Zealise Blog

Best Definition of Employee Engagement

It is hard to keep track of all the different definitions of employee engagement. David MacLeod’s government appointed task force identified more than 50 perfectly good definitions.  So how can you expect to create employee engagement when you can’t even get a standard, universally accepted definition?  This very diffusion makes it almost impossible to come up with a singular solution that appeals to everyone. 

That is why I was so struck by the pithy answer that Ellen Kullman, the CEO of du Pont, apparently gave during an interview when asked what she looks for in an employee. She gave a single word answer which I am sure you will agree takes a lot of beating: “presence.” (Source: ‘That Used to be Us’: Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, Page 100.)

Having colleagues who, years ago, joked about “people who had left the company but were still on the payroll”, this struck an immediate chord.  If, however, you find it too cryptic, her expansion is clear. “We want every employee to be in the room … the rote jobs today are gone – they are done by machines. Now you have to have people who can think and interact and collaborate.” You cannot think or interact or collaborate effectively if you are not 100% focused.

Management, Manipulation and Employee Engagement

If you are striving to be a better manager – which, as a self-respecting manager you undoubtedly are – you may find it helpful (even if it seems slightly odd) to start with a little etymology. 

You see the word ‘manage’ is derived from the Latin ‘maneggiare’ meaning to handle and comes from the root word ‘manus’ or hand. As such it has a great deal in common with the word ‘manufacture’ (literally to make by hand) and ‘manipulate’ (literally to fill the hands) and all conveying the need to handle, or operate the hands. This has some pretty profound implications when it comes to people. 

Throughout history and right through the Industrial Age, human labour has been “hired.” One consequence of this was the phrase “hired hands” which broadly characterised the relationship between employer and employee. It was this concept which gave employers the right to hire and fire people at their discretion.

Today, however, we have moved beyond this narrow need. Since the start of the Information Age we have talked widely and openly about “knowledge workers,” thus implicitly recognising the need to move beyond the historic limits conveyed by the traditional terminology. Even if you haven’t consciously recognised this, you have already intuited it, hence your efforts to develop initiatives “to win the minds of your people.” Yet even that is not enough.

Can you really manage with non-permanent employees?

As a writer myself, I understand the difficulties of creating “attention-grabbing” headlines and titles. And this week I was struck by the headline, ‘Why the rise in non-permanent labour is fast becoming a C-Level issue.’ Three things aroused my curiousity, possibly more as a result of my own thought processes than the writer’s intentions.

1. What was the definition of “non-permanent labour?” (With my own research identifying a world-leading company having reduced headcount by 110,000 over the past 10 years it seems clear that no job is permanent.)
2. Is it rising and why? (How can business leaders expect to build brands if they do not have engaged employees who share the organisation’s purpose?)
3. Why is it becoming a C-level issue? (Surely all staffing is a C-level issue, and so what makes this unique?)  

Work-Life Integrity is the Answer

A common theme in articles I have been reading this week is employer brand and the creation of places where people want to work. These were perhaps best represented by this article in HR Magazine. Yet I cannot help wonder why it all appears so mystical and mysterious. Surely it is obvious?

After all, if we only have one life, it seems self-evident that we should all want to make the most of it. And work is large part of life. Thus you don’t need some academic writing in Harvard Business Review to tell you that, “People want to do good work”, “in an organisation that makes a difference” and “in a place that magnifies their strengths.” For anyone with an ounce of humanity that should be a no-brainer!

The Performance Paradox

At the European Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) conference in London earlier this week, a speaker introduced us to Neuroscience, a clearly complex topic and definitely not something one can claim to be an expert on after a 45 minute session! I did, however, learn 3 key things which I hope will stick with me for more than the duration of the conference, and I would love to share them with you now.

1. Threat is bigger than reward.
2. The brain searches for threats every 5 seconds.
3. The “SCARF” Model.

How to break the cycle of poor industrial relations

The centuries-old struggle of employers versus employees shows little or no sign of abating.  There were two clears signs of that this week. The first was the strike by firemen against changes it says will force firefighters to work longer, pay more into their pensions and receive less in retirement. The second was a call by the NHS Employers organisation calling for a freeze in pay scales in 2014/5. On the face of it the two extremes of the struggle – workers acting because they feel exploited, and employers sending messages that employee costs cannot continue to rise.

Such standpoints, however, only perpetuate the struggle. To resolve the underlying problem you have to think differently or, as Einstein put it, “You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.”  So how can we break free of such entrenched thinking?

Looking for leadership

How’s your organisation’s leadership?  

That is likely to be anything but an easy question. Especially if you are the organisation’s leader! And it is not made any easier by the fact that leadership is one of those words. You know, one of those "big" words that mean something different to each one of us. A word used to describe a concept that covers a multitude of different qualities, characteristics and capabilities, and that is more often judged by perceptions: by feelings rather than logic.

Even so, it is pretty disturbing to read reports that research by Harvard Business Press indicates that only 31% of global executives are confident that their leaders have the right leadership skills. Initially you might, (in a moment of rare optimism) ask if this could possibly be an indication of unheard of modesty and self-doubt on the part of leaders. Then you think that it is more likely to be directors assessing their own CEO, which is still a depressing thought for it doesn’t say much for the cohesion at the top. Nor does it inspire much confidence if it is a judgment of business leaders generally.

It turns out, however, that they are describing the abstract concept of leadership rather than the personal capabilities and shortcomings of executives. It seems that nearly half (43%) see leadership development as the most significant factor in driving business transformation. Interestingly (and some might say encouragingly), this desire for leadership seems to be directed lower down the organisation and specifically at middle management level. At last the drive for distributed leadership is gathering momentum. If only these people could see the paradox here! 

The disastrous consequences of mixed messages!

As I have always stressed, there are two distinct parts to strategy. There’s strategy development and there is strategy implementation. They are two very different things, but you can’t really have the one without the other.

It’s all very well for executives to sit in their plush offices and develop strategic plans but those plans aren’t worth a can of beans if they are not carried out. And of course, it is the rest of the organisation that does the carrying out! In fact executives generally play little or no significant part in implementation. That is why it is imperative that the strategy is effectively communicated through all levels of the organisation.  How else can you expect to achieve strategic integrity – the perfect fusion of strategic planning and strategy implementation?  

Does it have any real value?

You do not have to be over 21 to have experienced it. Nonetheless, the likelihood is that if you are over 21 you almost certainly will have done so. It would seem it is an inevitable part of adult life. Most organisations with about ten or more people insist.

And the odds are that you will have found it an ordeal. That may, arguably, be true of anything that is compulsory. In this instance, however, you might possibly even question its value.

Employer Branding, Employee Engagement & Jobs for Life

“Jobs for life.” Where did that concept come from and what does the term actually mean? How many people do you know who believed that their job was for life?

My parents certainly didn’t believe in it, and neither, as far as I know, did my grandparents – and that probably covers nearly the last 100 years! Certainly I was not brought up to believe that. Nor do I think any of my peers felt that employment meant a life-long commitment. So did HR believe it?