After reviewing Gallup’s latest analysis showing employee engagement levels at a 10-year low—just 1% above their lowest ever—we were reminded of Clint Kofford, PhD's article, "Employee Engagement is Failing: How Meaningful Work Matters." In it, he states: “Traditional strategies often rely on conducting annual surveys, doling out superficial perks, and rolling out one-size-fits-all initiatives. These tactics focus more on ticking boxes than genuinely understanding and addressing the real drivers behind employee satisfaction and commitment.” This underscores why improving employee engagement methods should be critical to any HR strategy.

From an HR point of view, employee engagement has traditionally been a crucial outcome, driven by a combination of managerial behaviors and targeted people policies and programs. While that is the case, when we look at engagement, the question is, are we pulling the right levers to drive increased talent outcomes? Are we asking the right questions and considering ways to increase employee commitment, satisfaction, performance, and productivity? How are we going about using the right employee engagement methods?

The issue is especially troublesome given the ineffectiveness of enterprise efforts to drive and improve engagement levels. 78% of companies are reported to have formal employee engagement strategies and have invested over $720 million annually to address it. Yet, given Gallup’s dismal results, the question of why these investments are not yielding results is significant.

The answers most likely lie in a variety of integrated practices and processes. However, the first issue to tackle is gaining clarity on the problem and its causes. Much of the confusion stems from variances in how key drivers or elements of “employee engagement” are defined, how different organizations measure it, and the action steps to be taken. With so many industry and HR experts telling companies which buttons to push to improve talent engagement, combined with the natural limits of HR’s ability to influence managerial behavior, the desire to improve this state is a muddled mess.

Defining engagement and the issues that arise with its assessment

The concept of engagement emerged from William Kahn's research, which examined how much employees bring their “full selves” and extend their full efforts to their work. Over time, a general agreement has emerged that engagement involves an employee's pride, passion, enthusiasm, connection, and/or commitment to the company, its mission, the job, and the assigned team.

Consider that for a moment—each one of those elements or objects of an employee’s passion can yield different emotional responses. For example, an employee might “love” the company’s mission but have a micromanager for a boss, customers who complain about product defects, or co-workers who are overly competitive. Any of these might drag down the employee’s overall sense of commitment, enthusiasm, pride, or connection, thus lowering their engagement level.

Qualtrics suggests that while employee engagement is “important and a good thing,” it does not tell the whole story of what keeps employees retained, productive, and willing to exert extra time and effort. It suggests that employees can be engaged and still

• want to leave the organization
• be at risk of burnout
• not feel like they belong
• struggle with unwieldy technology experiences and processes
  
  

Translating the ethereal concepts of commitment, investment, pride, passion, and enthusiasm into practical, behavioral terms that can be observed and measured has proven challenging for HR teams. The linkage of those concepts to the ultimate goal of better business outcomes is unclear, with millions of line managers and leaders continually questioning whether employee emotions even matter when “there is a job to be done here.”

Also, employees’ commitment and passion for their work and the company’s mission will naturally vary and change over time. As staffing and business conditions change, and as time in a given role and organization accumulates, the passion for one’s job can wane after several years when the employee applies the same skills to the same situations and challenges. Furthermore, changes in corporate direction, executive leadership, and the priorities of their replacements, management styles as direct managers come and go, and a lack of improvement in work or administrative process workflows and systems can make work more or less appealing. Any of these can change how an employee feels about the organization, its prospects, and their excitement about their career path and opportunities. All of these make improving employee engagement a challenge.

Why engagement is considered important

A body of objective research has been built that makes a compelling case for employee engagement as a desirable business and talent outcome. Gallup, for example, has established itself as one of the primary standard holders, with its statistically developed and validated Q12 conducted on millions of workers and leaders. Its years-long studies have continued to demonstrate a significant impact of engagement scores on critical business outcomes, including substantially improved:

• Sales
• Profitability
• Productivity
• Customer satisfaction and retention
• (Medical) patient safety 
• Shrinkage/theft
• Accidents and safety incidents
• Product defects and service quality

Its research found similar impacts of higher engagement levels on talent outcomes, such as improved productivity and substantially lower employee turnover and absenteeism rates. Other research has found similar outcomes, with SHRM reporting that employees engaged in their work are more likely to help the company achieve its goals. Other researchers report a significantly lower likelihood of intention to leave, an increased inclination to work harder and solve problems, to grow and develop faster, to get along with people better, and to stay longer at a company.

