Abstract
History tells us that some problems are admired so deeply that we forget to solve them. But then, there are also times when we move to solve them too quickly, without having admired them enough.
So, what about employee engagement?
For several decades motivational theorists admired the problem with great fascination and offered the world a whole host of theories that we continue to fall back on. Then in the last few decades, consulting companies have offered the world their own models of motivation under the umbrella of engagement.
Given that the context has changed so enormously and so much water has flown under the bridge, I believe it is time to step back and admire the problem once again. That is the purpose of my article.
A Working Understanding
It would be useful to place before ourselves a working understanding of two terms: motivation and employee engagement.
Time to Wake Up and Smell the ROSE
The first provocative question to ask ourselves is this: How engaged are organisations about employee engagement?
In other words, what is preventing organisations from directing with intensity, their best discretionary efforts towards employee engagement and persist with it?
There are four critical changes that have fundamentally reordered the governing conditions of engagement and made it difficult for organisations to focus on employee engagement.
I would like to call it Risk of doing business Organisation of things Societal changes Employee attitudes
Risk of Doing Business
For several decades, organisations demonstrated the principle of reciprocity towards employees—you give me your best and I will take care of you. This promise sounds bold in today’s world but that is the promise many made and some make even today.
That has of course shifted dramatically as the nature of businesses and the values of doing business changed.
Today, the principle of reciprocity is replaced with ‘marketplace orientation’ where the risk of doing business is now squarely shared by employees. If the business does well, you remain employed and earn a ‘competitive pay’ and if there is a momentary threat to business, your employment may be called to question.
Organisation of Things
How an Organisation works and does things has also changed quite dramatically.
The change in business models is profound. How we produce products and services, how we distribute them, how we sell them and how we finance all of this has changed radically and more radical ideas emerge every day. The accompanying changes in the employment models are significant. My research on employment trends which was first published in the year 2003, confirmed the emergence of a people portfolio approach to staffing which is presented below.
The manner in which jobs are designed and work is organised and delivered and the interplay of technology with human effort has put to question some of our assumptions about the quality of work life. The way performance is defined, reviewed, assessed and rewarded has gone through huge advancements. The use of tools, processes and minute measures to track and monitor performance has minimised the risk of dependence on discretionary effort. Finally, given all these shifts, the meaning and shape of careers have undergone dramatic changes.
Societal Shifts
The most radical changes to the governing variables of motivation and engagement are in the sociocultural dimensions around us.
Some of the fundamental notions about organisations, trust, relationships, power, collectivism, long-term orientation and identity have shifted in unimaginable ways. This certainly calls to question the new drivers of motivation. Authority was vested with men, managers, leaders, parents and organisations. And such authority was seen as deserving of unquestioned loyalty. Not anymore. With ‘reciprocity’, ‘loyalty’ and ‘authority’ no longer on the table, the only visible means of influence appears to be on certain tangible elements of the value proposition. Given extreme transparency, employees now know a lot more about their organisations, its leaders and their actions and they no longer appear as infallible and worthy of blind followership. As we move rapidly towards individualistic orientations, personal spaces and personal time are becoming precious. To ask for one’s time which is in significant short supply, without boundaries is seen as unengaging. From a time when our identity was tied solely to the company we worked for, identity today is much more plural. Organisations that are all-consuming are denounced. Finally, in a social media-fuelled world, the narratives about organisational realities are shaped, not by what the organisation wishes to put out or what mainline media reports. Power to influence and shape perceptions is now in the hands of every individual who chooses to use it.
Employee Attitudes
If the pandemic did not help organisations understand how the minds of their employees worked, they are never ever likely to.
If work from home is now positioned as an ‘employee value proposition’ mostly because employees refused to come back to work, that says something. Similarly, flexibility is a real big need for employees. It is almost like the ‘forbidden apple’ that everyone tasted during the pandemic.
There is little information on where the moonlighting debate ended. My guess is moonlighting won!
Employees are perpetually in the job market. Everyone is open to talk. It is likely that the average Indian employee between 24 and 35 years of age will change jobs around 14 times in their lifetime.
Mobility is seen as the antidote to the loss of job security and the death of trade unions and the loss of any collective bargaining power.
Seeking credentials to advance one’s career is huge as can be seen by the burgeoning businesses to meet this demand.
The courage to quit even without a job is seen as socially acceptable. It also reflects a newfound confidence in the buoyancy of the job market.
The desire to look beyond one’s day job for meaning and purpose is growing rapidly. Gig work opportunities are redefining the meaning of careers.
So that is ROSE for you.
It is in this changed context that we need to admire the problem of employee engagement.
Seven Questions
To admire the problem, I would now like to ask seven questions that can set us thinking about the problem well enough.
Whom Do We Wish to Engage?
When I use the restroom in the airport, I am often greeted by someone who seems so happy to help clean up the restroom for my use and he does it with a smile. My heart melts as I wonder what keeps him engaged.
Is someone caring about engaging this janitor? Are we too preoccupied with engaging the ‘corporate professionals’ or company employees? Are invisible employees who work for you but not employed by you counted in the employee engagement scheme of things?
When we outsource, do we also outsource engagement?
