the “employee engagement” - center for effective ... paper “engaged in ... valtera, and watson...
TRANSCRIPT
But you’ll �nd it interesting to note that how we think of “employee
engagement” today is a 180 from what it was initially coined to
embody some 25 years ago. What’s more, even how it’s de�ned is up
for debate.
The original concept of employee engagement is credited to Kahn in
1990 as part of his research into identify theory. Kahn observed two
organizations – one a highly structured and formal architectural �rm,
the other a loose and casual summer camp. At the camp, Kahn
observed a scuba instructor who spoke passionately about diving
from his personal experiences. Drawing on these observations, Kahn
concluded that the freedom to “bring oneself” into the work
makes people more engaged with the work process. In short,
engagement as originally de�ned was all about bringing one’s
personal skills and interests to the job.
Alot has transpired since then. Today, engagement is less focused
on the individual bringing his/her own interests and preferred
roles to work, and more about “going above and beyond” to the
bene�t of the organization.
says the organization needs more of, and what his or her manager
sometimes says was lacking in response to questions about “why
didn’t the initiative take hold?’ Organizations base major initiatives on
it and pay millions for consultants to help measure it and assume gains
based on it.
The Evolution From “About Me”
Some time between 1990 and now, what started out
as something about people being able to bring their
own personal skills and interests to the job did a 180,
and became about going above and beyond for the
organization.
HIS
OT
RY
An Employee Engagement Timeline
The timeline above is a highly condensed version based on the work
of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. in the
IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What?” Creating Connections to
Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SERIES
The evolution of the term is a direct o�shoot of the times -- companies
have been less interested in helping employees become more ful�lled
at work and more focused on survival. Simply put, having employees
do more things that would be ful�lling to them would not sell.
1
1990The Preferred
Self
2001Do MoreWithLess
2002Satis-faction
2006
2008Link ToLearning
2015Above
&Beyond
1999
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
“Employee engagement” is what the boss
HISTORY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
What Engagement Is Not
There is extensive disagreement about what employee engagement
is. Kahn’s de�nition (1990) was “the harnessing of organizational
members’ selves to their work roles -- where people employ and
express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during
role performances. Towers Watson (2010) refers to it as the extent to
which employees share their company’s values, feel pride in working
for their company, are committed to working for their company and
have favorable perceptions of their work environment. In between,
de�nitions employ words like ”emotionally invested,” “persistence
directed toward the organization’s goals,” and more.
Given the disparities in de�nitions of what engagement is, what do
we know about what engagement is not?
The topic of burnout (Schaufeli & Baker) establishes engagement as a
positive dimension of well-being, with burnout being negative.
Burnout involves low levels of energy and is a psychological syndrome
that leads to feelings of cynicism, detachment, and exhaustion --
seen as the erosion of engagement. In short, when one feels
“energized” at work, that person is more inclined to exert e�ort.
New terms have arisen from the entry of energy into the equation:
Sustainable Engagement -- (Towers Watson, 2012) -- to describe the
intensity of employees’ connection to their organization. The basis
being three core elements: being engaged, being enabled and feeling
energized.
Burnout
Employee Work Passion -- (Zigarmi, 2009) -- a persistent, emotion-
ally positive ... resulting in consistent constructive work intentions
and behaviors.
Determinants of Employee Engagement
Even though the de�nition has been elusive, there are many �rms that
o�er employee engagement studies. And lacking an agreed upon
de�nition, the predictors of what will make an employee more
engaged follow suit. Shown on the right is a compilation of what
various consulting �rms are saying ...
As shown above, the predictors of employee engagement vary as widely
as the de�nitions.
Conclusion: Engagement is a term that has often been con�gured to
�t the needs of a particular study, and not a concrete term that has
presented obviously discernible qualities.
2
Continued
Acknowledgement: This series of papers is based on the work of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. -- FirsTier Banks Distinguished Professor of Business and Director, Center for Entrepreneurship; and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. Student; Research Assistant, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in the IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What? Creating Connections to Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”
• Absorption -- being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.
Rich, Lepine, & Crawford (2010) is a promising measure that uses a job
engagement scale to return to Kahn’s (1990) de�nition, which draws on
work from Brown & Leigh’s (1996) measure of work intensity, Russel &
Barrett’s (1999) research on core a�ect, and Rothbard’s (2001) measure of
engagement. By modifying these scales the authors were able to
construct a measure that more properly re�ected Kahn’s (1990) concep-
tualization of engagement developing from physical, cognitive, and
emotional energy
Numerous vendor created (and proprietary) measurement scales are
also used -- some of which include scales from Blessing White, Gallup,
Hewitt, Sirota, Towers Watson, Valtera, and Watson Wyatt Worldwide.
