A Definition of Insanity
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
|
|
 |
|
|
Contact Wally about coaching, consulting, or speaking to your group. |
Gallup just published news of some recent research. The article is titled, "Majority of American Workers Not Engaged in Their Jobs." Here's the lead paragraph.
"Seventy-one percent of American workers are "not engaged" or "actively disengaged" in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and are less likely to be productive. That leaves nearly one-third of American workers who are "engaged," or involved in and enthusiastic about their work and contributing to their organizations in a positive manner. This trend remained relatively stable throughout 2011."
That may sound bad and familiar to you. It sounds bad because it's distressing that less than a third of all workers are engaged. You might want to hire an "engagement partner" such as Gallup to help you make things right. But you might have second thoughts about that based on a paragraph further down in the article.
"Americans' levels of engagement at work are generally consistent with Gallup's trends on workplace engagement from various studies since 2000. The current percentage of engaged employees is similar to the historical high of 30% in 2001 to 2002 and 2006 to 2007. The percentage who are actively disengaged is near the high of 20% recorded in 2007 and 2008."
Read that carefully. After a full decade of high-priced experts and "engagement partners" laboring away, engagement scores have not changed significantly. Maybe it's time to send the consultants packing and see if we can find a better use for the money we've been paying them.
Perhaps we can do better with homebrew methods of improving engagement. Perhaps we should quit worrying about engagement per se and turn our attention to something where our investment can make a difference.
Remember this common definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
A tip 'o the hat to SmartBrief for pointing me to the Gallup article.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Wally
Good point. I was reflecting on something similar with workplace health programs.
I think one reason for the weak impact of programs is that businesses contract for services that have not been rigorously tested through independent research. Most of the measures and the background work on approaches are proprietary secrets. The issue is the persuasiveness of the sales pitch rather than the quality of the data.
Another problem is that there is no solid basis for drawing a line between being engaged and not being engaged. It's an arbitrary point on a continuous scale of survey scores. The same criticism goes for the diagnosis of burnout or stressed or a variety of other states.
Anyway, a bit a fluff. I agree you that people are often better of just following what makes sense.
All the best,
Michael
www.workengagement.com
Reply to this
Thank you, Michael. I think you make good points, from the perspective of someone who is a recognized expert in these areas. One issue is that there's no common definition of engagement and every individual consultant uses his or her own definition and metrics.
Reply to this
When the economy hits an economic downtown, people are forced to take jobs that are unfulfilling -- it just happens. They can't attain the upper levels of Maslow's needs hierarchy at work, because the stimulation just isn't there when you're a gas station attendant and studied to be a mechanic.
Only when the economy recovers will people be able to meet higher order needs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But it creates an interesting Catch-22, doesn't it? When will we emerge from the recession if the bulk of people don't really care about how they're doing in their jobs?
Reply to this
Thanks for adding to the conversation, Steve.
Reply to this
Wally,
I have heard the engaged statistic before, but I thank you for posting this one because tonight I was going to have to hunt for a link to that exact topic!
The conclusion is an interesting take on things - let's turn our attention towards something that is worthwhile of the time investment. You may be correct, a lot of what drives engagement is not emanating from leaders at all but is in the employee's realm of control.
If the company has been laying off people for 10 years and counting, a few rah-rahs from their management is not going to move the needle.
Reply to this
That's all true, David. I think most people would say that they can recognize engagement when they see it, but it's a big jump from there to a common definition and tested methodology. Thanks for chipping in.
Reply to this
These figures are averages .. incredible improvements in engagement scores are achieved all the time (well by www.Sewells.com) in all sorts of companies. Dont be fooled into thinking it cant be done .. it can .. when you know what you are doing!
Reply to this
Thanks, Dr. Holden. I'm sure that "it" can be done, but I don't think we have a common understanding or common measures of what "it" is, when the "it" is engagement.
Reply to this
People engage with their job when their leader engages with them. It's not complicated.
Reply to this
I agree that it's no complicated, Dick. That's why I wonder why it requires so many consultants with dueling definitions.
Reply to this