Employee engagement: What do the numbers mean?

Posted by:
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Of course, every company wants engaged employees because, according to many employee  surveys out there, these employees perform better, provide boosts in profitability, miss less days of work, provide better customer service, smile more, yada, yada, yada.

Here's some of the actual numbers from a recent Gallup survey:
  • Business units in the top quartile of employee engagement have 12% higher customer advocacy, 18% higher productivity, and 12% higher profitability than business units in the bottom quartile.
Flickr image by timparkinsonWell of course engaged employees do these things. If people like what they do and/or where they work, they are going to take more pride in what they do and as a result provide better returns. What I'm beginning to wonder though is what impact does a company actually have on employee engagement. Those employees have made the choice to be engaged in their business.

Creative and direct employee communications can go a long way to bridging gaps with employees but at the end of the day, it's still the employee's choice of whether or not they are "engaged." Though I sincerely doubt they'd actually use that word.

"Hey honey. I had a great day. I'm engaged at work." I just don't see this conversation happening at the dinner table. Companies might show data that their employees are "engaged" but it comes to to each individual employee and how they feel about the company.

Where I see corporate communications playing a vital role is making the work environment one where people feel they are informed and getting the information they need. There are all sorts of tools that can be used to deliver the internal communications message: town halls, newsletters, intranets, digital signage, etc. Digital signage is particularly effective at reaching employees who may not have easy access to computers, email or even voice mail. But these tools can only go so far. They can only promote engagement. They cannot determine it. 

Because even then, it's still the employee's choice if they truly believe and feel devoted to their company's future. For some, a paycheck is enough. For others, they need to be wooed and romanced. A lot of companies simply don't have the stomach for that.

Does yours?
______________________
Photo credit, timparkinson


Comments for Employee engagement: What do the numbers mean?

Friday, May 15, 2009 by Sean Williams:
Chuck - points taken, but the Gallup methodology isn't necessarily evaluating corporate communications' impact on engagement, it's evaluating the managers and systems (including communication). This is a small distinction, but whereas an employee can "choose" to be engaged, it's less of an end state and more of a process. The emotional and intellectual ties that an employee has to an organization are a function of what they think and feel -- both aspects of communication outcomes. The Gallup Q12 is looking at activities that impact what employees think and feel. The manager -- and the manager's capacity to recognize, reward and communicate with an employee has the greatest impact on that employee's tie to the organization. This is where Gallup has it totally right. I also respect the discomfort with "engagement" -- but I understand the word's summary nature.
Friday, May 15, 2009 by Chuck Gose:
Thanks for the input Sean and clearly you've given this a lot of thought, as have I. I'm not disputing the data or methods of the Gallup results. There's just nothing surprising about them. But the danger is that so many companies simply rely on data to evaluate engagement and not necessarily the things you mentioned, like a manager's involvement. But again, it's all good stuff and a great debate. The great companies get it right.