Organisations that care will find a way to engage everyone who is helping them realise their dreams.
Can There Be Engagement Sans Relationship?
By now it must be certain that engagement rests on the foundation of a relationship of trust.
One of the biggest concerns that fast-growing but caring organisations have today is this: ‘How do we ensure that we help our leaders and managers balance task demands with relationships?’
What they are seeing is the rapid erosion of relationships at work because of the ever-mounting demands of task and transactions.
If task demands will only increase, how will relationships flourish and if they don’t, how do we engage?
Organisations that care are working hard to help their leaders and managers strike that fine balance between tasks and relationships.
How Engaging Is Life?
Remember our initial definition of motivation?
I would like to believe that in the hierarchy of needs or goals that one is motivated to pursue, life precedes work. For the simple reason that the problems of living far outweigh the problems of working. Life agendas are big—everyone has one or two big rocks they are carrying on their shoulders.
Unfortunately, organisations do not even recognise the fact that employees have a life to live and a lot of their goal-oriented behaviours are directed to first manage their lives—especially so after the pandemic.
So What Are the Life Agendas?
Institutions like the family and marriage are being redefined radically. The lack of rules and boundaries is making life decisions extremely difficult and stressful.
Navigating the increasingly complex world of relationships is a huge agenda among the youth.
Being a young parent or parenting in a world of affluence or elder care can all place huge emotional and economic demands on shoulders already carrying job demands.
Concerns about health are creeping in at much earlier ages than ever before and the demands of work often seem to conflict with one’s ability to care for oneself, not to mention the role of work stress in adding to these health issues.
The fact that society, men and the workplace are yet to fully accept and come to terms with women at work and their aspirations poses its own challenges and dilemmas.
On top of this, the ability to live in an extremely uncertain and seemingly unsafe world and the demand to ‘constantly stay marketable’ adds to the stress.
All of these are placing a huge demand on the life skills of individuals, especially younger employees. Many confess that they do not have the mind space to deal with what life throws at them.
Organisations that care, recognise the demands of life and do what they can to help employees deal with these life agendas in harmony with the demands of work.
Are Your Values Towards Your Employees Selective or Universal?
Do organisations treat all their employees the same way when it comes to engagement or do they have different strokes for different folks?
How Do You Treat Employees Who Are Powerless?
For employees who really need the job, their motivation is to keep the job, to take care of those dependent on them, to repay debt, educate their children and so on. Security is critical.
Do organisations exploit their vulnerability or engage them in ways that are respectful? How do you engage when you have the power?
How Do You Treat Employees Who Have the Power?
For those who have choices, who hold a bargaining power in the job market, their goal-oriented behaviour is fuelled by the promise to build their careers, remain mobile and of course strengthen security through more money. Their loyalty might be transactional.
How comfortable are organisations in dealing with employees who demand their price, who show the same ambition and desire that they do? Are they judged? Do such employees put the true character of the organisation to test?
Does Engagement Include Engagement with Dissent?
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970) is an influential treatise written by Albert O. Hirschman.
The Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model states that members of an organisation have essentially two possible responses when they perceive that the organisation is demonstrating a decrease in quality or benefit to the member: they can exit or, they can voice to improve the relationship through communication.
Loyalty is seen as the trade-off between exit and voice.
When employees are disengaged and do not leave, how often do they Voice? How mature is your leadership and how enabling is your culture to engage in conversations that promote voicing?
Is it the role of HR to listen to those who wish to voice and do employees trust HR to voice?
Who has the mind space for difficult conversations?
Is Engagement a Strategy?
For organisations with a large number of employees who have choices, engagement can often boil down to an HR strategy. To be seen as a desirable workplace in the eyes of employees is seen as critical. For younger and newer organisations or those who are not yet on the top of the labour market food chain, this can be a matter of survival.
When this strategy degenerates into several trivialised activities it loses credibility.
The need for a strong employee value proposition to remain competitive is understandable. I wonder if organisations are confusing an employee value proposition with a philosophy of engagement?
Is There a Universal Truth?
Many engagement theories and models lead us to believe that there is one truth to the subject. Unfortunately, not so.
Motives and behaviours are very contextual and nuanced and it is hard to apply one rule to everyone.
The dimensions of motivation vary by generation. What drive young employees may be different from what drives older employees.
There are significant variations across industries. Technology-driven businesses entered their world with market-driven practices and find no difficulty in dealing with employees in that manner. They differentiate and outpay the market when needed, lay off, promote engagement as a brand promise and thrive.
On the other hand, traditional businesses and conglomerates with varying businesses tend to struggle with the old and new values of reciprocity and market orientation.
We also find that the values of family businesses vary from that of global corporations and VC-led businesses in their approach to engagement.
While small businesses take a more personal view to engagement, large businesses tend to be somewhat process led in their approach.
Of course, how much money is enough and when it stops motivating is hardest to generalise.
There is no better way to end this article than share Fitz Pearls’ Gestalt Prayer for it so succinctly captures the direction we are headed in as far as engagement and relationships are concerned.
Gestalt Prayer
I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful. If not, it can’t be helped. — Fritz Perls, ‘Gestalt Therapy Verbatim’, 1969
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.