- Smart:
- Thoughts
- Partners
- Opportunities
We recently went to an HR conference (an excellent one, by all accounts). As it happens, I did some of the pre-conference research and prep, and I was struck by an observation: the attendees were asked to identify their main learning goals for the meeting, and nearly 80% of them answered “Engagement”, in one form or another.
Based on the articles I read, client conversations I have, and the “buzz” I hear in the business atmosphere, “engagement” is The Thing right now: everyone’s top concern, the biggest worry, and the Holy Grail for solution.
And I wonder, why now? Is there a mass suspicion that a tidal wave of employees is ready to bail when things finally turn around? Is there a consensus that too many people are just sort of “skating by”, putting in time but not really bought in? Or is this just the latest “craze”? Every year or so it’s something. It seems that Paris fashion designers and American business executives are about equally susceptible to fads, trends and styles.
I have my own ideas (which I’ll talk about in a minute), but what about you? Is the current fixation with “engagement” based on facts, intuition, or just something we feel we “should” be concerned about – because everyone else seems to be?
The other aspect of this I find fascinating is that most companies I talk to – whether they say it or not – seem to believe that lack of engagement is somehow the employees’ shortcoming. I have a friend (an HR blogger, consultant and a stone genius) who is a well known incentives guru. I can’t tell you how many conversations he seems to have with companies that believe a “program” will fix it. Just have the right (inexpensive?) rewards in place, and they’re all set. Announce “employees-of-the-month” (and be fair about it!) and everyone will troop happily back into the sweat-shop.
In fact my genius buddy has his own theory: like Pavlov’s dogs, employees have reverse-engineered the system. If they score low on an engagement survey, the company panics and loads more goodies into the wagon. So the game is “Poor mouth and get more stuff.” While I wouldn’t be surprised that’s a factor, because I think survey results are one of the major drivers of this phenomenon, I think it’s fundamentally simpler – and harder – than that.
Let me explain with a story; this actually happened (really!). In May of 2011 I did some volunteer work at one of the host sites for the Chick-Fil-A Leadercast event. As usual, John Maxwell was the lead speaker, and among the things he said was – in effect – that engagement is simply a referendum on leadership and company culture. At lunch that day I repeated that point (approvingly) to a couple of friends of mine. One guy got all huffy, saying, “It’s really not that simple!” and bolted from the table. His buddy said, “Ooh, I think you stepped on some toes.” And then he related how his friend had just taken over a large customer service department from a genuinely gifted leader, and the engagement numbers had gone into the tank. Knowing both managers pretty well, and given Maxwell’s point, I wasn’t surprised.
In an era of “gunslinger executives” who go from one company to another, rarely staying long, should we wonder that there’s a disconnect between the C-suite and the rest? When employees have survived serial cutbacks of staffing, benefits, salaries and training, and are living in extreme horizontal structures with little upward mobility, should we be surprised that just “getting through the day” is often challenge enough? When so many people issues are being handled by untrained, inexperienced, overwhelmed supervisors and junior managers, what do we expect real “engagement” should look like? And what about those cultures that look great on signs and plaques and in annual reports, but are toxic (or worse) on the ground? Is poor engagement cause or effect?
In my mind, to achieve “engagement”, companies need to be “engaging” – appealing, desirable, predictable, consistent. And in that world, the lack of engagement starts at the top – reflecting problems at the top. Are the employees expected (really?) to be more engaged than their management? Should they be more committed to the culture and the company than vice-versa?
So what do we fix? The people or the culture? Management or employees? Fixing culture is tough – maybe the hardest thing there is, and it certainly can’t be done before the next survey. Fixing either the managers or the people means getting the right people in the right seats (although it CAN be done – and we can help you do it), but that’s not short term either. If we think we can fix the people by simply coming up with programs, but don’t address fit, culture or management, I think we’re kidding ourselves. It’s like trying to cure skin cancer with suntan lotion. It’s cheap and it’s easy, but it’ll never work. Because that’s not the source of the problem.
So it comes back to that source: the top of the pyramid. You need the right people in every position – starting with the top. You need leaders who “can” do their jobs (they have the talent and potential), and you need those who “will” do the job (attitude & work ethic). If you don’t have those elements present, you might as well try repairing a bicycle with a flamethrower. You’ll get lots of heat and light, and end up with a melted junk pile at the other end. That’s what we get (and are getting) trying to address “engagement” with programs, and from the bottom up.
