Have you ever wondered why there are so many definitions of employee engagement? Organizations around the world are striving to create a culture of engagement, but the various definitions they hear only further confuse them. We see that categories such as reward and recognition, training and development, health and wellness, opportunity and benefits are all being used to describe employee engagement initiatives, and as a result, employees are also confused because they have a perception that companies need to be doing these things for them all the time. We have published more than twenty articles on employee engagement in the last year, and many of the people and companies that came up with confusing definitions of employee engagement have been inspired by our articles to redefine it. We are happy about this because this is a serious topic. As important as your personal health is, it is equally important to address organizational health.
It is not an area that can be handled and served by people who do not have corporate life experience in their work history, who have not taken these initiatives in their own companies, and who do not have sufficient education and experience. However, companies that receive services in this field other than consultancy firms like us need to ask the right questions to the companies they meet and evaluate them well. In doing so, they need to be clear about the definition of employee engagement. Just as the molecular structure of water is H2O, a substance composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, the definition of employee engagement is just as clear.
If you search for "what is employee engagement" you will find an endless list of definitions from consultants, multinational corporate groups and everyone in between. While the vast majority of definitions, especially in Turkey, are not based on any science and are even absurd and meaningless, below I share a few of the definitions we see and like around the world:
Our partner DecisionWise defines employee engagement as the state of mind when employees feel passionate, energized and dedicated to their work. In return, we give our best selves completely to what we do.
While often difficult to put into words, you recognize engagement when you see it. For example, when Douglas Conant took over as CEO of Campbell Soups in 2001, he described the company as "bad". The market share of its products was dismal, and research showed that 62 percent of the company's executives did not consider themselves actively engaged in their work. By 2009, 68 percent of the company's employees said they were actively engaged and only 3 percent said they were not. The percentages had changed dramatically. How did Conant do this?
It made a commitment to its employees - "Campbell's cares about people, and people care about Campbell's." Conant improved the physical environment by removing fences around the offices and focused on improving manager communication. Conant also established programs to celebrate personal achievement, from sending employees personal thank-you cards to having lunch with them.
Campbell's created a culture of engagement. It didn't do this by putting foosball tables in break rooms or opening on-site clinics. People connect with people and give more when they feel heard, empowered and appreciated.
How does the psychological contract between the employee and the company define engagement?
The Psychological Contract has a huge impact on employee engagement and, in turn, on the entire employee experience. What really defines us are the ideas, hopes and dreams hidden in our hearts. These expectations cannot be adequately addressed in the clauses of an employment contract or in recruitment slogans to align with expectations. These expectations are part of the psychological Contract. The Psychological Contract is an unwritten, implicit set of expectations and obligations that set the terms of exchange in a relationship.
Many leaders mistakenly believe that increasing employee satisfaction will increase employee motivation and engagement. Satisfaction is transactional and contractual. In return for their work, you promise employees the basics: wages, tools, resources, physical safety, dignity and respect. Both the organization and the employee must continually invest in the "bank account" of the relationship.
Satisfied employees put in as much effort as they are paid for, not more. They will do what is asked of them as long as you do your part. They come to work and work, but that doesn't mean they say no to other offers.
Changing the way we think about engagement
When it comes to the bottom line, employee engagement matters, not satisfaction or happiness. It is a powerful engine for development and profit. Engagement is a 50/50 ratio, meaning that the employee takes responsibility for being engaged and the organization takes responsibility for creating an environment that creates engagement. When both the organization and individuals are committed, a culture of commitment is created.