I’ve delivered layoffs and even fired people for cause, and I always found it very difficult. These are human beings with emotions.

@Sean – Yes to manager/leader training and empowerment to know and lead their employees! Just as we talked about the necessity of an org trusting its employees to be ambassadors, it’s equally critical (or perhaps more critical) for organizations to trust their managers to own that role. Good point that it’s a particular challenge at larger organizations who want to standardize a program and apply it to all employees.

@Bob – Isn’t it amazing how many managers lose sight of the humanity of their employees? I have an outstanding relationship with my boss – one built on mutual respect, trust, and bluntly honest communication. That only happens when managers and employees get to be human in their work lives.

Here’s another piece I’ll throw into the mix – the importance of organizations identifying if employees are walking the walk as much as they are talking the talk also. When it comes to engagement (or any other term we want to use to capture it), are organizations believing the surface-level talk of employees or looking deeper at their actions? Orgs who see surface level talk as a positive, especially in this environment where many employees are wary of saying too much for fear of losing a job, are doing a disservice to the org and employees. Consistency in talk and action matters at all levels of the organization.

Something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit is that the “walk the talk” notion is even more important in a chaotic environment. Leaders (execs and comm.) need to actively minimize risk concerns in organizations today, b/c employees are keenly aware of downsizing, layoffs, etc. Workers are tiptoeing around worrying about getting canned, while most execs are unwilling to address their concerns directly. People are happy when they can minimize risk and work his a central hub in their lives, so fear saps much mental and physical energy over time.

What I get from reading Linda Russell’s fine comment above is that bosses need to get in touch with their employees and be more humane. I don’t know where basic human relations gets drummed out of b-school types, but I am guessing it’s in their personal climb itself or maybe the education process. Nor do I have an answer for how we get it back into corporate settings.

For example, I have written scripts for execs on how to deal with crises, particularly large-scale layoffs. When delivering, they opted for disengaged robot, rather than compassionate human being. I often joke that people shouldn’t be allowed to make major life decisions until they’ve paid a mortgage, perhaps execs shouldn’t be allowed to run organizations unless they’ve been “downsized.”

I can’t argue at all with your thinking here. It’s true that organizations seem to want employees to be engaged, but don’t really want to do the things that will lead to increased enthusiasm, commitment and action on the org’s behalf. They wind up making it a one-way street, with discretionary effort on the employee part the sine qua non.

And the employees seem to have little understanding of the reality of current work — that you get paid to create outcomes, not perform duties. Too many workforces see their jobs as a list of to-dos, with no further responsibility. Both management and employee decry lack of loyalty, but neither seems willing to do what it will take to develop it.

@Linda – you write:

“the presenter [made] the case for knowing your employees, knowing what motivates them, and letting them know that you know that. He used an example of asking employees what goal they were working toward in their personal life and then found a way to encourage their work performance as a means to achieve that goal. ”

This is where large organizations have a lot of trouble. Systems thinking leads one to try and design a repeatable process, but there are too many variables in the system to have dependable outcomes. It’s why I’m such a fanatic for effective managerial and leadership communication programming, helping these people learn about, know, and guide their teams.

Good stuff.

A couple years ago, I went to a seminar for new supervisors/managers. I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember quite clearly the presenter making the case for knowing your employees, knowing what motivates them, and letting them know that you know that. He used an example of asking employees what goal they were working toward in their personal life and then found a way to encourage their work performance as a means to achieve that goal. Find out what makes employees tick and encourage them on that level. The presenter was opposed to gift cards for employees, in general, but I made the point to him that even gift cards can be a motivator for some employees. I’m known around my office as an early bird, often arriving in the office by 6:00 a.m. to work while it’s still quiet. I only stop at Starbucks if I’m coming in that early. Thus, a Starbucks gift card to say “thanks for your efforts on this project” is something I appreciate. It means my next early morning coffee isn’t coming out of my pocket when I’m working hard to meet an important deadline.

To me, employee engagement really boils down to CONTRIBUTION. It’s not about employees being happy, although that can factor in for some, but rather about how your employees are contributing to company success. Employees who are not supported, trusted, or encouraged by their employer are less inclined to contribute above and beyond. Solid employee engagement means people contribute again and again in ways that drive business results.

And now I will stop typing before this comment becomes a blog entry of its own. Looking forward to future #icchats!

1) I don’t think engagement is an inappropriate area for communicators to get involved with–heaven forbid what an organizational engagement effort would look and sound likewithout the involvement of communication professionals!

What I think is problematic are engagement efforts which adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to engagement, and which don’t reflect an appropriate, realistic, and intellectually honest approach towards those they seek to engage, or more aptly, seek greater engagement from.

2) What I do think is inappropriate is the term “employee engagement” as it indicates a one-way relationship. Indeed, it indicates that a belief that improved “employee engagement” that exceeds the organization’s investment is essentially a one-way bet.

Often, when organizations drive for greater “employee engagement”, they are seen as making implicit promises around career longevity or rosier prospects for those who make themselves visible as “engaged employees”. When economic or organizational needs require pruning–and the “engaged” find themselves among the “disposed”, no one’s credibility suffers more than those who promoted the “employee engagement” agenda.

3) Companies are becoming more dependent on contingent and flexible workforces. Traditional “employee engagement” approaches can be even more counterproductive in that they treat contingent employees inappropriately–either by excluding them conspicuously, or by incentivizing excessive identification with the organization.