Thoughts on Leadership: Employee Engagement

Over a year and a half ago I started writing my series I titled, Thoughts on Leadership. The idea was to discuss what mid-level managers can do to better engage employees and to self-reflect on how my behaviors, impact others. A lot has happened since in my own life since I posted my first article in January of 2016 but the one thing that will never change is how people act and how they want to be treated while at work. This is why employee engagement is the last article of this series because it is the culmination of all of my thoughts on leaders that include communication, attitude, drive, support, skills, self-awareness, language of inclusion, and engagement.

What is Employee Engagement?

To start things off, what is employee engagement? From the employee point-of-view, “employee engagement is the emotional commitment the employee has to the organization and its goals” (Kruse, 2012). This is extremely important because each person is different and how they are engaged at work, not to mention their personal life, is critically important. Employee engagement is not just if a person is happy, but:

Engaged employees begin the day with a sense of purpose and finish it with a sense of achievement. They consistently bring high levels of determination, tenacity, energy and resilience to everything they do. They are dedicated to their jobs, and it shows in their enthusiasm, inspiration and pride in their work. They become easily engrossed in their roles, and time flows quickly for them when they are at work (Royal & Sorenson, 2015).

This is not a lot to ask for from employees. Most people want to have a sense of purpose, most people want to be determined, tenacious, have lots of energy, and be resilient at work. Most people want to be dedicated to what they do, show enthusiasm, pride, and inspire others. Most people want to be engrossed in what they do and want the days to pass by quickly because of their engagement with their work. But this is not the norm. In a Gallup poll rating employee engagement, 33% of the US working population is engaged (Royal & Sorenson, 2015) while globally, 15% of workers are engaged (Clifton, 2017)

These numbers are shocking and who is to blame? Are the managers, leaders, and institutions to blame for abysmal employee engagement? Are the employees to blame because they are not intrinsically motivated? Like everything, it is more complex than just resolving a binary problem.

Choosing the Best Possible Manager

One of the most interesting facts about employee engagement is just how important the individual manager is. No matter where you work, whether it is a large or small organization that has incredible notoriety or anonymity, your manager is the single most important component of employee engagement. When Gallup rates employee engagement scores, “managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across business units” (Beck & Harter, 2015). Much like the 33% of Americans who are engaged, this is shocking. This means that in the same organization and in the same department, one team can have a horrible engagement score while the team next to it can have an incredible engagement score. Same work, same place, same everything except managers.

This is why choosing the best possible person to manage is probably the most important decision any organization can make when it comes to their employees. The need to have managers that can manage, lead, and develop their employees is more important now than ever before and “more carefully choosing managers, and then providing those managers with the learning and tools to psychologically engage their teams, makes a movement” (Emond, 2017).

But why is it so difficult to find managers that can engage their employees? Part of the difficulty is that hiring managers is a largely un-scientific process that varies from hiring manager to hiring manager. Some places like managers who were top performers; some places like assertive managers that are tall; and some places use favoritism (and nepotism) to find their managers. And most places do little to actually develop their managers once they are managing and leading people. An interesting and depressing quote from an article on meaningfulness at work states, “quality of leadership receives virtually no mention when people describe meaningful moments at work, but poor management is the top destroyer of meaningfulness” (Hakner, 2016).

The need to have the right managers in place is not only important for employee engagement, but also so organizational resources are effectively used and not wasted. As stated by Beck and Harter:

“without the raw natural talent to individualize, focus on each person's needs and strengths, boldly review his or her team members, rally people around a cause, and execute efficient processes, the day-to-day experience will burn out both the manager and his or her team. This basic inefficiency in identifying talent costs companies billions of dollars annually” (2015)

The right manager is not about command and control, it is about collaboration, doing the right thing, having difficult conversations, connecting with your employees, motivating, and understanding the person across from you for the good of the organization and the the team.

