Articles

HomeArticlesImproving Employee Engagement thru Social Responsibility

Improving Employee Engagement thru Social Responsibility

It’s widely known that employees are increasingly less engaged in their work. This is especially a problem in more developed societies. It’s frustrating to me that these statistics keep getting worse yet we’re not taking action to correct the situation. I think disengagement is at the heart of the economic crisis, because disengaged workers are content to stand by as corporations falter. Capitalism cannot be strong when employees are uninspired, so let’s take the steps necessary to excite them.

Looking for Meaning

Our corporations are increasingly failing to ignite the human spirit. 72% of workers, in the U.S. alone, are reportedly disengaged and essentially sleepwalking through their day. I’ve seen too many companies blame low engagement scores on managers, expecting them to fix it. Or they try other remedies, such as mapping employee roles to corporate strategies, but these remedies don’t get to the heart of the problem. I observe that the biggest problem is that employees are not inspired by the very purpose for which they’re working. People want to know that their time at work does more than earn them a living and contribute to shareholder value. They want to contribute more meaningfully to the world.

For me personally, I realized earlier this year that I could no longer find meaning in working for a company whose only goal was to maximize shareholder value. I yearned to do something more significant than continuously improve processes for the sake of increasing profits. You may say it was my reaching middle age that caused me to be more concerned about what I’m giving to society, but I say just look at the Millenials. They’re the youngest generation in the workforce, and they notoriously want jobs that contribute to society.

We focus a lot on employing people, and that’s important, but the real aim should be to engage them. Many unemployed people would say all they want is a job, but I’ve seen the pattern far too often. Once they get a job, it doesn’t take long before they start saying that they want to be doing something more meaningful with their time.

The Net Effect

Employee engagement is essentially a measure of the emotional excitement that a person feels for their job and company. Scientific research says that when people feel positively energized, their cognitive and creative abilities are significantly enhanced. This is in addition to the fact that engaged employees will simply put forth more discretionary effort. When employees are excited about a job, they simply perform better. In many ways, increased employee engagement improves the profitability of a company.

A Solution

We need to ignite the human spirit in our work structures. Let’s take a cue from the Millenials and redefine the very purpose of corporations. Let’s expand the purpose so it’s not only about returning shareholder value but also about creating value for the other stakeholders, such as employees, the community and the environment. Corporations will improve employee engagement when they increase altruistic efforts, embrace environmental sustainability, and enhance community involvement.

I realize this requires changing the legal premise of most corporations, where the current premise requires that maximizing shareholder value be the primary goal. The irony is that corporations will actually make more money when they do this, because they will increase employee engagement. The link between employee engagement and profitability is widely known.

Do you agree that there’s a link between disengaged employees and our global economic issues? Do you know of other effective remedies for addressing employee engagement? Please share any examples of companies that have reversed the trend and improved engagement scores, including how they did it.



Related Posts

Categories: Articles, Business, Neurobiology

Tags: , , , ,

About the Author

Jackie Barretta is a writer, speaker and business consultant on creating the most effective group energy. She uses quantum physics and business research to explore the correlation between the science of consciousness and patterns in the business world, to develop theories about the effects of group consciousness. She has had a 28-year award winning career as a C-level Fortune 500 executive and Big Four consulting firm professional.

Discussion

  1. Shashwata Dutta  December 21, 2011

    The article is thought provoking. All employees look to work in organisations where their life goals are in synch with the organisational goals. That provides tremendous human energy and the results are miraculous.
    An example that comes to my mind is that of Missionaries of Charity founded by the Nobel Laureate Mother Teresa. The individuals who wish to join the organsation have to do so voluntarily and consequently the engagement levels are extremely high.
    It is the goal of every well meaning individual to make a contribution to the society that helps boost their self esteem to very high levels. Superordinate goals of this nature will engage the majority of employees beyond any doubt. There is always an element of social benefit goal in any industry; it is however for the organisation and its promoters to draw the balance between social and commercial objectives. It needs to be however kept in mind that in a hugely capitalistic environment we have today, the basic human needs have gone to a much higher level. And only once these are satisfied do organisations look at social goals.
    The balance can however be tilted by the local governing bodies who can provide proper policies and incentives for fulfilling social goals.

