trends

SENIOR LEADERS & EXECUTIVES

Engagement is now under scrutiny by researchers and others who

find its promises hollow and some of its assumptions just plain wrong.

Employee Engagement: An Epic Failure?

BY PAT GALAGAN

I
f your company is worried about engaging its employees, its not alone. In
a 2014 Deloitte study, 78 percent of business leaders surveyed rated reten-
tion and engagement as urgent or important. But surprisingly, another study
found that 75 percent of organizations have no engagement strategy.
Despite great sums spent on engagement consultants, software, and surveys,
employee engagement scores have been declining for years. According to a Tow-
ers Watson survey, nearly two-thirds of U.S. employees are not fully engaged in
their work. The same percentage of the workforce was as disengaged in 2000 as
it is today, and that trend has been consistent throughout the past decade. The
cost of disengagement, and the lost productivity it causes, is estimated to be be-
tween $450 billion and $550 billion per year in the United States.

PHOTO: ISTOCK

24 TD | March 2015

TDTR690301Galagan.indd 24 2/13/15 3:14 PM

 A 2012 survey of employees in
Great Britain by the University of Bath
found that only about one-third of
employees said they are actively en-
gaged at work. That represents some
20 million people who are not working
to their full capability or realizing their
full potential at work.
Claims and disagreements
More than 30 suppliers serve the $1.5
billion employee engagement market
in the United States, according to the
Bersin by Deloitte report Employee
Engagement. Many claim that their ap-
proach to engagement will improve
company performance, citing research
theyve conducted.
Consultant Robert Bacal sees no
merit in such claims. In his blog on
workplace trends, he writes, There
is no evidence that employee engage-
ment causes better performance.
There are only studies that show a
correlation. It may be that more prof-
itable companies have better engaged
staff, because they are profitable, and
do a lot of other things better than
companies with less-engaged staff.
Some research even suggests that
the best performers are actually less
engaged than weak performers. Ac-
cording to Mark Murphy, CEO of
Leadership IQ, employees who pro-
vide the least value often are more
engaged than those who provide the
most value. His paper, Job Perfor-
mance is Not a Predictor of Employee
Engagement, identifies research that
shows that in 42 percent of organiza-
tions, low performers are the most
engaged. In almost half the compa-
nies surveyed, the least-able workers
scored much better than their high-
performing peers on three measures
of engagement: the likelihood that
they would give 100 percent, recom-
mend their company to others, and
think their bosses treat them fairly.
TDTR690301Galagan.indd 25
Journalist Lucy Kellaway, writing in
the Financial Times, argues that increas-
ing employee engagement is a waste
of time. She cites studies showing that
workplace bumblers who do the mini-
mum to achieve a desired result are
generally better pleased with their work
than the maximizers, who strive to do
things as well as possible and are inevi-
tably disappointed with the outcome.
Poor results from employee en-
gagement efforts should influence the
way companies define and manage en-
gagement. Thats not to say that there
is a common definition in wide use
by companies or consultants. A quick
search for definitions of employee en-
gagement yielded results as varied as
simple happiness, satisfaction with an
employer, pride in ones work, willing-
ness to drive business success, and
commitment to act in the employers
best interests. Gallup defined em-
ployee engagement almost 10 years ago
in First, Break All the Rules as working
with passion and finding a profound
connection to ones company.
Numerous suppliers and academ-
ics have opinions and some evidence
as to why employee engagement fails.
Here are a few of their assertions:
Companies dont know what em-
ployees really want.
They dont know how to interpret
data from employee surveys or
how to act on it.
They do a poor job of setting and
communicating expectations that
inspire engagement.
They lack values that motivate
employees to perform at their
best.
They lack attractive career paths
for good performers at all levels.
They assume engagement is
driven by managers when in fact
it may not be.
Theyre stingy with recognition.
Their leaders inspire mistrust.
They dont have a culture that en-
courages employees to thrive.
In addition, there isnt agreement
about what influences employees to
engage. Is it frequent recognition, clear
expectations, explicit values about per-
formance, constant pulse taking, or just
more money? Or none of the above?
So, lets take a survey
Your company probably conducts em-
ployee engagement surveys. More than
80 percent of companies do, accord-
ing to the Society for Human Resource
Management, but many admit that they
dont understand how to interpret the
results nor what to do to improve sur-
vey scores.
In 2013, Edward Lawler III, distin-
guished professor of business at the
University of Southern Californias
Marshall School of Business, wrote an
entry for the Forbes blog. Called An Id-
iots Guide to Employee Engagement,
it lays out some fallacies about em-
ployee attitudes, beliefs, and behavior
that get in the way of interpreting data
collected in engagement surveys.
According to Lawler, decades of re-
search reveal two fallacies:
Fallacy 1: Money does not motivate.
The fact is that for many people,
money does motivate performance.
Study after study has shown that
when significant amounts of money
are clearly tied to specific behaviors,
those behaviors are more likely to oc-
cur, writes Lawler.
Fallacy 2: A happy worker is a pro-
ductive worker. Not so, according to
research over several decades show-
ing low or no correlation between
job satisfaction and performance. In
some cases, there were low correla-
tions only because performing well
made employees more satisfied, not
because employees worked harder
because they were satisfied.
Lawler also points out some
March 2015 | TD 25
2/13/15 3:15 PM
 trends

research-based truths about em- Truth 3: Satisfaction leads to mem- people would want to give their all.
ployee motivation. bership, not performance. Satisfied Now, at least, we have the tools for
Truth 1: People differ in what they workers are likely to stay with a com- finding out what really stirs employees
valueand understanding those differ- pany, but not be the most productive. to commit to their jobs and employ-
ences is critical to motivating people. ers even if we dont always understand
Lawler suggests watching the choices Gears engage; the results. If its happiness you think
people make when they can choose a people, not so much theyre after, you might consider the
reward, such as a raise, a promotion, Confronted with the challenges of Niko Niko. Thats a digital chart on
or a day off. He warns that age and understanding employee engage- which employees post smiley faces ev-
gender are relatively poor predictors ment, let alone increasing it, some ery day to indicate how they are feeling.
of what people value. no doubt reflect longingly on the Like clouds on the horizon, frowning
Truth 2: Expectations lead to motiva- Industrial Age when workers were emoticons might be an early warning
tion. People engage in behaviors that sometimes likened to cogs in a ma- system for a breakdown in engagement.
they expect will lead to rewards they chine. In that command-and-control
value. Often, simply setting goals era, engagement was less voluntary. Pat Galagan is editor-at-large for the
for individuals can make a major im- Few leaders thought about creat- Association for Talent Development (ATD);
pact on the motivation. ing organizations as entities to which pgalagan@td.org.

When youre ready to invest

in your organizations future.
You are ready for American Public University.
American Public University is ready to help your team succeed. Your
employees can manage their personal and professional lives while pursuing
a respected degree online at a cost thats 20% less than the average
published in-state rates at public universities.*

Visit StudyatAPU.com/TD
0914201.31610

BEST
ONLINE PROGRAMS
*College Board: Trends in College Pricing, 2013

BACHELORS We want you to make an informed decision about the university thats right for you. For more about our graduation rates, the
2015 median debt of students who completed each program, and other important information, visit www.apus.edu/disclosure.

March 2015 | TD 27

TDTR690301Galagan.indd 27 2/13/15 3:15 PM

Copyright of TD: Talent Development is the property of Association for Talent Development
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.