Organizational Responsibility

The need to choose the best possible manager is important for every organization and also important is the need for every organization to have good employee engagement programs. If you have worked at a medium to large sized organization, you have encountered an engagement program. Usually an email comes out every six-months with a survey. Then a little while later the results are communicated with a commitment on how the organization is going to improve employee engagement. Then in the next leadership meeting, the next-level leader tells her or his managers that everyone has to do a better job with employee engagement but there is no budget and little time to carve out for engagement activities.

When it comes to employee engagement programs little time or energy is actually committed because of the busyness of day to day operations and the fact that many leaders do not see the value in them. That is why “employee engagement programs haven't worked at many companies because they haven't been done right or implemented thoroughly” (Emond, 2017). Much like choosing the best possible manager, thoughtfully implementing an employee engagement program is more than just sending out email and having meetings, it is about being engaged with employees and doing a thousand things every week and not just a fun activity once a quarter to raise a survey score.

Personal Responsibility

And finally, personal responsibility. For some, employee engagement is 100% on the manager and the organization while for some leaders, if an employee does not have intrinsic motivation then there is nothing the manager, the leader, or the organization can do to engage that person. Like everything there is a middle ground but when it comes to employee engagement, there is a great deal of personal responsibility we all must own.

From the article by Royal and Sorenson, a large part of employee engagement is choice; it is about how employees approach problems, life, work, happiness, and their own attitude (2015). This, mixed in with each individual’s own life’s journey makes employee engagement extremely complex. If an employee is going through hard times, does not feel connected to the organization or mission, is having medical issues, family issues, financial issues, or whatever, then not being engaged is a real state of being. There is very little a manager or organization can do, besides being supportive, to help employees who are struggling personally or professionally and that is why as with life in general, each individual need to own their own life’s journey and do everything possible to to improve, have a great attitude, and be engaged with life and work.  

Postscript

Employee engagement is huge. As a manger, employee engagement combines everything from the eight previous, Thoughts on Leadership articles and is really the culmination of everything a manager does. If the overall team is not engaged, that means that as a manager you are not doing your job and although this might not be an issue with your leadership team (because they are oblivious or do not care) it is a serious issue with your employees, their productivity, and their ability to effectively get the job done. The best course of action as a manager is to take personal responsibility and be 100% engaged with your employees. Focus on their development, their needs, and the challenges they face everyday, and employee engagement, for most of them, will be stellar.

References:

Beck, R. & Harter, J. (2015). Managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182792/managers-account-variance-employee-engagement

Clifton, J. (2017). The world’s broken workplace. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/212045/world-broken-workplace

Emond, L. (2017). 2 reasons why employee engagement programs fall short. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/216155/reasons-why-employee-engagement-programs-fall-short

Harkner, J. (2016). Meaningful work not created, only destroyed, by bosses, study finds. Retrieved from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressrelease/id/35796

Kruse, K. (2012). What is employee engagement? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why

Royal, K. & Sorenson, S. (2015). Employees are responsible for their engagement too. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/183614/employees-responsible-engagement

Thoughts on Leadership: Language of Inclusion

Throughout 2016, I wrote down my musings on what it means to be a leader in an organization where you lead and manage people. As stated in the post that started this series, I have used the term manager because I have focused on mid-level managers; those individuals who spend most of their time interacting with employees, managing day-to-day activities, and leading them practically. And because of this, every manager needs to be keenly aware of the language they use and always use language of inclusion.

What is language of inclusion?

Using language of inclusion means you are not excluding anyone because of their gender, race or ethnicity, sexual preference, age, political leanings, or in the way you interact with them verbally and non-verbally. It means that whoever is in front of you, you listen to them, hear them out, include their contributions, and show them respect. It means everything you do as a manager is about including your employees and as stated by the Linguistic Society of America:

Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities...lead the way in proactively writing inclusively and avoid past pitfalls or habits that may unintentionally lead to marginalization, offense, misrepresentation, or the perpetuation of stereotypes. Stereotyping language is often not a matter of intention but of effect (2016).

And from a short, well thought out article at Forbes, "The body language of inclusion and warmth includes positive eye contact, genuine smiles, and open postures in which legs are uncrossed, and arms are held away from your body, with palms exposed or resting comfortably on the desk or conference table" (Goman, 2017).

