I was reading systematic HR’s latest post (here) about how employee engagement will become more important to HR leaders as an underlying dynamic driving more visible measures of turnover, retention and employee productivity. I read it about 15 minutes after I communicated with my leadership team about the importance of driving participation in our own annual engagement survey, and it got me thinking about technology intersections with these visible issues.
Here’s what I’d add to the discussion: engagement is critical as companies try to position themselves as an employer-of-choice. But there’s a critical question: what do organizations know about the behaviors (especially for leaders) that directly impact employee engagement? Is it about communication style? Empathy? Accountability for results? I talk to customers almost daily on these kinds of issues and over and over again, I discover the same answer. If they have data, it’s anecdotal at best, and the decision-making related to it is almost completely subjective.
The answer? Build the right competency framework (at the behavior level) and measure against it. Once you have insight into those behaviors that directly impact engagement, you’re driving real competitive advantage. It’s not easy, and requires real alignment between people, process and technology. And then the decision-making from this data is significantly more objective, reliable and credible. Take that story to operations leadership at the company and HR’s seat at the table will be guaranteed.
I think these points are absolutely right, and I would add that as well as identifying and measuring the behaviours that drive engagement, there is also a need to align these with business and cultural goals.
Our business focuses around engagement surveys (organisational measurement) and 360 degree feedback (individual measurement). Increasingly, we find that clients are seeking to integrate these measurement systems.
Our experience leads us to the view that there are 6 key attributes that drive employee engagement in company after company. Without being completely specific, these are around involvement, communication, personal development, and belief in the employer.
Oh, boy, where to start. I worked on building out competency-based job families at St. Paul Companies (now Travelers) in 1996 with Susan Zemke. The Hay Group did the survey and statistical crunching that allowed us to build an Underwriter, Claims and Leadership models to use in recruiting, development and performance. I have never worked ANYWHERE since that had that level of commitment to “the right person in the right job.” If you can bottle competency strategy for sale, let me know and I’ll buy a bottle.
Dear Crysta:
I worked on that project on behalf of Hay Group. There was really awesome commitment. There was a genuine perceived need for competencies to solve the job person matching issues rather than competencies as a good idea. Great people to work with.
John