How organizations get it wrong: the problems with common engagement efforts

Unclear purpose and focus

It can be argued that the differences in how leading consultants and thought leaders define employee engagement make it challenging to understand its true nature. For example, Peter Capelli argues that companies are typically interested in employee motivation when they conduct engagement surveys, rather than in employees' commitment, excitement, or passion for their products, services, and mission. As a result, their measurement is often reduced to questions about what inspires the employee to work harder, faster, better, or longer.

The risk here, of course, is that the solutions to improving talent engagement end up being misplaced attempts to make people happier rather than more attuned to the company’s objectives, their functional or departmental goals, or to improving the customer experience.

Insufficient prioritization 

A lack of enterprise-wide focus on employee engagement also likely contributes to its historically low levels. To that point, Lattice conducted research and found that only 37% of organizations acknowledge engagement as their top talent priority, despite its proven link to better business and talent outcomes. In its follow-up study, only 56% of the high-performing teams said their company prioritizes it (with 12% of low-performing HR teams saying the same). While 55% of HR professionals report that their organizations consider engagement "important," they lack or are denied the resources to enable and improve it. Other research has found that only 39% of HR teams report they can execute action plans to improve employee engagement, leaving 61% without the resources or support to make meaningful progress.

Misplaced and over-generalized solutions

For organizations that prioritize improving employee engagement, many HR efforts feel oversimplified and dated. A recent survey asked HR teams to report their primary methods of driving and improving engagement levels, which included:

• L&D programming (50%) 
• Additional PTO (33%) 
• Additional benefits (33%)
• Flexible time off (29%)
• Remote work policy (27%)
• DEIB programming (19%)
• Stipends (11%)
• 4-day workweek (9%)
• Others (14%)

Note that most of these address elements that employees want and would enhance their satisfaction with the company. However, these generally fail to address what drives engagement, improves productivity, enhances performance, or simplifies employee work lives.

Furthermore, the study also asked HR leaders and teams about what strategies they think would most increase employee engagement, and they responded with:

• 68% learning and development opportunities
• 64% accessible career paths
• 62% clear performance expectations

Except for learning and development activities, none of the nine (9) strategies being implemented address actions that are proven to drive engagement levels—such as enhanced career paths or more explicit performance expectations.

Lack of focus on the role of managers in engagement 

Gallup has shown that managers account for 70% of team engagement. At the same time, only 23% of organizations provide “good” or “very good” training to managers. The extent to which they influence the quality of an employee’s experience is substantial, and many companies measure engagement down to the managerial level. However, the number of those who take action on managers with low scores (when everyone else’s is low) is reportedly dismal. While Google stands out for holding managers accountable for employee development and success through annual upward feedback (rating their managers) and another annual survey in which employees rate their managers and life at Google, it remains an outlier and the exception rather than the rule.

Addressing methods that really drive engagement levels

Some high-quality, research-based employee engagement models highlight what truly increases employee commitment to the organization and its mission. Examining the core elements that emerge from these models provides a starting point for understanding which “levers” to pull as one strives to improve talent engagement.

Looking across these, the following elements or drivers of employee engagement appear most frequently:

• Meaning, purpose, and autonomy: The extent to which employees' roles and work contribute to a larger purpose (company mission, values), add significant value (to its customers or communities), and inspire the individual. The ability or freedom to create new or improved work methods and determine when, where, and how their work assignments will be completed.
• Leadership and support: The strength of feeling that employees' leaders, managers, and co-workers support them, treat them with respect, provide clear expectations, coach and develop them, and value their input, opinions, and contributions, and have earned the employee’s trust.
• Recognition: The sense that employees' work has value, their growth and efforts are rewarded, and their value to the organization is recognized as their skills and abilities to contribute expand.
• Career growth and skill development: The availability of resources and encouragement to enhance existing employees' skills and develop new ones aligned with organizational capability objectives. The degree to which employees have or are offered access to new opportunities (projects, work assignments, education, or exposure to experts) for learning, professional growth, and advancement.
• Work-life balance: The ability of the employee to meet reasonable work demands while maintaining a satisfying and meaningful life outside work. Working for or with managers who care about balancing workloads and time off (to refresh physically, mentally, and emotionally). Having the time and access to resources needed to pursue family, community, spiritual, and physical well-being activities and requirements.
  