As a manager and as a leader it is your job to include everyone within the team’s fold and and to be keenly aware of what you say, what you do, and how you are coming off to your employees.

Why is language of inclusion important?

Gone are the days of managers and leaders doing whatever they want, being inappropriate, being biased, or not choosing their word carefully; everyone is accountable (...eventually). When an institution goes through the great expense of hiring an individual, onboarding them, getting them used to policies and procedures of the organization, and spending a great deal of capital to train them, then why would a manager exclude them from being part of the team? Making sure that each individual is included in the daily work of a team and contributes substantially is just good business and it facilitates engagement with employees. Being inclusive also helps build trust with employees, and trust "is the belief or confidence that one party has in the reliability, integrity and honesty of another party. It is the expectation that the faith one places in someone else will be honored. It is also the glue that holds together any group" (Goman, 2017).

Below are a few straightforward reasons why to use language of inclusion:

• Helps employee productivity (they do their job and they do it well);
• Helps employee engagement (they are engaged with the institution, the team, and the manager);
• Responsible use of human capital and resources (they are being paid and they use resources to get the job done) .

What happens if language of inclusion is not demonstrated and used?

If a manager does not use language of inclusion then they will exclude members of their team. This might happen because of specific actions that that are obvious to everyone or it might happen because of subtle use of language or actions. As a manager, you never know when someone might be offended by something you say or do, but by using inclusive language, you will at least be working everyday to choose your words and actions carefully to ensure maximum employee engagement. (Dealing with an employee that disengages because of their own choices is a different conversation.)

If a manager is not careful and language of inclusion is not used and demonstrated then individual employees might feel excluded and eventually become disengaged. And when an employee becomes disengaged, their work becomes “an environment of suspicion, people withhold information, hide behind psychological walls, and withdraw from participation" (Goman, 2017).

Is worrying about inclusive language just being politically correct?

No. As stated, gone are the days of managers or leaders saying whatever they want without consequence. Gone are the days of jokes at the expense of others (usually those not in the room). Gone are the days of managers or leaders complaining that the country is too PC and venting about it while employees grin and bare it. (Actually, all of this happens but the people who do this are held accountable eventually and in some manner.)   

Over the past few decades, being politically correct has helped create a more inclusive culture and work environment. With that said, are there issues with being too politically correct as stated in a wonderful Harvard Business Review article:

We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers (Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006).

If you listen to the loudest people in the room they want others to be either 100% politically correct or 0% politically correct. This is not helpful. When it comes to using inclusive language, managers need to focus on using language and demonstrating actions that helps bring down barriers, improves communication, strengthens employee engagement, and sets a foundation of trust where employees can feel part of the team. All of this is not being overly politically correct, it is just a manager doing their job.

Reference:

Ely, R. J., Meyerson, D., & Davidson, M. (2006). Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2006/09/rethinking-political-correctness

Goman, C. K. (2017). Six crucial behaviors of collaborative leaders. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2017/07/11/six-crucial-behaviors-of-collaborative-leaders/#7af626258cbe

Linguistic Society of America. (2016). Guidelines for inclusive language. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/guidelines-inclusive-language.

My Artist Statement

A little while ago I applied for a grant. It was a great experience that allowed me to collect my thoughts and focus my energies on who I am, what I do, and how I present myself to the outside world as an artist. Below is my artist statement:

I write music that makes people smile and warms their hearts through beauty and simplicity. My development as an artist has led me to write music that is about positivity, honesty, and melodies. Long ago I threw off the shackles of trying to write music that can be considered complex, modern, contemporary, avant garde, revolutionary, or the like, and I write music that makes me, my kids, and wife happy. I want my music to appeal to the broader music audience rather than just to Classical music aficionados. Music is art and entertainment and hence, there is no room for snobbery or exclusivity in Classical music; there is only room for music.

Much like life, every composition is complete but every performance is a work in progress. Enjoy the simplicity of my music; its melodies, harmonies, and hopeful optimism.