The Gallup Workplace Audit (also known as the GWA or Q12) is used
extensively and has evolved from a measure of workplace attitudes. The
�rst version of the GWA appeared in the 1990’s to judge workplace
attitudes. 2009 marked its seventh interation.
Measurement of Employee Engagement
Although researchers do not agree on what employee engagement is
or what its predictors are, there’s no lack of measurement systems in the
marketplace.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). With a
seventeen-item scale, this model is divided into categories that include
vigor, dedication and absorption.
Common Measurement Systems
• Vigor -- high levels of persistence, energy, and mental resilience while working, and the willingness to invest effort in one’s work.
• Dedication -- being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.
WIIFM?
Outcomes of Employee Engagement
All of this work is being done to e�ect improvements in organizational
e�ectiveness. Outcomes cited range are widely varying and include
improvements in customer satisfaction, reduced burnout/turnover,
improvements in safety, overall job performance improvements, and
many more.
Engagement outcomes have in the
last decades been generally focused
on the organization. If we revisit
Kahn’s original de�nition, absent are
those factors that provide the
employee the motivation and desire
to e�ect improvements. Part two of
our series on employee engagmenet
will cover how to put the ‘What’s In It
For Me?’ back into the equation.
3
ContinuedHISTORY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SERIES
RO
LES
OF
EN
GA
GE
ME
NT
WIIFM?
Asked the supervisor: “Why weren’t you more
engaged in the ___ initiative?” Responded the
employee: “I thought I had more important priori-
ties.”
A scuba diver working at a summer camp does not
face the same hierarchy or heavy rules-based structure of an
architectural �rm. This highlights another body of research which
suggests that engagement e�orts can only do so much -- the other
part of the puzzle being enablement.
Skepticism Around Engagement
Skepticism around engagement as a movement exists for many
reasons like the one noted above. After all, employees at summer
camp have to feel that they are able to inject themselves into their
work just as much as employees at a rigidly managed architectural
�rm. In sum, employees must feel enabled.
According to Royal & Agnew (2011) enablement is divided into
two components:
• Optimizing Employee Roles
• Creating a Supportive Environment
It’s a two-way street: Engagement is important to foster, but unless
the organization provides its employees with the resources
needed to meet the maximum potential of their engagement --
and they feel enabled to do so -- the employee is not getting
anything out of demonstrating he/she is truly engaged.
Commercialization of Engagement
As can be seen by the many variations of what engagement is, what
its determinants are, how it’s measured and the sheer amounts of
dollars �rms are making from it, skepticism is increasing.
And because engagment has turned into such a big industry, the
methodology by which engagement is measured and used to move
an organization forward is being heavily scrutinized.
There are many factors that a�ect engagement. Equating a �rm’s
success with engagement scores beg the question: Which came
�rst? Did the �rm become successful as a result of higher engag-
ment scores, or were employees more engaged because the �rm
became so successful? Said Cornell University HR Professor
Christoper Collins (Flander: 2008): “Engagement studies are
inherently misleading since they don’t show which came �rst -- the
engagement or the company’s success.”
Engaged In What?
Vague measures of being “emotionally attached” or going “above
and beyond” do not paint a clear picture when responses are tied to
a “disagree or agree” 12 point scale. We must understand how it
works.
What most agree on is that when an employee is engaged, he or she
does indeed “go above and beyond.” But we need speci�c language
and de�nitions of what “going beyond” means in order to map the
link between engagement and performance.
Optimizing employee roles is central to
understanding engagement. As Kahn
(1990) pointed out originally, employee
engagement involves the employee being
able to bring his/her preferred roles to
work. By going back to this de�nition of
engagement, we are better able to answer
“What’s In It For Me?” (WIIFM).
1
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Roles Engagement
ABOVE & BEYOND
This is the main part of traditional job descriptions -- what we are hired to do. This role does not include behaviors that go “above and beyond.”
How we behave in teams -- including the actions we take and the level of support we provide to our team and team members. Not considered part of the core job, but relates to behaviors demonstrating or being associated with a team effort.
Taking time to not just make big innovations but to improve how work is done overall. Making small and big innovations, as well as supporting the new ideas and innovations of others (vs. doing the work on their own).
The engagement of citizen-like behaviors to help the company. Not considered part of their core job, the employee’s behaviors help the organization. (Example: Turning off the lights to save money.)
When employees are doing things to help advance their careers -- improving skills through training, courses, mentoring, being mentored -- generally working to keep up one’s skills. This is a clear WIIFM when it’s what the employee wants.
The fact is we have lives beyond the organiza-
tion. If our work lives extend too far into our “life hours,”
then we become less enamored with our work and
burnout. Certainly the fact that the scuba diver was
doing what he loved (and which was part of both his
work and personal life, he was more energized. Taking
Kahn’s position of preferred roles, we can begin a more
organized dissection we call ...
