“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
Groucho Marx
The Towers Watson Global 2012 Workforce Study covers more than 32,000 employees selected from research panels that represent the populations of full-time employees working in large and mid-size organizations across a range of industries in 29 markets around the world.
This study reports the distribution of global participants: 35% “highly engaged“; 22% “unsupported“; 17% “Detached“; and 26% “Disengaged.”
In order to be classified as “highly engaged” employees had to report being “high” on what they describe as “three elements that are critical to sustaining engagement in the workplace over time.” These include: 1) Traditional engagement (willingness to expend discretionary effort); 2) Enablement (having the resources and support to perform); and 3) Energy (working in an environment that supports physical, emotional and interpersonal well-being).
From a talent retention and performance perspective it’s logical to argue that having adequate equipment/supplies, supervisory support and psychologically healthy climate would appear to be important but how do these findings match any number of other “global” engagement surveys being reported by other consulting firms?
In the 2011 Blessing White Global Retention Study, 1 in 3 employees worldwide are engaged (31%) and almost 1 in 5 are disengaged (17%). They operationalize “engagement” as a function of two things: 1) Contribution to a company’s success; and 2) Satisfaction in one’s role. They create “five levels of engagement” including:
- The Engaged
- Almost Engaged
- Honeymooners & Hamsters
- Crash & Burners
- The Disengaged
OK, itseems that everyone uses the term “engagement†and some organizations have established themselves as “the†experts around the concept with well known surveys that are widely used.
So, what does this term really mean and how can it be measured?
As a “folk term†engagement has been used to describe a diverse set of measures getting at the following concepts—all have been used to define the concept and as a base to develop famous (and not so famous) surveys for research and practice:
Psychological States (e.g., energy, involvement, commitment, satisfaction, job burnout, perceived stress, perceived justice, empowerment)
Personality (e.g., positive affect, negative affect, conscientiousness, resilience/hardiness, optimism, core self-evaluations, proactive personality)
Behaviors/Performance (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, initiative, high performance, collaboration/team work, dishonesty/theft/loss)
The Envisia Learning approach has been consistent with the other well known vendors of identifying and measuring conditions under which people work (e.g., leadership practices, perceived resources, justice, social connections, etc.) that impact retention, perceptions of stress and productivity ((Nowack, K. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Leaders Make a Difference. HR Trends, 17, 40-42)).
In fact, we have shown, like prior research, that talent today don’t leave organizations—they leave incompetent jerks, competent jerks and psychologically draining work climates. In our research, talent working for the interpersonally challenged reported significantly more perceived stress, greater dissatisfaction and increased intentionality to actually leave the organization. One could say these employees were “disengaged†and as my colleague and career expert Michele Rosa likes to say, “Eager to stay but ready to leave.â€
What We Are Measuring
Here is what we have been using for many years—it’s called the Leadership Effectiveness Index and it appears to have reasonable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of .91) and predictive validity. As you can see it is more narrow than some of the other vendors’s measures of engagement but in our broader surveys we also include items that get at perceptions of the work climate (e.g., resources, support, etc.).
Leadership Effectiveness Index Questions
(1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3= Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree
1. My manager/supervisor demonstrates competence in his or her job.
2. My manager/supervisor treats everyone fairly (i.e., plays no favorites).
3. My manager/supervisor creates a motivating and supportive work climate.
4. My manager/supervisor represents my needs, ideas and suggestions to his/her manager.
5. My manager/supervisor takes an interest in my professional growth and
development.
6. My manager/supervisor involves me in decision making, problem solving and planning processes.
7. My manager/supervisor creates a high performance and collaborative work team.
8. I have the opportunity to interact with Management above my immediate supervisor.
The “engagement†literature is becoming a bit like the occupational stress literature—confusing definitions, eclectic measurement tools and diverse methods to assess one or more components of this multi-facted construct.
So, feel free to use our “engagement†metric—the Leadership Effectiveness Index but be careful about defining exactly what you are measuring….or, maybe you just don’t care…..Be well….
Ken Nowack
Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY13758) and President & Chief Research Officer/Co-Founder of Envisia Learning, is a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Ken also serves as the Associate Editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. His recent book Clueless: Coaching People Who Just Don’t Get It is available for free for a limited time by signing up for free blog updates (Learn more at our website)
