The hoax of employee engagement

Over the past 20 years, considerable research has supported the link between “employee engagement” and factors critical to an organization’s success, e.g., productivity, profitability, efficiency, quality, tenure, customer service, and employee well-being. Unfortunately, a vast majority of this research lacks basic scientific rigor and its value is highly suspected. The most fundamental issue centers on the construction of a valid self-assessment engagement instrument. In fact, I contend that the creation of such an instrument is likely impossible and the sale of current ones verges on fraud. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it is questionable that such a tool would be of significant value. The numerous issues related to employee engagement research are discussed herewith.

The problem is that nearly all employees report “going above and beyond,” especially when asked to compare themselves to colleagues. A friend recently hired a large consulting firm to conduct an engagement survey in his organization. On their version of this item, 99 percent of respondents answered positively. Obviously, such a response automatically disqualifies the item as valid in distinguishing levels of engagement. (Based on responses from several other poorly chosen and constructed items, the report concluded that the company had an engagement problem. I’m not kidding!)

I would contend, for example, that one could be satisfied and/or motivated at work but not engaged. Some people, especially those in sales, may be motivated by money but not at all engaged with the job itself – they only work hard when they are incentivized to do so. Others might be quite satisfied with their jobs because they are paid well-enough and actually don’t have to work very hard but hardly find the work motivating or engaging. I do believe that engaged employees tend to be satisfied and motivated. Instruments should seek to measure engagement as “purely” as possible. 

Employees experience different levels of engagement depending on the identified target, i.e., their work, team members, supervisor, and customers. For example, an employee might be highly engaged with his/her customers but extremely disengaged from his/her boss. Instruments that group together different targets blur this important distinction and greatly hinder the development of any intervention intended to increase a specific aspect of engagement. We must always ask, “Engaged with whom/what?” 

The term “engagement” is a psychological-emotional construct that cannot be measured directly. Determining the extent to which one is engaged requires assessing the “symptoms” that reflect the experience. For example, “I get absorbed in my work and lose track of time,” “Outside of work, I think about how I could be more productive and effective in my job,” and “My work energizes me.” Items such as: “I have a close friend at work,” “I like my boss,” or “I am given regular feedback,” do not measure engagement. Period. 

Don’t get me wrong, identifying and measuring the causes/factors that drive engagement are critical because they serve as the basis for creating an effective “intervention” (action plan) to increase it. For example, the RESPECT™ Model posits that engagement between an employee and supervisor is driven by the following factors: 

• Recognition: Showing employees appreciation for a job well-done.
  
  
• Empowerment: Providing employees with the tools and resources to be successful.
  
  
• Supportive Feedback: Sharing ongoing performance feedback – both positive and corrective.
  
  
• Partnering: Actively supporting and collaborating with employees. 
  
  
• Expectation Setting: Establishing clear performance goals and holding employees accountable.
  
  
• Consideration: Demonstrating thoughtfulness, empathy, and kindness.
  
  
• Trust: Demonstrating faith and belief in employees’ skills, abilities, and decisions.

Measuring these factors allows organizations to create focused training programs to increase the skills of their supervisors and managers, which leads to more engaged employees. 

As stated earlier, we are presumably interested in measuring engagement because it correlates with critical factors related to organizational vitality. Here’s the question: What possible reason is there to develop a measure of employee engagement when we can simply and directly measure the factors we actually care about? (The answer is coming shortly.) Employee productivity, quality of work, and tenure are really, really easy to assess. And, I know when employees take the initiative and go above and beyond their job responsibilities, when they help out team members, and when they bring forth new and creative ideas. I don’t need an assessment tool to tell me how engaged my staff is. Do you? (If you feel compelled to assess the level of engagement in your workforce, ask supervisors and managers to rate the extent to which each of their team members is willing to go “above and beyond” – if they can’t do this, they shouldn’t be in their position.) 

Consider that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of consulting firms and practitioners who claim to have a measure of engagement. Even if you have no formal education in research methodology or survey development, it must be obvious that it is simply impossible to have dozens of valid instruments to measure the same construct. Unfortunately, marketing trumps science every time. And, of course, in almost all instances, organizations refuse to share data in a manner that would allow others to evaluate the psychometric properties of the instrument. (Confidentiality is not an issue – all data can be “scrubbed” of any private information.) Please understand, such practices would be considered wholly unethical in the development of instruments in any social science or medical field.

So, why the proliferation of employee engagement instruments? I can see only two possible answers: 1) Ignorance – the creators of employee engagement instruments lack sufficient education in research methodology, statistics, and survey development; and 2) Money. I would hazard to guess that some of the large consulting firms make millions of dollars selling employee engagement assessments. Equally, if not more disturbing, consider the resources and efforts spent on creating and executing action plans based on these invalid assessments. “Fraud” is not too strong a word to describe the practices of many firms engaged in the purveying of employee engagement instruments. 

On a final note, human resource professionals must take responsibility for their own level of education and be competent in evaluating the psychometric properties of assessment instruments.