Engaging employees, when there are too many to take to the pub

There's a bit of a buzz around employee engagement at the moment - and given that most of us have been a disengaged employee at some stage of our careers, I don't think any elaborate explanation is needed as to why it's an issue for employers.

But is this anything more than an excuse for HR gobbledegook, or is there a tangible impact on company performance? Enter David MacLeod, who was commissioned by the government in 2008 to report back on this very question. You can read their final report, the MacLeod Review, here.

I really like David MacLeod's robust style: he's about as far away as you can get from the stereotypical management guru (not surprising, since he's a serial CEO with years of experience in turning around big companies). David and his co-author, Nita Clarke of the IPA, told us about the companies that had convinced them of the measurable benefits of employee engagement, and the stories were brilliant. There were really significant productivity gains, driven by employees performing well beyond the call of duty.

But most important of all was their emphasis on leadership: the person at the top modelling good behaviours, communicating well, asking more from middle managers, listening to employees and treating them as people. It's not about HR policy or - god forbid - the gimmicky sort of programmes driven by a marketing department dead set on winning a "Best Workplace" award for the company. (We're looking to do more interviews on this topic, and hoping not to feature any of the latter ... )

It's interesting to see that the MacLeod Review had a lukewarm reception from HR professionals at the time for its "lack of practical measures". In a way, that reaction is unsurprising: MacLeod's audience was senior managers and he was talking in language designed to appeal to them, not HR. But it seems to me that the HR profession hardly needs a government-sponsored ticklist of practical ideas. What they do need is CEOs and directors who believe in employee engagement, are prepared to make it a priority in their business, and who do not expect HR to deliver it alone.

You can see David MacLeod's interview here

Four myths about employee engagement

• It's something you only bother about in the good times. (No, it's something you do in order to get through the bad times).
• It means being soft on people and sharing power. (No, it's about enhancing your power and improving their performance).
• It's all about staff surveys. (Most managers are too good at avoiding asking questions they don't want to hear the answer to).
• You can do it by taking your employees down the pub. (Nice idea, but as David MacLeod says, what happens when you get too big to buy them all a drink?)

Comments

[Craig Stoddart, Innergy]

I thoroughly agree with the importance of employee engagement and the impact it can have to an organisation's performance.

We have seen a huge rise in the number of employee engagement surveys that we are running in the last year. This is not surprising when there is significant demotivation following the strucural change that have happened in many businesses during this period.

The most significant issue that crops up again and again is that employees do not understand where the company is heading and how their role fits into the overall vision. If they are not inspired by the journey they are on, you might no be suprised by such low engagement levels.

The single most effective tool in employee engagement is to do a process of benchmarking different departments or locations against the organisation as a whole. This allows you to put together a really targeted action plan to improve engagement and productivity as a result.

[Jessica Figueras]

Many thanks Craig - we'd love to talk to any of your clients with experience to share!