Don't engage employees -- empower them

(MoneyWatch) The management fad of the millennium is employee "engagement." Gallup has done a remarkable job of marketing it as the one metric for improving everything from employee retention to business performance.

But does it work? Not necessarily.

Sure, every executive and business leader wants employees to care about their jobs and the success of their company. That's a no-brainer. But accurately measuring employee engagement, developing the right strategies to improve it, implementing them, and not screwing up anything else in the process is far easier said than done.

More importantly, at least one credible expert and a human capital analytics consultancy firm say the cause-and-effect relationship between employee engagement and business results isn't compelling, primarily because their drivers are not necessarily the same. And I happen to agree.

Why emotional intelligence is just a fad
7 modern workplace myths
The Gen Y workplace myth

If the results are questionable, then why have so many companies jumped on the employee engagement bandwagon? Like so many things nowadays, executives do it because it's popular, it sounds good and it sounds easy. Hire Gallup, have them do a survey, make a few tweaks and -- voila! -- instant engagement.

The truth is that companies do half-baked stuff like that all the time. I've seen it over and over. Half the time it backfires because they're not measuring the right factors, they don't make the right changes, or they fix one thing and screw up another.

Now, I know employee engagement is a phrase with a deeper meaning, but whenever I hear it, I can't help but relate it to domesticated animals. You engage a dog by getting it to do tricks in the hope of getting a treat. You engage a cat with a piece of string or, if you really want to go high-tech, a laser pointer.

I know it's a condescending analogy, but when you lump individuals into masses to be measured with tools and manipulated into doing what you want them to do, what can I say? It seems to fit. Maybe it works with certain employees. Maybe not. But there's one thing I do know: There are better ways to motivate employees and improve business performance.

I say that because, in the high-tech industry, where a high percentage of employees do knowledge-based work, what really motivates them is feeling empowered. In my experience, employees feel empowered when:

- Their responsibilities are clearly defined

- They're challenged, given the tools they need to succeed and are held accountable

- They feel their hard work is recognized

- They feel they're part of something that will make a difference

- They're compensated appropriately and have the opportunity to move up if they excel

- Things they should or need to know aren't kept from them

- Their management is at least as competent, capable and hardworking as they are.

In my experience, that's what empowers and motivates employees. And that's what translates into improved employee retention, effectiveness, productivity and business performance. Everyone benefits, from employees and managers to customers and shareholders. Everyone.

And here's the thing about empowerment. Once a company gives it by creating a culture where employees feel empowered, they can't easily take it away. That's precisely why it's so attractive and motivating for employees. It gives them a measure of control. And it pays off, big-time.

Engagement, on the other hand, is something that companies spoon-feed employees. It creates dependency and mediocrity. If that's what you or your company wants out of life, that's fine. Do that.

But if you're the kind of employee who aspires to do great things, who wants to get ahead, don't settle for engagement. Find a work environment where you feel empowered. And if you're the kind of executive or business leader who wants employees that outperform their peers, create a culture that empowers them.

Image courtesy of Flickr user dulnan

[EmployBetter]

Whatever we call it here is what is important in all businesses, especially small growing enterprises.

- Employees & employers must accept and acknowledge the true power each party brings to the firm.

-Create an environment where everyone wants to sell the company.(revenue generation, recruiting, ambassadorship, etc.) You'd be surprised how little you have to do reward non-sales staff for selling.

-Expect and reward all staff member for being a entrepreneur within the firm.

Jerold Mitchell

[EmployBetter]

Whatever we call it here is what is important in all businesses, especially small growing enterprises.

- Employees & employers must accept and acknowledge the true power each party brings to the firm.

-Create an environment where everyone wants to sell the company.(revenue generation, recruiting, ambassadorship, etc.) You'd be surprised how little you have to do reward non-sales staff for selling.

-Expect and reward all staff member for being a entrepreneur within the firm.

Jerold Mitchell

[ETomGimbel]

You hit the nail on the head, Steve. Employees need to be empowered in their jobs in order to maintain career satisfaction. At my company, LaSalle Network, empowerment is one of our "3 e's of management." We strive to empower our staff to execute their visions...by eliminating hierarchy, we put the emphasis on manager-to-employee relationships, taking the guesswork out of successful project management. I explain more of my thoughts in this blog post if you're interested: http://pastfive.typepad.com/pastfive/2010/02/how-to-grow-your-company-in-2010.html

[feralferal]

It's about meaning.

Engaged people are those who can create positive meaning from their work -- their bosses show them that what they're doing matters, and/or they have the positive mindsets that enable them to create that sense of meaning without a lot of real evidence that what they're doing matters.

Empowered people actually have the tools and informtion to make a difference, and to know they're making a difference.

As a first step, leaders have to make sure their practices are not sucking the meaning out of their employees' work lives. McKinsey had a good summary of how many fail at this: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_leaders_kill_meaning_at_work_2910

[MichaelClingan]

Steve, As previous stated, empowerment means to give power. It implies that power is best doled out, if now a bit more generously, from the top of the pyramid. Taylorism indeed.

Would it not be better for power to go to someone who is deeply invested in the success of their organization and who receives great intrinsic satisfaction from their individual contributions to that success? You know, an engaged someone?

Or better yet, to have or support a culture where everyone has access to, and is responsible for, all the power they need for their company to succeed?

Empowerment is a term of management. Engagement is a term of leadership.

As an extreme example of the difference between the two: Empowerment without engagement is what we have at the DMV.

Michael Clingan
Author of Close that Sale!
theclaymoregroup.com

[KevinKruse]

Steve, Steve, Steve! Either you have an unusual definition of employee engagement or you are taking a contrarian position to get readers. I'm guess the latter...something I've done myself on more than one occasion.

Employee engagement is the emotional commitment one has to the organization and its goals. True many companies mess it up when they try to improve it, but it's worth the effort and definitely drives results.

You reference Laurie Bassie's weak article which quotes Gallup research out of context. If you read the Gallup piece it just says there are other important drivers of business outcomes too, like Customer Engagement. While customer engagement improves results 1.7x over baseline, employee engagement drives it ANOTHER 1.7x. So it's not that employee engagement doesn't work, it's that there are other things that are important too.

Lastly, most of your drivers of "empowerment" I recognize as drivers of "engagement".

Best,
Kevin
NY Times Bestselling Author, Employee Engagement 2.0
www.KevinKruse.com

[wallyhauck]

Empowerment means to give power. That assumes that employees don't have power and that managers do. That thought is outdated and inconsistent with systems thinking. Engagement is a more sophisticated word because it requires conditions that enable employees to be self-managed. Empowerment is a thought left over form Frederick Taylor Scientific Management thinking. Are you being serious or are you just trying to be provocative. I have read and number of your articles and I am sorry I can't tell. See ya!!

[GailTolstoiMiller]

My staff was just trained on empowerment by using neuroscince. I agree with you - employees must have well defined responsibilities and goals. In addition, they want to "own" their job and take risks. They want to feel that their work is contributing to the success of the company. In addition, the corporate culture must be transparent and collabrative.

[markherb]

Steve,
As an "expert" in employee engagement what you describe as empowerment is what I would call "true engagement". Teaching to the test or delegating a "program" to HR doesn't create engagement or generate meaningful business results...