Comments on: Engagement: Voodoo and Vision

By: Talent Analytics

Talent Analytics — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:44:00 +0000

Interesting perspective John. What happens when employees that are ‘defective’ in one role and ‘made to order’ for another are let go?

Engagement for the sake of engagement is indeed snake oil, but those companies that saw 46% of their people as “broken” likely missed an opportunity to “re-purpose’ into a different role where they were more suited.

For example, if the decision makers could look across the organization at benchmarks for various open roles, they may be able to see the naturally chatty accountant matched the ideal benchmark of a sales rep. This means the accountant could, with training, be a great salesman – the analytics would lobby on behalf of the accountant and say “wait, don’t fire him! Give him a shot in sales!” This yields a more productive and engaged employee.

By: David Zinger

David Zinger — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:51:00 +0000

That was a lot of fun to read. I was nodding in agreement and disagreement at almost the same time. Very well-written John.

It will be nice to see engagement cease to be a buzzword and to change. I think it was problematic from the beginning when we paired engagement with the word employee. It certainly is time in the life cycle of this concept to go through revision or revolution from the current form.

By: John E. Smith

John E. Smith — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:09:00 +0000

Great article John… I could not agree with you more! The
word “Engagement” is everywhere these days, from annual reviews to
bumper stickers, but ask someone what it really means and you will seldom get a
reasonable answer.

Employee engagement is an idealistic notion, but that doesn’t
mean we should dismiss it. Maybe we should restate it as “Seeking
Engagement”, like happiness which has a similar notion.

It’s hard to argue the results of such organizations as
Southwest, Zappos and Starbucks. All of which have achieved customer engagement
through employee engagement.

One interesting thing about snake oil… is that
it actually works
in many cases.

By: waqueau1

waqueau1 — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:01:00 +0000

Jeez, getting slam danced by John Sumser can be fun. Enjoyed the Tater Red’s reference. No sarcasm, John. I just think we define “engagement” differently. I read your commentary and Tincup’s and Heather’s and of the three I have to agree most with Heather. Treat people as adults (i.e., respect them as such) and you will have good workers. Mess with them and, well, pay the price. Personally, I don’t equate engagement with happiness. Or satisfaction. I agree that both of those are bogus criteria to use in a place of work. What you described, however– the staff of a hot restaurant working together during crunch time– is engagement. People are caught in the flow and begin to work harder to see how perfect they can be. I, too, have been there and you’re right, it’s exhilarating. As for the survey you cite, I don’t agree that it implied that 46% of workers are broken (other than those in the lacking emotional maturity category). I believe – and that was the gist of my blog post – that those lost due to a lack of motivation or coachability are the fault of the employer. That taking shortcuts during the hiring and onboarding process – which so many employers have been doing lately – is coming home to roost. That in order to mitigate this unnecessary turnover, employers and the people who manage them have to begin to communicate better and more transparently. By the way, how much is a bottle of that “Boss Ease Off” oil? And does Red’s ship interstate?

By: Stacey Lynn Harris

Stacey Lynn Harris — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:17:00 +0000

Love the commentary John – When I was looking at Engagement last year, I was amazed by how many companies still felt it had to do with happiness, good work environments, and positive attitudes. In reality the most engaged people are usually your grumpiest individuals, because they are actually vested and working too hard.

It will be interesting to see if the engagement market will follow the marketing industry – and start looking at engagement based on activities, interactions, and actual buying signs. If it does – you might see more engagement models that outline “Whats in it for me” – and as marketing firms know that is not the same thing for everyone.