Empirical Rationalism and Other Oxymora
Posts tagged Leadership
Engagement as a Competitive Advantage
Aug 31st
The August 24 & 31 issue of BusinessWeek has a short article on the link between engagement and the bottom line. According the the article’s author Michelle Conlin, Best Buy “says that a 2% increase in employee engagement at one of its electronics stores corresponds to, on average, to a $100,000 annual rise in sales at that location.” The articles cites several examples of companies where employee engagement is an integral part of overall strategy, including JC Penny, Campbell Soup and Stryker Communications.
Employee Engagement: Building Blocks For Success
Aug 25th
Continuing the discussion (1,2) on Mollie Lombardi’s report on employee engagement, I thought it might be interesting to take a step back and dig into why engagement is important from both the employee and employer point of view. The research indicates that the economy is definitely having an impact on talent plans; 43%* of respondents are focused on engagement in an effort to drive productivity and 40%* are looking to mitigating “fear, uncertainty and doubt” caused by the economic downturn. In this environment:
Organizations are trying to understand how to motivate employees while still remaining focused on the job to be done – that job is frequently getting bigger and needs to be completed faster with fewer resources.
Clearly, the professional environment is getting more complex and job roles are getting increasingly difficult. While many organizations have asked employees to “do more with less” over the past 11 months, I have often argued that this is the wrong mantra… the focus on productivity is correct, but we need to ask employees to achieve more with fewer resources. Employees approach demands for greater productivity in two ways: 1) they drive harder in order to remain employed, or 2) they strive to achieve more and become an engine of organizational success. The semantic nuance between “do more” and “achieve more” could mean the difference between deep-seeded cynicism and collaborative problem solving.
As Neil Ryder points out in a recent comment, employee engagement is not something that you can “do” without the right building blocks in place; the culture of the business needs to be conducive to evolving a highly engaged workforce. According to Mollie, Best-in-Class organizations are focused on five key capabilities to create a sustainable culture of engagement:
- Performance goals are agreed to by managers and employees
- Development plans are agreed to by managers and employees
- Managers hold regular informal feedback sessions with employees on progress toward goals
- Senior executives are bought in and fully support engagement efforts
- Formal or Informal employee recognition programs are in place
In Chapter 3 of the report, Mollie offers an excellent set of recommendations for organizations at all levels of maturity. She also discusses the tools and technological enablers required to support engagement efforts.
Bottom Line for CxOs: If employee engagement is important to you, you need to foster and grow a culture that is conducive to a highly engaged workforce. A clear, well-articulated and consistent strategy (that is supported by the entire management team) and open, frequent and two-way communications throughout the organization are crucial building blocks for success.
You can download a free copy of the report here (available until the end of Sept 2009 – registration required).
(*multi-pick question, respondents were asked to pick the top-2 reasons)
Who Owns Employee Engagement?…
Aug 24th
A couple of days ago, I posted about a report that Mollie Lombardi from the Aberdeen Group wrote on employee engagement. Richard commented:
Ultimately, engagement is about feeling involved in the business, and believing in it… 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’, no amount of programs will ever make a jot of difference to the company.
I agree.
As I perused through Richard’s company blog, I came across an interesting post related to this topic. It is unclear who authored the post, but there was an excellent definition of engagement and some interesting insights on the ownership of the engagement initiatives:
Employee engagement is about connecting the hearts and minds of your employees with the values and vision of your company. It’s about getting your employees to feel more connected with your company, to take greater ownership, responsibility, and go a bit further for your customers, not because you ask them to, but because they want to.
In the same way that the financial success of your company is not just the responsibility of your finance director, employee engagement is not solely the responsibility of your HR department. … No amount of HR initiatives or programs will compensate for the words and actions of your managers. That is not to say that your HR department cannot and should not play a vital role in helping your managers create higher levels of engagement with their employees, but ultimately your managers have to take responsibility for engagement.
Mollie also discusses ownership of engagement in her report. According to our data, at 43% of Best-in-Class companies, the CEO/president is the primary champion of engagement. For “all others” (i.e. the combined average and laggard performers), the primary champion is at the HR leadership level (42%).
Bottom line for CxO’s: Employee engagement is not a buzzword that can be delegated; if you believe that engagement is something that could have a demonstrable impact on your business, you have to spearhead the initiative… and get your management team to support your efforts.
You can download a free copy of the report here (available until the end of Sept 2009 – registration required).