49. Engaging Staff in the Workplace

Social exchange theory¹ sheds light on the reciprocal relationship between perceptions of an organization’s enabling environment, capacity, and organizational motivation and staff willingness to maximize individual and collective performance.² Yet, until recently, human resource specialists introduced cleaner, whiter, or more “colory” practices by administrative circular or order, typically after a modicum of consultation. Top-, middle-, and first-level managers would enforce adherence to the line.

Organizations are communities, the members of which want worthwhile jobs that inspire them. Naturally, a committed and willing workforce brings substantial benefits. Some time ago, we recognized that formal relationships cannot by themselves be expected to conduce these entirely: implicit employer–employee exchanges matter.³ Belatedly, we concede that perceptions of an organization’s rules, ethos, and capabilities, not just the experience staff has of human resource practices, drive levels of effort and associated degrees of job satisfaction. More and more, organizations say they are looking for win–win solutions that match their needs with those of personnel: they examine the question of motivation with a fresh sense of purpose and conviction. Better still, high-performance organizations marshal and direct substantial resources to build effective behaviors and relationships, often in concert with human resource divisions.⁴ Engaging staff has come of age: in the twenty-first century, the concept affirms the importance of flexibility, change, and unremitting improvement in the workplace.

Engagement is a multifaceted construct that has been variously defined.⁵ Even so, on the whole, personnel engage when they feel appreciated and involved. In such instances, they are likely to hold a positive attitude vis-à-vis the organization and its corporate values (assuming the latter are enacted, not just espoused). This translates into correct focus and enthusiasm about work as well as mindful proactivity and persistence in the conduct of it.⁶ The earlier reference to organizational branding suggests that identity and authenticity are pivots of that.⁷

Engagement is something everyone can offer: but it cannot be forced by terms of reference; hence, early interest in psychological contracts. There are four dimensions to it: (i) cognitive (or intellectual)—thinking hard about one’s profession and how one might perform it better; (ii) emotional (or affective)—feeling good about doing a good job; (iii) social—taking opportunities to discuss work-related improvements with others; and, even if the literature rarely mentions it, (iv) physical—mustering the stamina to “go the extra mile”.

Engagement and enablement through optimized roles and a supportive environment energize people. They develop a stronger sense of personal well-being. They understand the business context and the “bigger picture”. They have a desire to work to make things better. They are clear about the desired outcomes of their role. They display consistently superior levels of performance. They behave in ways that support their organization’s corporate values. They have a positive impact on services to clients, audiences, and partners. They become willing advocates. They demonstrate higher levels of innovation and drive for efficiency. They keep up to date with developments in their field. They never run out of things to do and create positive things to act on. They intentionally build supportive relationships and are respectful of, and helpful to, colleagues. They are much more likely to have a productive relationship with their supervisor. They can deal with changes and challenges. They manage stress and enjoy better health and well-being as a result. They have lower rates of sickness or absenteeism. They are less likely to leave. Overall, they derive greater satisfaction in their lives.⁸

Not surprisingly, high levels of engagement and enablement benefit organizations. (Engaged and enabled people generate more revenue.) As expected, the outcome of staff engagement covers a broad range, including increased profitability, higher productivity, contributions to innovation, and lower staff turnover.

Most, if not all, staff engagement initiatives—that then classify staff as engaged, not engaged,⁹ and actively disengaged—begin with the use of surveys to measure attitudes and circumscribe what areas need attention.¹⁰ The common threads relate to organizational advocacy, management styles, decision-making, communications, involvement initiatives, and work–life balance.

However, surveys reveal also that each organization has distinctive issues. Different groups of staff are influenced by different combinations of factors, and organizations need to consider carefully what is most important to them. Hence, there can be no template for deciding which specific policies and practices will have most impact on performance: engagement must be seen in context, which opens rich seams for research.¹¹ (For instance, research on the predictors¹² of engagement is scant. It is also not known whether or not interventions, such as training managers on how to communicate effectively, actually serve to boost engagement. It might also be necessary to examine individual differences and whether variables, such as personality, impact engagement.)

Surveys also need to be followed by effective action to address issues identified or they will negatively impact on attitudes. Fundamental to managing engagement as a process is ensuring that action is taken on the findings of employee attitude surveys. Failure to follow through generally has a damaging effect on attitudes and on the rate of response to subsequent surveys. Sadly, taking survey data to the next level into something that might—with actionable recommendations and metrics—ultimately renovate business processes and operations remains, unacceptably, largely unexplored territory.¹³ The survey event cannot provide all the answers and is still too often isolated from the strategy of the organization.

Differences notwithstanding, the key drivers of staff engagement against which actions can be taken are the following¹⁴:

Since groups of employees are influenced by different combinations of factors across occupations, industries, and sectors, managers will need to consider carefully what steps are most relevant to their organization. There is much scope for thoughtful reflection. A possible model, put forward by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006), recommends that employers should strengthen links between engagement, performance, and intention to stay through measures that promote

That said, embarking on a drive to increase engagement levels should not be taken lightly, bearing in mind the ease with which engagement (much as trust and respect) can be shattered. The Institute for Employment Studies (Robinson et al. 2004), for one, cautions that attempts to raise engagement levels are likely to founder if all the following building blocks are not in place and working well:

If much in organizations can be explained by networks of transactions, treating people as cogs in a machine will impair the potential contribution they might make and engender unpleasant feedback. Organizations that understand the what, why, and how of staff engagement and take continuous actions to overcome generic and more specific barriers to it will unleash performance and well-being in the workplace. Helpfully, Gallup (Wagner and Harter 2006) has defined a practicable number of outcomes the achievement of which would denote that. Stronger from reconciliation, humanized organizations would be able to say they acted on a blindingly obvious but nevertheless often-overlooked rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.