I just finished reading a book entitled Re-engage: How America’s Best Places to Work Inspire Extra Effort Through Extraordinary Engagement. It purports to point out the ways organizations can recreate engaged workplaces once the economy improves. It starts out well, but before long, I noticed that the authors began to drift away from the topic of engagement, and to conflate engagement with other workplace and employee conditions. I’d like to take this opportunity to apply a little corrective.
Engagement vs. Satisfaction
In my book, Getting Engaged: The New Workplace Loyalty, I define engagement as the state of feeling attracted, committed to, and fascinated with, the work of one’s organization. To be attracted is to feel drawn to the work, to feel that it speaks to me. To be committed is to feel a drive to perform the work to the best of one`s ability. To be fascinated is to love the work.
Satisfaction is a feeling, too, but it’s not as intense as the feeling of engagement. I can declare myself satisfied with phrases such as these:
- It’s good enough.
- I’m OK with it.
- It’s all right.
Hear any engagement in these words?
I bring out the difference between satisfaction and engagement in reaction to the authors` emphasis on employee benefits as drivers of engagement.
Benefits can certainly be sources of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction), but they are not engagers. Consider this:
My boss never has anything positive to say to me, but the company’s dental plan makes up for it.
I feel stuck in a dead end job like an anonymous cog in a machine, but the group life plan keeps me engaged with my work.
All I have to do is think about our tuition refund policy to motivate me to bring extraordinary service to my customers.
Incongruous, no? Yes, because benefits are satisfiers, not engagers.
Engagement vs. Retention
The Gallup organization has a 12-statement checklist for measuring engagement. One of the points revolves around intent to stay; that is, whether an employee feels that he/she means to remain with the company for a certain time. While intent to stay may be an indicator of engagement, it may equally mean that the employee feels stuck, or feels that he/she would have trouble finding a job elsewhere.
Engagement vs. Workplace Generations
There’s been lots written and spoken about the phenomenon of four different generations coexisting in workplaces today. Much has been said about how they’re different, be it with respect to motivation, need for feedback and recognition, affinity for technology, preferred management and leadership approaches, etc. Almost nothing has been written about how they’re similar.
I think the emphasis on generational differences stems from the fact that it’s intuitive to assume differences among the generations, not similarities. It’s also more fun to dwell on differences. The authors of this book certainly do. For example, to engage Traditionalists (those born before 1946), the authors state that people should say “please” and “thank you” when interacting with them. This courtesy is omitted for the other three generations, whose engagement needs apparently don’t respond to “please” and “thank you”. This doesn’t compute for me.
It seems to make sense that different generations will behave, think, and feel differently at work. And they do. But when it comes to engagement, I’m a heretic. As to the above example, ordinary politeness is not engaging, it’s satisfying (remember the difference?).
In my view, there are only two ways in which different generations are engaged at work differently.
- Younger people require, and are engaged more by, more frequent recognition and performance feedback than older people.
- Younger employees are engaged by managers who take an interest in their lives outside the workplace, while older employees tend to find that to be prying or snooping.
I don’t know of any generation that isn’t engaged by the following:
- Understanding how their work links to something bigger and fits in the big picture.
- Having opportunities for learning and development.
- Flexible work arrangements.
- Equipment that works and supplies that don’t constantly run out.
- Performance ratings that truly differentiate superior contributors from others.
- Timely performance recognition for achievements.
- A skilled and supportive manager.
The similarities greatly outweigh the differences. But what’s the fun in that?
I’m being deliberately provocative here and swimming against the tide, so, if you feel differently, please send me an email telling me your opinion. (You’re also invited to contact me if you agree.) I promise to email you back.
To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Tim directly.
Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca or visit www.gettingengaged.ca.
Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.
Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may no longer be accurate.