Five distinct roles can be used to de�ne what employees are asked
to be engaged in at work. These �ve roles, introduced by
Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) introduced a role-based
performance scale in an article published by the Academy of
Management Journal. These �ve roles were chosen by examining
the types of work employers allocate resources for.
What’s most important here is that employees continually have
priorities that they make based on their allotted time, and going
above and beyond can’t happen at the expense of the core job role.
These roles and the behaviors associated with them are hierrchial. You can’t do them all at once.
if you reinforce one as the “new top” then something else has to move down in importance.
Simply put, not everything can be priority one -- or the employee will likely burnout.
The next page presents a methodology by which they can be prioritized according to the changing
needs of the organization over time.
2
Continued
The
Everything that’s not part of the core job roleThe fundamentals of meeting core job requirements.
ROLES OF ENGAGEMENT
Acknowledgement: This series of papers is based on the work of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. -- FirsTier Banks Distinguished Professor of Business and Director, Center for Entrepreneurship; and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. Student; Research Assistant, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in the IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What? Creating Connections to Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”
By focusing on �ve distinct roles and marrying
appropriate rewards and administrative functions
according to mission, vision and values, organiza-
tions will have the language necessary to link engage-
ment to bottom-line business strategy.
A business can have a stellar engagement plan, but if the rewards and recognition system sends con�icting signals about the behaviors
employees should be engaged in performing, then the engagement plan is at risk.
Set up appropriately, corporate-wide rewards such as compensation attract
and retain people in speci�c jobs; however, they are not enough, because
they do not signal what non-core job role behaviors are important or what is
uniquely expected from employees. De�ning which non-core job roles are
important leads to decisions that can be used to shape a recognition
program.
Corporate Wide Base Reward Plans
Other types of rewards are used to incent, reward, communicate and
di�erentiate. These programs signal what non-core job behaviors are
important in order to realize a competitive advantage in the market.
Other Rewards & Recognition Plans
By building in the capability for change, the organization creates agility. Agile
organizations are better served when their rewards and/or recognition systems
can be administered by managers. When managers can "own" the plan, it
means they can reward what's needed today vs. what was determined
important by leadership last year.
Agile Organizations
Staying In Company - Core Job Behaviors
When we communicate what the most important behaviors are for managers
to focus on, the importance of one role is raised, with others receiving a
lesser priority. This approach respects the employee’s time constraints, and
provides focus to avoid burnout.
Employees cannot be engaged in everything. The success of any employee
engagement program will be the degree to which employees know which
behaviors are critical for them to be engaged in performing. Engaging in all will
result in burnout and frustration.
Roles
Agile Organization
RolesOther Rewards & Recognition
PlansCore Job RoleInnovator RoleCareer RoleTeam RoleOrganization Role
Big Idea
Staying In CompanyCore Job Behaviors
Corporate Wide Base Reward Plans
Build TrustRetain EmployeesReinforce Fairness
Send Message About “Engaged In What” Behaviors
Di�erentiate Based On Performance
Managers have the freedom to use a variety of rewards and recognition plans to reinforce non-core job roles “as needed.”
Behaviors are hierarchial. You can’t do them all at
once. If you reinforce one as the new “top,” then
something moves down in importance.
If employees become engaged, what’s in it for them? With all
the talk about engagement, the subject of the
link between rewards and engagement has
taken a back seat. Employees get important
clues about what’s really important when
rewards and recognition are linked to
the engagement process.
The Big Idea
Managers can use formal and informal recognition systems to align employees
to behaviors that are needed promptly at the time in question. Recognition
systems are more �exible and easier to change. When implemented by manag-
ers, their use can be the link between engagmeent and role-based behavior.
3
ContinuedROLES OF ENGAGEMENT
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SERIES
(2013)
43,890 employees
16 full service health centers
Locations in Ohio, Nevada, Florida, Canada and Abu Dhabi
Ranked one of the top hospitals in
America (U.S. News and World Report 2013) the Cleveland Clinic is a
growing organization, with success greatly supported by their employee
engagement work began in 2008. Central to their initiative is an innova-
tive, multi-tiered recognition program used to strategically align
employee engagement with organizational goals.
A Role-Based Engagement Strategy
Cleveland Clinic used a role-based approach to drive desired outcomes,
choosing speci�c behaviors to target, measure and reward by both
headquarters and front line managers. Embracing employee engage-
ment in 2008, Cleveland Clinic made it a part of a major change
initiative designed to transform how every employee delivered patient
care -- a hallmark being for every employee to focus on his/her role as a
caregiver.
