Beyond Engagement: What’s the Point?

We have observed that the current fashion for engagement surveys may not be working for the organisations or employees they are designed to serve. To address the issue it is necessary first to be very clear about what they are designed to achieve. Only then can the strategy behind the survey be evaluated effectively. An organisation must be clear about its engagement aspirations. For example, is the objective of the engagement strategy to:

• Improve shareholder returns?

• Increase profitability?

• Help attract and retain differentiating talent?

• Raise productivity?

• Report a nice increase in the engagement score in your annual report?

Or is the objective much more loosely considered as suggested at the beginning of the article – more about doing what is expected, ticking a box and moving on aimlessly? Perhaps even actually alienating those who gave up their time to complete the survey in the first place.

The productivity question

The penultimate objective in the list above is a particularly interesting one. The question of UK productivity and its poor performance is vexing politicians, business people and academics alike. It is stubbornly low, much lower than that of many European competitors and nobody from the Chancellor on down seems to know what the problem is or what to do about it.

“The UK’s challenge is well known. Since the financial crisis, productivity has fallen further behind other leading economies such as the US, Germany, and France. At current rates, according to McKinsey visiting fellow Tera Allas, the UK will by 2025 be nearly a third less productive per hour worked than Germany.”

Sarah Gordon, “A German Solution to the UK’s Productivity Puzzle”, Financial Times April 25, 2018

Productivity and engagement are often mixed up. Engaged employees are thought to be more productive. However, at a national level, productivity scores are usually bluntly arrived at by looking at ratios of Gross Domestic Product per capita. Few clues there as to what the problem might be if the score is a disappointingly low one.

At a corporate level, very few leadership teams take the time to understand the actual drivers of employee productivity, or to measure the incidence of the conditions which foster productivity. Many hope or assume that deploying the annual engagement survey will provide a clue. But are the drivers of productivity and engagement the same thing? Does engagement relate directly to productivity? We believe not.

Does John Lewis have the answer?

Chairman of retailer John Lewis, Charlie Mayfield, is currently leading a team tasked with improving the UK’s productivity performance*. The team believes that changing the way companies MANAGE is a big part of the answer, and we would concur. They suggest that adopting some ‘new’ basic best practices will make a difference. They recommend that companies look closely at - leadership practice, employee engagement, planning, and digitisation. So engagement, at least to this task force, IS in the productivity mix, though to return to an earlier argument what engagement really means in this context is not clear.

*Source: Sarah Gordon, “A German Solution to the UK’s Productivity Puzzle”, Financial Times April 25, 2018

What to do?

Our own analysis and experience suggest that those companies wanting to optimise their investments in employee engagement, to the benefit of company performance as well as that of their employees should consider the following courses of action:

1. Be clear on the outcome
   What are you trying to achieve by investing in engagement surveys and related interventions? Aspirations are likely to include – a healthier workplace community, happy and aligned employees, greater productivity and a positive impact on long-term company value – but the mix is for leadership to decide on. Be clear on this and work your analysis, action plans and investment decisions BACKWARDS from these aspirations. Be as specific as possible in outcome setting.
   
   

2. Ask the right questions
   If you are designing a survey, design one which will help you understand the SPECIFIC dynamics at play. Don’t deploy a generic engagement survey and try to use it to address everything. Instead look specifically at the drivers of employee productivity or the strength of organisational community for example (they are different things clearly) and their impact on attraction, retention, collaboration or whatever else you prioritise as a specific outcome.
   
   

3. Measure, analyse, invest and measure again
   MEASURE how you are performing on the specific factors of ‘performance’ you wish to impact. Analyse what you learn in great depth. Then decide what interventions and investments will move the needle the right way. Measure again and learn from what you have done. What’s worked and what hasn’t? Adopt a continuous improvement approach.
   
   

4. Dig deeper
   A survey, any survey, is a QUANTITATIVE blunt instrument. The data will highlight broad issue and opportunity areas but you need to dig deeper with QUALITATIVE analysis into the ‘story behind the story’. What is driving the scores, what are the nuances and subtleties at play? What specific actions will unlock positive change?
   
   

5. Act with integrity
   If you are committing to an engagement survey, MEAN IT. Don’t do it because everyone else is doing one or you think you should. Do it with a purpose, commit to acting on it. Set senior management KPIs related to it, KPIs which are actually taken into account when making remuneration and promotion decisions. Commit to investing in upskilling management to manage the often complex issues around productivity and engagement.