Research has shown that more money doesn’t necessarily make employees happier. Money does seem to influence motivation – but is that impact positive or negative? The short answer is: we aren’t quite sure. The disclaimer? Yet!
Employee satisfaction and engagement are deceptively similar sounding attitudes when seen superficially. Many people tend to use these terms interchangeably but there are clear differences between these two and it is important for business leaders to know the nuances. In fact in some organizations, shaking up satisfied employees might be the key to growth!
Attitude, is a much used and equally abused word in daily life – both in the workplace and outside of it. It is often used to dismiss those who don’t ‘play along’ with broad stroke classifications of ‘having a wrong attitude’.
But therein lies the rub. Very few dig in deeper to understand what causes the positive or negative attitude. Take a moment to think about it – the attitude a person has is not something he is born with; it’s not something that is coded into his genetic material. So where does it come from?
“Do you ever feel already buried deep
Six feet under, scream
But no one seems to hear a thingDo you know that there’s still a chance for you
‘Cause there’s a spark in youYou just gotta ignite the light
And let it shine” – Firework, Katy Perry
In the previous post (Identifying Engaged Employees) we had taken a peek at the psychic and behavioral traits of an engaged employee. Now we go a step further and try to extend the same mapping logic to everyone and see what can we use to identify the degree of engagement across the workforce. This is obviously imperfect, after all engagement is a complex fluid phenomenon and can’t be boiled down to single digit values without being partially (or at times, completely) wrong. (After all employees aren’t products on an ecommerce website to be given star ratings on a scale of 1-5. You see how neatly I sneaked in an anti-bell curve appraisal comment there. More here)
At the same time, imperfect as it may be, it does give leaders some sense of what might be going on with their team members and helps them take action to intervene and fix the problem – useful when done in (near) real-time, and utterly useless when done as an annual exercise.
There are only three measurements that tell you nearly everything you need to know about your organization’s overall performance: employee engagement, customer satisfaction, and cash flow. – Jack Welch
Almost everyone is in a perpetual quest to identify ‘engaged’ employees. Leaders want them so they can deliver results, HR wants them so leaders can deliver results, Team managers want them on their teams so they can meet targets and leaders can deliver results, Team members want them because … you get the picture.
Surely these rare creatures walk among us. So how does one identify those employees who are truly engaged – separate the wheat from the chaff metaphorically speaking.
I ain’t some dying dog that you can kick /
So f* off /
It’s so easy to fall into that hole /
And you’re the one who cast me in that role / (Social Parasite, Alice in Chains)
We often hear comparisons of organizations with organisms. In his book ‘The Living Company’, Arie De Gues compares companies to living organisms by arguing that just like them, companies learn, evolve and eventually cease to exist. The traditional view point of the contract between an employee and the organization/employer has been that of two principals who are inherently in conflict; but in order to maximize their self-interest they engage in co-operation with each other. Employee-employer relationships have come a long way from the Master-Slave days and so has the implicit contract between them.