“We are all caregivers" extends as the overall theme and identity to
embrace by every single employee in order to ensure a more "patient-
centric delivery model" which began in 2006. This coincided with a
major facilities expansion, restructuring, and the appointment of a chief
patient experience o�cer in 2007.
CA
SE
ST
UD
Y
Their Foundation: Total Rewards
Cleveland Clinic o�ers total rewards to their employees. The organi-
zation assured they had comprehensive and adequate health care,
including wellness programs, pension / investment, tuition
reimbursement, adoption help, an Employee Hardship Fund in
which employees apply for �nancial support based on emergency
needs; home purchase assistance; employee discounts for purchases
such as computers, sporting and theatre event tickets, cell phones
services and other local venues (employees saved over $2 million
dollars annually on discount purchase programs). In addition, they
adjusted jobs to assure that they were paid at current market levels.
1
It was on top of this
solid foundation that
they added their
Caregiver Celebra-
tions program, which
started in 2010.
While reading the following, make a mental note of the various connec-
tions to core values. Cleveland Clinic went well beyond engagement
to develop a strategy focusing on them.
Acknowledgement: This series of papers is based on the work of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. -- FirsTier Banks Distinguished Professor of Business and Director, Center for Entrepreneurship; and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. Student; Research Assistant, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in the IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What? Creating Connections to Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”
Metric Used
Education&Training
MissionVisionValues
Recognizes individuals or teams for exceptional e�ort or initiative resulting in a signi�cant impact on patients, business, innovation, etc. A total of 4% of employees receive a monetary gift certi�cate or cash award each quarter.
“So far the biggest and most ambitious part of our engagement initiative has been something we call “The Cleveland Clinic Experience.” This is a series of half-day learning sessions attended by every one of our 43,000 caregivers.”
Role-Based LensCleveland Clinic provides an example of how a role-based approach
combined with employee engagement, can lead to achieving firm-level
success. One can analyze their overall rewards strategy as follows, using the
role-based lens:
Core Job Role. Overall market-level base salary and benefits programs signal a willingness to pay what it takes to bring in top talent; benefits are designed to keep them. The organization wants to create a high quality compensation package to incent, be fair and keep people working at their best in their core job roles.
Career Role. Their tuition reimbursement program signals that learning new skills is important -- and it’s considered to be one of the best in the market based on benchmark studies. Cleveland Clinic’s mission emphasizes the importance of “further education of those who serve.”
Team Member Role. Individuals and teams are part of Cleveland Clinic’s recognition program, supporting the importance of being a team member. Teamwork is one of Cleveland Clinic’s core values.
Innovator Role. Innovation is a core value, with individuals being recog-nized based on their ideas or innovations that have been used, with more rewards for innovations targeting improved patient experiences.
Organization-Member Role. The emphasis on "everyone being a caregiver" brings the organization-member role front and center. Employ-ees think about being part of one organization -all with the same daily goal. This is a very powerful message that is not only delivered but reinforced by actions and the rewards program.
The Gallup Q12 employee survey was used to establish a baseline set of employee engagement metrics.
The "We Are All Caregivers" initiative was complemented by leadership education. The group taught and built a model based on service leadership, which was a variant of servant leadership (based on book by Robert K. Greenleaf ).
All initiatives were designed to complement their traditional mission, vision and values ("striving to be the world's leader in patient experience, clinical outcomes, research and education.") "Compassion and integrity" were added as new values that already included quality, innovation, teamwork and service.
RecognitionPrograms
Cleveland Clinic’s values, vision, goals, mission, daily behavio-ral expectations and engagement come together in their rewards strategy. Patient satisfaction and engagement scores have increased dramatically.
Individuals receive $2,000 and teams split $2,000 amongst their members. One individual and team receive the top CEO Award valued at $10,000.
A non-monetary award administered peer to peer, by manager or physician to employee or from patient to employee to say “thanks” to a caregiver for a job well done. Reinforces behaviors that support Cleveland Clinic values and a patient-centric culture.
Managers recognize individuals and teams for outstanding performance that leverage values and patients �rst culture. Recognition gift denominations range from $10 to $100. Overall program awards can be approved or denied by the institutes, divisions and hospitals -- a level of �exibility that was important to support business goals as the organization changed.
The Cleveland Clinic demonstrates
synergy between values, vision,
goals, mission, daily behavioral
expectations and engagement -- all
coming together with their rewards
strategy. The connections are what
have led the many changes that
have dramatically improved patient
satisfaction scores, engagement
scores and the work done at
Cleveland Clinic.
2
Continued
Results
CASE STUDY
4.50
4.40
4.30
4.20
4.10
4.00
3.90
3.80
3.702008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cleveland Clinic Gallup Q12 Survey -- Grand Mean