I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers".
Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!);
Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;
Point #3 - I now need a nap.
WOW! Was that some painful reading. Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.
OK, I'm back. Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions. His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named). Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories. Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.
For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.
I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post. The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement.
Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:
- Consistent levels of high performance.
- Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
- Intentional building of supportive relationships.
- Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
- Emotionally committed to what they do.
- Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
- High energy and enthusiasm.
- Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
- Broaden what they do and build on it.
- Commitment to company, work group, and role.
Here's Tim Wright's definition:
The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:
- Attention to task detail
- Commitment to assignment completion
- Involvement in special projects
- Communication willingly, effectively with others
- Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
- Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
- Innovation regarding processes and procedures
I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition. In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.
Hit Tim's web site to learn more. He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.
Check it out and answer that question for yourself....