  2. Patrick Trottier  December 21, 2011

    Hi Jackie – having practiced OD since 1984 and never been in HR – and I stay away from HR as much as possible…… let me try to give my opinion… I do not believe there is a relationship between “disengaged employees” and our “global economic issues” … to think that IMO would be absurd… that is like saying that a ‘beaten horse’ who did not win the race is the horses fault… the global economic crisis rests on the shoulders of those that created it – governments, politicians, economic greed and poilicies that abandon any social, national or international responsibilities by banks and corporations…. add to that would be non-leadership at every level as well as the small minority of corporations that control the distribution of global resources… but this topic is too intricate to get into here…

    Disengaged employees are a symptom of some real burdensome back-room dealings by people who’s names never get in the papers- I’ve sat with some and they brag about how they have “scorched the little people again” – and these were some of the international BOD’s of one of the world’s largest bank… with the back room support of international politicians and wealthy private people … we are just pawns in a game to them…

    Effective remedies – yes, 1. fire all the top so-called leaders… 2. get rid of the traditional hierarchies – which was invented to manage slaves about 2,000 years ago – and not much has changed… 3. take away titles, power dynamics and egos associated with hierarchical structures, 4. Move toward a ‘network structure’…

    Read a book called “The End Of Management” …you’ll get the idea of a 21st century organization…. Oh, yea, – get rid of all MBAs …

    and that is just for starters… yes, I have helped turn around a number of traditional organizational ‘stuck’ cultures into an ‘engaged culture’ in the last 25 years of practice where people actually started to brag about where they work – No, i will not give out a client’s name… if you do want more information – contact me and tell me why …

    All the best…

  3. Jackie Barretta  December 21, 2011

    Hi Patrick, I ask you to look more closely at what I’m saying. I’m not at all saying it’s the workers’ fault but rather am saying that leadership has failed to inspire them! It’s not the employees who need to change but rather the leaders’ action. You and I likely have some similar viewpoints, although I think that most leaders are just caught up in a broken system, rather than intentionally trying to take advantage of workers.

  4. Russell Kintner  December 23, 2011

    I don’t think many people would disagree that engaged employees are generally more productive than their sleepwalking cousins but, I don’t think that assertion necessarily proves the opposite can’t exist.

    Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment by looking back to the industrial revolution, arguably the greatest explosion of capitalist economic activity in human history to date. Look at transportation (railroads), energy (coal mining), and manufacturing (textiles). Employees were exploited like slaves while wealth creation exploded. Employees were lifted on the capitalist tide to a level slightly above the agricultural alternatives and eventually a middle class evolved. But, not until the advent of organized labor. It seems people were not all that happy about dying on the job in dangerous work environments for subsistence wages while their employers built mansions and went sailing. So, I’d be hard pressed to argue that these people were highly engaged and motivated by anything higher up on Maslow’s hierarchy than simple survival.

    OK, OK the industrial revolution was a special case some may argue. It has no relevance in today’s reality. Well, maybe, and maybe not. Take the “globalization” of the past three decades. Basically, capitalists in western economies found new pools of labor to exploit in developing 3rd world economies where governments imposed no pesky environmental regulation or child labor laws and there was no organized labor to deal with. It was like finding a time machine! They were right back in the industrial revolution (Part II – The Migration). As a result, wealth and jobs flooded out of western nations and into the fertile new environments because money is stronger than any bond of national identity in today’s world. And so, we have evolved to Chinese workers committing suicide by jumping from the 4th floor windows of factories where they are worked like draught animals. Hardly strong evidence of engaged and fulfilled employees. And yet the Asian wealth explosion continues to accelerate.

    Don’t think that I’m advocating a return to the methods of J. P. Morgan and Cornelious Vanderbilt as a wealth creation engine for society. But to ignore the fact that those methods have existed and flourished and continue to exist today is to ignore reality. Admittedly an ugly reality but, one that has a long history and no danger of extinction anytime soon.

    Just a thought……

  5. Hans-Ueli Schlumpf  December 23, 2011

    I agree that engagement and inspiration go hand in hand. I’m not sure if capitalism (depending on how one defines it) and inspiration (depending on how one defines it) are easy to match.

    But certainly we should try to create inspiring and engaging work environments. If we want to have inspired and engaged employees, we have to think about how inspiring and engaging leadership and management look like (this is only my opinion, but may be CEO’s behaving silly on stage may not be the ultimate format, yet).

    Engagement and inspiration are qualities that over the past years – especially in big organizations – have developed in a devastatingly uninspiring direction ( e.g. by centralization, standardization, “one culture fits the whole world-approaches”, etc.).

    We definitely should not look at supposedly uninspired and disengaged employees as a cause, they’re only the symptoms. Today’s engagement is the result of yesterday’s management (permanent restructuring, change hype, loss of meaning, “shareholder value before human being-mentality”, consulting companies getting huge fees and management getting huge bonuses for laying of thousands of employees, etc.).

