you want?