Written by Andrew on August 22, 2009 – 6:09 am
Over the past 18 months, employee engagement has emerged as a key theme in Aberdeen’s HCM research. Mollie Lombardi at the Aberdeen Group has recently published an excellent report that not only begins to define this nebulous concept, but also gives concrete steps that managers can begin to take to engage (not just satisfy) their employees. According to Mollie:
Engagement is all about aligning individuals with the mission and priorities of the organization in order to deliver business results…engagement only really matters if it is driving business results. In fact, this is what differentiates employee engagement from employee satisfaction. Satisfaction could indicate that an individual is happy that their paycheck comes in on time, or they appreciate the fact that they have healthcare benefits that protect their family, or that their schedule doesn’t interfere with their passion for kayaking on the weekend. [Satisfaction] doesn’t necessarily reflect any connection with the priorities of the organization.
The interesting thing about this study of 450 companies, 312 of which already have engagement programs in place, is that it begins to tie employee engagement to business results. According to the study, Best-in-Class organizations (i.e. top 20% of performers on key performance indicators) are 23% more likely to use employee engagement programs to address customer needs and expectations and 55% of Best-in-Class of companies report that employee engagement is having a direct impact on revenue and/or profitability.
As a matter of personal interest, I will be exploring this topic a little more over the next few weeks. In the meantime, you can download a free copy of the report here (available until the end of Sept 2009).
I recently read Mollie’s report whilst away on holiday! It raises some excellent points, and I think you have chosen the most important above, to highlight that engagement is much more than satisfaction.
Ultimately, engagement is about feeling involved in the business, and believing in it. There are a multitude of different definitions of engagement, but we all know when we deal with a company where the staff are engaged. Is their levels of engagement an accident, or is it because of exceptional leadership, management and a wonderful team of staff who believe in their companies products, services and purpose.
For me, the senior leadership and management team have to take a strong lead in creating an engaged workforce. If the management aren’t ‘up for it’, not amount of programs will ever make a jot of difference to the company.
Richard
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. Figure 9 (page 16) in the reports definitely supports your view; at 43% of Best-in-Class companies, the CEO/president is the primary champion of engagement. For “all others” (i.e. the average and laggard performers), the primary champion is at the HR leadership level. I suggested to Mollie that she do some further analysis — it would be interesting to see if there are meaningful and measurable performance differences at the companies where engagement is championed by President/CEO or line of business. I’ll post back if she finds anything. Thanks again for reading.
[...] published an excellent report that not only begins to define this nebulous concept, but al… carry on reading. AKPC_IDS += “896,”; (No Ratings Yet) Loading … Posted in Leadership | Tagged Aberdeen [...]