    At some point, sooner or later, we pay the price for our decisions and actions!

    There is no “tool” to enhance inspiration and engagement, it’s a “development path” – which is based on certain principles, but could look differently for each organization or individual … contact me for more details!

  6. Dr. Joni Carley  December 23, 2011

    Russ, you raise some good points to Jackie’s great article. I like Richard Barrett’s work on 7 Levels of Leadership Consciousness. The first level is about survival, profit, safety, etc. The 7th level is a consciousness for greatest good. The levels in between are about things like relationship, best practices, transformation, professional development, vision and connectedness. The best leaders and organizations are full-spectrum.

    I certified as a Barrett Consultant because I think his organization’s Cultural Transformation Tools are the best data-based, values-driven tools out there. They quantify culture and use the data to support organizational alignment with stakeholder’s values.

    When employees align, they bring their whole selves to work. You can feel it in the air when an organization has such vitality in its culture. As they create that dynamic culture, you can watch the assessment data show smaller and smaller entropy stats and the profit and share price data get bigger and bigger.

    Here’s the link to a complimentary Barrett leadership self-assessment tool:
    http://www.leaderfuledge.com/index.php/free-offerings/leadership-self-assesment

    In answer to Jackie’s question about proven remedies for engagement, the tools have been used with 1000′s of companies worldwide, in 24 languages, and for many municipal governments, schools and NGO’s as well as for whole countries and for individual leadership assessment. Lots of data available.

  7. Jackie Barretta  December 23, 2011

    Russ, there’s compelling evidence that employee engagement, especially in the form of employee involvement, leads to higher profitablity. I have access to a study that measured these factors over time and concludes that there is a causal relationship. That’s not to say that employee engagement is a pre-requisite for profitability, as your examples point out. In other words, you can still be profitable even if you treat employees like cattle, but you’ll be more profitable if you engage them. Since one key measure of capitalism is the profitability of companies, it seems to follow that employee engagement strengthens capitalism.

  8. Paul Krissel  December 23, 2011

    I agree. In my experience, it is very rare to see long term true employee engagement when there is no true sense of security in the work force. Fear of reprisal is the largest factor preventing open and honest discussion. Even employers who think of themselves as open to criticism can, even unintentionally, send the message that openness is not really valued. Employees who praise the company and go along with ideas the employer likes, can become the favored ones. Others, who may have some contrary feedback, see this favoritism and fear speaking openly.

    I have found that where the work force has formed a union, and where there is a history of decisions at the top of the organization to engage the union members in partnership, the conditions exist for a more effective employee engagement strategy. The “just cause for discipline” clause in collective bargaining agreements provides a basis of security where being open does not threaten one’s job. It is easy to underestimate the level of fear among workers who do not have such security, especially in this economy.

    A unionized work force is no guarantee of engagement, but is more likely to contain necessary conditions upon which to build engagement. Perhaps the longest lasting experiment in employee engagement has been the partnership between Kaiser Permanente and the several unions representing its work force. Though the relationship has had its ups and downs, the joint commitment to continuing the partnership has held fast. Both the union and the Kaiser Permanente leadership expend substantial resources to support the partnership. Committees meet throughout the year dealing with many issues, defining common interests and exploring creative solutions.

  9. Joseph Mullin  December 23, 2011

    The problem is leadership. They have a narrow focus on two things shareholder equity and maximizing their own profits.
    They are disengaged from their employees because they see them as an expendable resource. With so many people out of work you can always find someone to take the place of a disgruntled worker.

    You cannot expect your employees to become engaged when the leadership is disengaged.
    There is also the issue behind the Occupy movement. The employees are doing all the work and the leadership is reaping all the benefits.

    I do not see anything changing anytime soon.

  10. Kristen Funk-Tracy  December 23, 2011

    From what I’ve read, studies have shown time and again that employees who are solicited for their input on issues that affect their jobs, valued by their supervisors, and feel they have an opportunity to grow professionally and personally are much more engaged in their work and much more productive as well. I don’t know the impact of this on our economy, and have not read anything that discusses this. I have read that employees who have been included in planning and company decisions feel better about being laid off when the company shrinks or changes direction because they know what the company is doing and why it has to make these decisions.

    I also agree with Paul on the value of employee unions (as he discussed in his post above).

