Employee Engagement—is it in Danger of Becoming Endangered? {Guest Article}

By DeAnna Murphy

Rodd Wagner, noted author of Gallup’s best-selling book about the Q12, indicated in a recent Forbes Magazine article that “the age of employee engagement may be nearing its end.[1]”  He is not the only one suggesting that something in the employee engagement equation is not working, given today’s conditions. 

Cy Wakeman, a New York Times best-selling author and global thought leader, also suggests that it’s time to leave behind the old approach to engagement, and find a new way of thinking about this subject.[2]  She indicates that the present-day entitlement mindset is interfering, among other things, with employee engagement.

You don’t have to look very hard to see the trend that these thought leaders are pointing to.  Global engagement has remained mostly flat and unchanging for the better part of the last decade, according to a recent Gallup report.[3]  In fact, Gallup’s most recent worldwide report showed that the percentage of actively engaged employees (13%) nearly matched the 2005 by Towers Perrin Global Workforce Survey involving 85,000 employees, which found only 14% of all employees were actively engaged in their work[4].

Stephen Covey was fond of saying, “Nothing fails like success.”  Back in the 90s, when the term ‘employee engagement’ was coined and became popular, it was based on the mindset and paradigms of that time.  The formula for “success” in achieving employee engagement was based on the then-current values and way of doing business.

As you can see, things have changed:

Traditional Factors	Today’s Factors
Stable organizational environment Uniformity Life-time employment Individual work Horizontal structure External control and supervision Dependence on the organization Detailed job description Fixed schedules and patterns Physical demands Experience Working hard	Continuous change Diversity Precarious employment Teamwork Vertical structure Self-control and self-management Own responsibility and accountability Job crafting Boundarylessness (time and place) Mental and emotional demands Continuous learning Working smart

An employee engagement model based on external control and supervision, and high levels of dependence on the organization will not work in today’s market. With the number of Baby Boomers retiring, and the increase in Millennials filling the roles of previous Baby Boomers, the mindset has completely shifted.  The need for autonomy, and for self-control and self-management has replaced the old way of thinking.

Trying to continue to apply yesterday’s success formula to today’s conditions is the surest way of ensuring that employee engagement becomes increasingly critically endangered.

[1] Rodd Wagner, “The End of ‘Employee Engagement’?” Forbes. May 11, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2015/05/11/the-end-of-employee-engagement/3/

[2] Cy Wakemen. “It’s Time to Re-Think Employee Engagement.” Forbes. Jan. 14. 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/cywakeman/2013/01/14/its-time-to-rethink-employee-engagement/

[3] Amy Adkins. U.S. Employee Engagement Unmoved at 31.9%. Gallup Management Journal. July 9, 2015.

[4] Gerhard H. Seijts and Dan Crim.  “What Engages Employees the Most—or the 10 Cs of Employee Engagement.” Ivey Business Journal. March/April 2006. http://www.ifcaonline.com/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ten-Cs-of-Employee-Engagement.pdf The drivers of employee engagement. IES Report 408. Brighton: Institute of Employment Studies. 2004.

[5] Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, and E. Soane (Eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Author: DeAnna Murphy

DeAnna Murphy has over 7,000 hours coaching and facilitating experiential learning and leadership development programs – and is the founder and president of Strengths Strategy Inc., the leading strengths application organization in the world. She is the author of soon-to-be-released Unlocking Strengths—A New Approach to Empowering Performance, Energy, and Relationships.