Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER November 14, 2016 22 FEATURES Credit: KreativKolors (Shutterstock) EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Leveraging science to improve employee engagement Successful organizations take multidimensional approach By Ruth Wright O rganizations continue to pour resources into employee engagement — and for good reason. It drives productivity, retention and other positive outcomes that, in turn, drive organizational performance. However, not all organizations are reaping a return on that in- vestment. For each top employer, there are many struggling. And scores are generally low. Only 27 per cent of the ratings in a sample by the Conference Board of Can- ada were highly engaged. In fact, scores have plateaued in recent years and are even dipping a bit. A challenging business envi- ronment is a factor — engage- ment does tend to rise in good times. But even in a tough busi- ness environment, there are or- ganizations that are thriving and vital with high engagement. For the rest, it is important to better understand what engagement is, why it is important in the business context, and what strategies and practices can be put in place to "nudge" it higher. A model and prototype sur- vey by the Conference Board of Canada identified the key factors that influence engagement. It's de- signed to help organizations bet- ter understand what employee en- gagement is, how that is measured and how that relates to the typical survey process. ere are seven factors that ex- plain close to 80 per cent of what engagement is. ese will look familiar to any student of engage- ment and include, in order of de- gree of influence: • confidence in senior leadership • relationships with managers • interesting and challenging work • professional and personal growth • a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t a n d recognition • relationships with co-workers • autonomy e study primarily focuses on good workplace practices associ- ated with the seven factors. After mining a 10-year longitudinal succession of surveys and cases, in partnership with TalentMap, the study identified a number of organizations that had either sus- tained high engagement through the period or were able to boost scores significantly from medio- cre to great. e leaders of these organizations were then inter- viewed to learn about specific practices associated with differ- ent factors. No one-size-fits-all solutions What may not be well-under- stood is a) the context and detail is much more important than an overall organizational score and b) just how critical a role senior leadership plays. Engagement is a multidimen- sional construct that essentially reflects an individual's state of mind, from moment to moment, as he interacts with colleagues, ex- periences his work environment, and performs his roles. In other words, there are different targets of engagement, including the peo- ple with whom we interact, from leaders to peers. We may also be engaged with our work, our profession or job role, and with the organization itself. Not surprisingly, these dif- ferent influences lead to different types of engagement and differ- ent outcomes. For instance, what influences someone to say great things about an organization (con- fidence in senior leadership) is not the same thing that influences retention (the work itself and op- portunities for development). Demographics play a role, as do tenure and occupational area. Two red flags revealed themselves in this context. First, tenure. e most highly engaged, not surpris- ingly, are top executives, other leaders and employees with less than one year of service. Engage- ment drops at three years' tenure and is lowest for those in the 20- to 25-year tenure group. Since the average retirement age is rising, and this last group will continue to make up a size- able component of the workforce, organizations must pay more at- tention to the perspective and concerns of "mature" workers — especially those not in manage- ment. Employers must also do more to prevent millennial talent from tuning out as they move beyond entry-level roles and are ready to spread their wings. There are differences among industry sectors as well. For ex- ample, having interesting and challenging work tends to have a more positive impact on engage- ment for employees in not-for- profit organizations, and provin- cial government departments and agencies. An employee's relation- ship with her immediate man- ager, on the other hand, has a far more positive impact for newer employees (those with tenures of less than three years) and longer- tenured employees (those with 25 years and longer service). The second red flag is with regard to technical people. is includes technical professionals, tradespeople and the semi-skilled. Not only are they a disengaged group, the things that matter for this group are often different than, for instance, those for non- technical professionals and man- agers. When we compare the two groups, the biggest gap is within the "interesting and challenging work" factor where just under half of technical professionals report a favourable rating ver- sus 77 per cent of non-technical professionals. e findings suggest employers need to pay attention to different employee segments, including key job families, when designing en- gagement strategies. For instance, job design that incorporates more task variety or even better com- munications to employees about the value of what they do for the overall enterprise can make a dif- ference. Access to learning about the newest technologies is highly valued by a technical group. ere is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to solutions. Critical role of leaders e central and critical role of top leaders is perhaps the most chal- lenging aspect of engaging em- ployees for a strategist who may have to manage from the middle. In the Conference Board model, the "confidence in senior leader- ship" factor makes up for 20 per cent of what explains engagement. at is slightly higher than the "relationship with your manager" factor. But approval ratings for items that cluster within the senior lead- ership factor are much lower than those within the relationship- with-manager factor. e lowest- rated item in the senior leadership factor, and indeed the prototype questionnaire, was "senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals," at 38 per cent. "Trust in senior leaders" is among the strongest drivers of overall engagement and at a 39 per cent favourable rating, it was the third lowest rated item across the model. is lends a sense of urgency to the matter. Managers, while much more highly rated, still have some work to do. Employees did, however, rate them more highly than senior leaders regarding fol- low-through on commitments. Managers received a 65 per cent favourable rating on "values my opinions and ideas." Are surveys really necessary? The truth is we know enough about what drives employee engagement today to calibrate people practices. A survey is not required to implement practices that will both create great work environments and boost scores. But a benchmark is useful. How can an employer really know what most irks employees unless it asks them directly? Subsequent surveys let us know if we have re- sponded effectively to expressed concerns. It is also important to under- stand how surveys are construct- ed in order to evaluate vendor instruments. e seven factors and the items that cluster around them provide a checklist against which organizations can assess the content of the questionnaire. For instance, are items or mea- sures related to all the key drivers present? e quality of the questionnaire design and technical construction of the questions is the second key consideration. Are questions asked in such a way that responses will be valid, reliable and repeat- able? Ensure that someone with experience in survey research and questionnaire design reviews the questionnaire. They don't have to be an expert in employee engagement. Key takeaways Engagement has remained rela- tively low and stagnant for the past five or so years. e economy does play a role. But whether it's the economy or the fact organi- zations have made all of the easy fixes, many organizations are in a situation of re-think. Some have stopped doing big formal surveys, some may be rethinking vendors or asking for more support from vendors (because it is difficult to switch). Overall, organizations need to become more educated about engagement and become better-informed consumers. Engagement is a messy, com- plex and multidimensional con- cept that attempts to capture an employee's perceptions of differ- ent characteristics and relation- ships in the workplace. ere are different attachments and differ- ent drivers that affect different types of desired outcomes. Orga- nizations that are successful with engagement take a multidimen- sional approach. ey are also clear about the kinds of behaviours they most want to influence. Ultimately, top leaders are vital- ly important, as are managers. But the task of educating top leaders about how their behaviours affect overall engagement is a little more challenging. Your task is to some- how ensure they "get" it. Ruth Wright is director of strategic hu- man resources management research at the Conference Board of Canada. e report, Employee Engagement: Le- veraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance, can be downloaded at www.conferenceboard.ca. It is also important to understand how surveys are constructed in order to evaluate vendor instruments.

• Cover