  11. Jim Lemonides  December 29, 2011

    Jackie, in my work I’ve found that increased profitability can directly correlate with employee engagement. A couple of key conditions must be met, though. An atmosphere of mutual trust, with no fear of repurcussion, should be created and maintained by senior management. Employees then provide specific comments relating to any aspect of organizational improvement. Employees and management together identify cost savings or potential profit relating to each improvement. Increases in the bottom line are then attributable to joint efforts, and the benefit accrues to all the stakeholders.
    We do surveys of employee engagement before and after the intervention. We also compare corporate financial statements before and after. It’s important to note that employee engagement is the means rather than the end. The goal is increased profitability. I believe if companies are profitable in the U.S., then there is a greater opportunity for domestic job creation and prosperity, as opposed to overseas outsourcing.

  12. Jackie Barretta  December 29, 2011

    Jim, I agree with you. I’ve seen research that shows increases in employee involvement lead to increased profitability. I’ve seen this studied over time, which makes the causal relationship clearer. I also agree that if companies had higher profits in the U.S., there would be less overseas outsourcing.

    There are two studies that I know of that carefully measured engagement and profits over time and found that only some elements of engagement (high performance team practices, employee involvement) precede profits, and many other elements (satisfaction with pay and job security) appear to be caused by profitability. The studies I’m referring to are 1) Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1998). Strategies for high-performance organizations: Employee involvement, TQM, and reengineering programs in Fortune 500 corporations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and 2) Benjamin Schneider, Paul J. Hanges, D. Brent Smith, and Amy Nicole Salvaggio, Which Comes First: Employee Attitudes or Organizational Financial and Market Performance?

    The point of this article is to explore whether corporate social performance can inspire employees and lead to greater financial performance. I do have solid research showing a causal relationship between social performance and financial performance, but I must admit that I don’t know if employee engagement is the/a reason for the increase in financial performance. I’ve never seen a study showing the correlation between corporate social performance and employee engagement, but that would be interesting, especially over time. If anyone has seen such a study, please let me know.

    The real point in all of this is that I believe some cultures contain a vitality that leads to success. My goal is to understand this vitality and how to generate it. I’m convinced that it’s this vitality we once had in the U.S., and it led the thriving of this society. I believe understanding it is the key to helping all societies thrive. I’ll throw in that I firmly believe the vitality came first and then the financial success followed.

  13. Virg Setzer  December 29, 2011

    Jackie — I also could not prove it, but after 35+ years in business, I agree and believe that vitality does lead to success and that vitality came first and financial success followed! – And that model will prevail in the future!

  14. Peter Donlevy  December 29, 2011

    Jackie,
    I wish you success in the goal above. It will be difficult because there are so many variables.

    Going back to the examples offered by Russ in his first post, the vitality you are looking for seems to be in societies that are at that same early stage of industrial development. This would argue against engagement. I believe however that what we are seeing is that the model provided by early stage societies is one where competition is unbalanced.

    What we experienced in the US is as rules were put in place to “level the playing field”, companies had to compete directly resulting in less ability to use brute force and the need to have the highest productivity. This brought the need for employee engagement to a new level. What we see internationally where significant imbalances exist because of labor laws and practices as well as international political bias against high net worth countries. Country cultures and work environments also come into play.

    Companies that are successful in a CONUS (continental U.S.) environment grow and then must compete in an OCONUS (outside continental U.S.) environment. This is extremely difficult without significant involvement of the government to balance the field via trade practices etc. The result is that the biggest most successful global organizations are tightly engaged with government and by extension politics. This leads to compromises for the benefit of the company over the needs of the host country citizenry resulting in OWS.

    As for those who have noted that illegal immigration provides cheap labor which results in exploitation, I agree. I find it amazing that a nation that spends billions on the things we do, (such as instantly identifying terrorist on the battle field) does not have the will to create borders that are controlled and allow legal and therefore protected immigrants to come to us in the numbers needed by our employers.

  15. Patrick Trottier  December 29, 2011

    Hey Jackie – to clarify, I did not think that you were implying it is ‘the worker’s fault’ – and sorry if what I said evoked that thought… but, I see that it is not the ‘leader’s fault’ either – we all learn what we learn and what is reinforced – the same as those that ‘climb the ladder’ of modern organizations (our so called ‘leaders’)…

    there is a whole intricate system out there that is prominant which started thousands of years ago …and because of our human ‘survival systems’ we started down a road of ‘fear’ and that has helped us survive… so far …and as deanna b says, ‘greed’, which is a sub-set of fear… ..but with modern technologies that ‘fear base’ (greed base) may create our own destruction…

    My question that I proposed in grade 7 still stands; “Are we able to evolve past the processes and responses of the ‘amygdala’ and the ‘limbic system’ ‘in time’ and evolve our species more towards processing information and our emotions through our frontal lobes so our brain processes our primary motivation and the determination for our survival by moving away from a ‘fear base’ and more toward something else that supports a more effective survival process in this modern age of ignorance?