  

Engagement action planning strategies that work

Given the list of engagement drivers, it should come as no surprise that actions such as pay improvements, more generous time off policies, additional benefits, and the like are less effective in improving employee engagement levels than those that give employees a better sense of their value and importance to the business (meaningfulness) and skill and career growth and advancement.

It should also be noted that the most prevalent drivers of improving employee engagement are managers who guide and direct workers daily, communicate and translate more significant organizational priorities and expectations to them regularly, and are looked to for career development recommendations and for promotion to other managers.

1. Develop managers

Given their disproportionate impact (i.e., Gallup’s 70%) on engagement levels, engagement programs should be primarily focused on developing managerial skills, providing resources to guide employee skill and career development, and monitoring the frequency and quality of coaching and guidance they deliver to their direct reports. They should be able to communicate how a new or added work assignment or job responsibility is linked to larger corporate, customer, or community objectives. The frequency with which they recognize and publicize their team members' accomplishments or contributions to significant business achievements should be tracked and acknowledged by upper management. Their rate of advancing and promoting team members within and outside their function or department should become a badge of honor worthy of recognition and reward.

2. Focus on employee experience (EX) improvement measures

Robust EX strategies generate more efficient, responsive work and administrative processes while simultaneously benefiting talent outcomes. It has been demonstrated that EX solutions lead to a 35% improvement in engagement, and employees feel 3.4 times more likely to balance work and personal obligations. Willis Towers Watson found that 81% of employers consider it a key driver of employee engagement. Focusing on EX as a more comprehensive solution than engagement alone creates more efficient, less distracting administrative duties and yields stronger, more stable employee engagement results.

3. Be more direct in employee surveys

When designing or updating engagement surveys, a leading approach is to ask employees directly about the factors or elements of their employment that research has shown matter to engagement. As Peter Cappelli and Liat Eldor point out in their HBR article about the shortcomings of common engagement surveys, employees should be asked whether they feel a sense of purpose and meaningfulness in their work and whether their managers are role models and care about them, while setting clear goals and regular feedback.

4. Use multiple employee listening methods

Avoid the shortcomings of the annual employee survey, which typically has 50-100 questions. Participation rates tend to be lower, especially given global engagement rates in the lower 30% range. People who are not engaged are less likely to take the time to complete such a survey. Engage employees with more targeted surveys more frequently and rely on other employee listening methods, combined, to provide a more robust and comprehensive view of employee engagement and why employees are or are not engaged.

5. Focus employee development more broadly

Learning and development (L&D) investments tend to be broad-based and rely upon efficiency-based solutions in technology and learning program libraries. What employees desire is personalization, which can be enabled through technology investments, but that personalization requires a knowledge of where employees' strengths and skill deficits lie, what their aspirations are, and what aptitudes they have that might not be visible or known. Programming is therefore needed in formal career planning, skills-based assessments and development, career path (functional and cross-functional) identification, and mentoring and coaching. On-the-job training, along with greater process automation, is cited in global workforce research as the most common workforce strategy, identified by 80% of organizations worldwide.

Employee mobility is a significant driver of improving employee engagement. 73% of employees consider it a high-interest development activity. However, 20% of those workers report no visibility into internal opportunities within their organizations. The availability of Talent Marketplace platforms provides a starting point for organizations to address and improve development and engagement levels based on internal transfers and promotions.

Relevant Practices & Tools

Emerging Career Development Practices that are Business Driven, Intelligent, and Offer Elite-level Development. >

Emerging career development is a business strategy-driven function that creates linkages between a company's strategic staffing needs and individuals' career aspirations... more »

Expanding Career Development Options to Include Hands-on and Group Learning Opportunities. >

Beyond formal learning (certifications, courses, degree programs) and standard informal methods (eLearning, mentoring), leading organizations use increasingly novel and effective methods... more »

Leveraging Assessments to Identify Targeted Development Opportunities. >

Formal assessments are typically leveraged in coaching relationships and provide more objective insights into the capabilities and development needs of those being coached... more »

Defining Diverse Types of Awards to Support the Organization’s Culture and Enhance Overall Employee Engagement. >

Recognition is an institutionalized way of saying “thank you” to employees for a job well done and for the extra effort they put into their work... more »

The Competency Rating Form: Rate Individuals on Leadership and Other Competency Models. >

A carefully considered assessment of leadership capabilities for each individual leader. It is made against the standard competency model for purposes of identifying development gaps... more »