Employee Engagement – Maybe The Job Is Bad

Employee Engagement - 60's Style

Employee engagement ain’t coming back.  Somehow we have this nostalgia that employees used to be highly engaged.  I have trouble with that hypothesis based on my experience and observations.

Sure, our surveys of employee engagement continue to show declines, but what’s the benchmark and what are we measuring.  I’d say that disgruntled and disengaged employees surrounded my whole career as a corporate employee and manager.  The majority of these people hung in because they had to, not because they wanted to. 

I will admit that today we face a “social media generation” with aspirations that we haven’t seen since the SIXTIES.  Sure, today’s group is more self-important and less altruistic than their colleagues of half a century ago; but both reject inherited authority and want to be included.

A major difference that I see today is that jobs are less engaging than they were fifty years ago.  I see that the vast majority of our for-profit corporations are transactional behemoths.  The purpose of most jobs is: efficiency, consistency, and low risk.  Exactly what recruits are not looking for.

At least when I entered the workplace there was enough looseness that I could constantly define my job to keep me interested.  Maybe that’s the point about employee engagement today.  Maybe the jobs don’t provide room.

Let’s think about Daniel Pink for a moment and his claim that people want three things in their work (beyond basic hygiene): Purpose, Mastery, Autonomy.  Take a look at the jobs in your company – at all levels.  You’ll often find that:

• Purpose: is set within the clear context of profit, which is engaging for shareholders, but not the people who work for them; and even if a transcending mission statement is elaborated it is rarely role modeled.
• Mastery: is often seen as digging deep into the rules that govern a silo; not understanding the much more engaging relationships and flows that are horizontal.
• Autonomy: is seen as working within tight controls, not offering the gifts of innovation and creativity that are housed within all of us as humans.

On the other hand, maybe there is room in even the most boring job but employees don’t have the skills to make the job interesting.  They don’t know how to inject: purpose, mastery, and autonomy into their work.  For help they should turn to Shawn Acor and The Happiness Advantage.  Shawn gives principles and rules on how to change our mindset from “success = happiness” to “happiness = success.”

One thing I have concluded is that neither management nor HR is going to solve the Employee Engagement riddle.  That will only come from inside employees.  The role of the organization in facilitating this is to make the shortest line of sight possible between employees and what they really care about at work – their customers.