    ..it is late here ….and I have no idea if what I just said made any sense… but I hope you get my point if there is actually one to get.. LOL….

    the bottom line – will our brain evolve past a ‘fear based’ survival mechanism in time to adapt different ‘survival systems’ for our species – I’m betting against it … ‘fear and greed’ reign … just look at the world… nothing much has changed since we got here – we are still way back in the caves looking out in fear …. and collecting all we can to protect ourselves… (greed)… IMHO….

  16. Carlton Moore  December 29, 2011

    With so much financial upheaval, it would definitely help if employees felt connected, inspired and empowered at their places of work. Unfortunately it’s commonplace for companies to shift into reaction mode when it engaging employees during these times. It leaves employees on edge wondering if they will become victims from the financial fallout. It’s hard to be completely engaged when you feel that you’re hanging on by a thread.

  17. Harlan Goerger  January 2, 2012

    Very interesting conversation. First I do believe that any organization that can fully engage their employees has a massive competitive edge in many ways. How that is done may be more the issue.

    Henry Ford was praised for the $5 day pay @ the turn of the century, research shows two things, turn over was costing Ford and higher pay kept people working despite the sweat shop environment. Second, Ford knew the employees were also a major source of potential sales of the Model T and they needed enough income to buy the car, thus he got his money back. There was no employee engagement @ Ford at that time, yet the company grew.

    It did cost Ford in the long run, no engagement, no creativity, no real innovation. Ford’s comment, “They can have any color they want as long as it’s black” allowed more innovative competitors such as Chevrolet, Chrysler and others to take strong market share. (GM may never have existed if Ford had a different view and value)

    So much for the old school days example.

    A couple of guys start in a two car garage fixing cars and selling used auto parts. They soon need space and people, acquire land and grow. Technology drives the business efficiency and profit centers are being defined. “I want everyone to be engaged, paid by performance and enjoy the work, how do I do this?” is the question.

    Be prepared for turn over trying to sift out those that will work in such an environment, have clear values on how the business runs and engage your people in multiple ways. was the answer back. (Turn over reached close to 300% before the team was established, the majority of people do not want to be accountable)

    Noted as the best place to work multiple years in a row, fastest growing company, best run company, best innovators in the business, best leaders under 40, all instigated by the employees. Also, 12 regional competitors closed their doors because they could not deal with the competitiveness and innovative advances.

    The company is debt free, owned by two partners and have people lining up to work for them, even though 98 out of 100 people in the region do not even know the company exists.

    @ Jackie, should Ford have had a leveler playing field? Should the second example provided the 12 competitors a leveler playing field? Innovation, creativity, employee engagement are the un-leveler in capitalism.
    @Russ, I was told once, “Government/Bureaucracy is meant to deliberate, not expedite.” so I agree with your UN and other organization analysis. I believe the answer lies more in the business of the my second example which is happening thousands of times in thousands of small communities and cities around the world. Lets allow them to innovate, engage and build with out leveling the playing field.

    This gives everyone the option of finding the place that fits for them, thus we have no need for the “cattle” of the Industrial Revolution nor do developing countries.

    Thanks for allowing my 2 cents… Happy New Year:)

  18. Peter Hunter  January 2, 2012

    Engagement, or lack of it, is a function of the way that individuals are treated by their managers.
    The Global economy may cause managers to act in a more controlling and therefore destructive manner but only because the vast majority of managers have no idea how their own behaviour affects the engagement of the workforce.

    If they did understand how their behaviour affected that of the workforce they would make sure that what they did to their workforce did not changes the way they felt about what they did.
    The performance of an engaged workforce is so massively superior to anything you could expect from a disengaged workforce that once management experience that performance, and understood what they did to allow it to happen, they could never consider going back to the traditional management practices that force employees to disengage.

    Peter A Hunter
    http://www.breakingthemould.co.uk

  19. Judy Nagy  January 3, 2012

    Employees must feel valued and be respected for them to be engaged and committed to their company. This can be accomplished by a variety of management actions: include employees in meetings especially when the outcome affects them, provide a safe, non criticizing environment for employees to share opinions and provide input, compensate employees fairly with a balance of monetary, time and recognition. These are just a few of the ways to make deposits and not withdrawals in an employee’s engagement level. It is up to management to be creative, engaged and innovative with their employees.