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.

Research: We're not very Self-Aware, especially at work {Guest Article}

By Erich C. Dierdorff and Robert S. Rubin

If you’ve participated in a training or development program in the past two decades, chances are you took an assessment designed to increase self-awareness. While you may have discovered your “type,” “profile,” or “style,” it probably did little to make you a more effective leader or team member.

Put simply, self-awareness is understanding who we are and how we are similar to or different from others. One key facet is self-knowledge – how we see our various personality traits, values, attitudes, and behaviors. But another aspect is being aware of how consistent (or inconsistent) our self-view is compared to an external appraisal – how other people see us or against objective data. The latter is essential for transforming self-knowledge beyond mere personal introspection into accurate self-awareness.

Yet in talent development practice, companies spend millions of dollars and countless hours every year on self-reported assessments that only target self-knowledge. The core problem is that we’re notoriously poor judges of our own capabilities. A 2014 study of 22 meta-analyses (containing over 357,000 people) found an average correlation of .29 between self-evaluations and objective assessments (a correlation of 1.0 would indicate total accuracy). And the correlation was even lower for work-related skills. So my self-reported profile may suggest that I see myself as a persuasive speaker – but tell that to the audience who just fell asleep.

The punch line is that with no external data, the results of self-knowledge assessments are presumed to be accurate, when instead they may reinforce inaccurate perceptions of ourselves. The net result can be harmful to development and performance and, as we observed, the effectiveness of teams.

For teams to perform effectively, each member must possess a combination of technical and interpersonal skills and constantly adjust their contributions to meet the team’s needs. Correctly understanding one’s capabilities relative to others is therefore paramount.

To illustrate, we recently collected data from an executive development program at a Fortune 10 company. With 58 teams and more than 300 leaders performing in a dynamic and competitive business simulation, we tested the extent to which accurate self-awareness was related to team effectiveness, which was evaluated across a number of business metrics like market share, ROA, customer awareness, productivity, and so forth. Levels of team coordination and conflict management were also assessed. And what we found was striking.

First, when individuals were less self-aware (i.e., there was a large gap between the assessments of their own behavioral contributions and the assessments of their team members), the teams substantially suffered. In fact, teams with less self-aware individuals made worse decisions, engaged in less coordination, and showed less conflict management. These findings held even when we controlled for teams’ overall levels of teamwork.

Second, the most damaging situation occurred when teams were comprised of significant over-raters (i.e., individuals who thought they were contributing more than their team members thought they were). Just being surrounded by teammates of low self-awareness (or a bunch of over-raters) cut the chances of team success in half.

It’s clear that talent development interventions need to go beyond self-knowledge to be effective. So what should leaders and talent development professionals do? We see three tactics that can help people build accurate self-awareness.

Use self-awareness tools that are linked to performance. It’s no secret that many of the most popular developmental assessments used for gaining self-knowledge, such as the MBTI, DiSC, The Birkman Method, and The Core Values Index, woefully lack evidence linking their results to actual learning or job performance. Whatever instrument, exercise, or intervention you use must capture and deliver results that truly predict something of value. Use external benchmarks: measure how someone’s self-view compares to others’ views and measure how assessments directly relate to outcomes like increased learning and job performance.

Create a line-of-sight between self-awareness and personal job success. A wealth of research shows that when individuals see learning as valuable to their careers, they’re more motivated to learn and apply new skills to their roles. This means that we must directly communicate why the capabilities on which individuals are receiving feedback are actually relevant. Don’t assume that individuals already recognize the need for accurate self-awareness: substantial research shows that those most in need of improvement are the most unaware.

Teach self-development skills in addition to self-awareness. Acquiring accurate self-awareness is only the beginning – true personal development builds the capacity to take action. Most talent development efforts unfortunately fall short of teaching self-development skills, leaving behind a “knowing-doing gap.”

Research shows that multiple strategies can be brought to bear. For example, self-management training can help people plan, apply, monitor, and adjust their newly learned competencies. And by reinforcing that mistakes are natural to any learning process, error management training encourages deeper learning and the transfer of that learning back to one’s job. At the very least, demonstrate how imperfect self-views block the way to real and lasting behavioral change.

Will Rogers rightly once quipped, “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” It’s time for talent development professionals to focus their development resources on the forms of self-awareness that matter most.

Erich C. Dierdorff is an associate professor of management in the Driehaus College of Business at DePaul University and co-director of BusinessEducationInsider.com

Robert S. Rubin is an associate professor of management in the Driehaus College of Business at DePaul University and co-director of BusinessEducationInsider.com

Listen to Reply, not to Respond

By Dries Lombaard

Director: Strategic Engagement; The Strengths Institute

I am not generally a fan of "10-Point Solutions", but I got hold of the active listening skills below a couple of years ago, and I have been applying them ever since with great effect.  I think everyone should take note of this - especially managers, leaders or coaches.  (Unfortunately I cannot remember the original author.)

1. Face the speaker. Sit up straight or lean forward slightly to show your attentiveness through body language.

2. Maintain eye contact, to the degree that you all remain comfortable.

3. Minimize external distractions. Turn off the TV. Put down your book or magazine, and ask the speaker and other listeners to do the same.

4. Respond appropriately to show that you understand. Murmur (“uh-huh” and “um-hmm”) and nod. Raise your eyebrows. Say words such as “Really,” “Interesting,” as well as more direct prompts: “What did you do then?” and “What did she say?”

5. Focus solely on what the speaker is saying. Try not to think about what you are going to say next. The conversation will follow a logical flow after the speaker makes her point.

6. Minimize internal distractions. If your own thoughts keep horning in, simply let them go and continuously re-focus your attention on the speaker, much as you would during meditation.

7. Keep an open mind. Wait until the speaker is finished before deciding that you disagree. Try not to make assumptions about what the speaker is thinking.

8. Avoid letting the speaker know how you handled a similar situation. Unless they specifically ask for advice, assume they just need to talk it out.

9. Even if the speaker is launching a complaint against you, wait until they finish to defend yourself. The speaker will feel as though their point had been made. They won’t feel the need to repeat it, and you’ll know the whole argument before you respond. Research shows that, on average, we can hear four times faster than we can talk, so we have the ability to sort ideas as they come in…and be ready for more.

10. Engage yourself. Ask questions for clarification, but, once again, wait until the speaker has finished. That way, you won’t interrupt their train of thought. After you ask questions, paraphrase their point to make sure you didn’t misunderstand. Start with: “So you’re saying…”

Read more about Dries Lombaard

Build your strengths and stop focusing on fixing weaknesses. Strengths Scribbles is brought to you by the The Strengths Institute - a world-class provider of strengths-based training, coaching and development.