the “employee engagement” - center for effective ... paper “engaged in ... valtera, and watson...

But you’ll �nd it interesting to note that how we think of “employee

engagement” today is a 180 from what it was initially coined to

embody some 25 years ago. What’s more, even how it’s de�ned is up

for debate.

The original concept of employee engagement is credited to Kahn in

1990 as part of his research into identify theory. Kahn observed two

organizations – one a highly structured and formal architectural �rm,

the other a loose and casual summer camp. At the camp, Kahn

observed a scuba instructor who spoke passionately about diving

from his personal experiences. Drawing on these observations, Kahn

concluded that the freedom to “bring oneself” into the work

makes people more engaged with the work process. In short,

engagement as originally de�ned was all about bringing one’s

personal skills and interests to the job.

Alot has transpired since then. Today, engagement is less focused

on the individual bringing his/her own interests and preferred

roles to work, and more about “going above and beyond” to the

bene�t of the organization.

says the organization needs more of, and what his or her manager

sometimes says was lacking in response to questions about “why

didn’t the initiative take hold?’ Organizations base major initiatives on

it and pay millions for consultants to help measure it and assume gains

based on it.

The Evolution From “About Me”

Some time between 1990 and now, what started out

as something about people being able to bring their

own personal skills and interests to the job did a 180,

and became about going above and beyond for the

organization.

HIS

OT

RY

An Employee Engagement Timeline

The timeline above is a highly condensed version based on the work

of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. in the

IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What?” Creating Connections to

Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SERIES

The evolution of the term is a direct o�shoot of the times -- companies

have been less interested in helping employees become more ful�lled

at work and more focused on survival. Simply put, having employees

do more things that would be ful�lling to them would not sell.

1

1990The Preferred

Self

2001Do MoreWithLess

2002Satis-faction

2006

2008Link ToLearning

2015Above

&Beyond

1999

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

“Employee engagement” is what the boss

HISTORY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

What Engagement Is Not

There is extensive disagreement about what employee engagement

is. Kahn’s de�nition (1990) was “the harnessing of organizational

members’ selves to their work roles -- where people employ and

express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during

role performances. Towers Watson (2010) refers to it as the extent to

which employees share their company’s values, feel pride in working

for their company, are committed to working for their company and

have favorable perceptions of their work environment. In between,

de�nitions employ words like ”emotionally invested,” “persistence

directed toward the organization’s goals,” and more.

Given the disparities in de�nitions of what engagement is, what do

we know about what engagement is not?

The topic of burnout (Schaufeli & Baker) establishes engagement as a

positive dimension of well-being, with burnout being negative.

Burnout involves low levels of energy and is a psychological syndrome

that leads to feelings of cynicism, detachment, and exhaustion --

seen as the erosion of engagement. In short, when one feels

“energized” at work, that person is more inclined to exert e�ort.

New terms have arisen from the entry of energy into the equation:

Sustainable Engagement -- (Towers Watson, 2012) -- to describe the

intensity of employees’ connection to their organization. The basis

being three core elements: being engaged, being enabled and feeling

energized.

Burnout

Employee Work Passion -- (Zigarmi, 2009) -- a persistent, emotion-

ally positive ... resulting in consistent constructive work intentions

and behaviors.

Determinants of Employee Engagement

Even though the de�nition has been elusive, there are many �rms that

o�er employee engagement studies. And lacking an agreed upon

de�nition, the predictors of what will make an employee more

engaged follow suit. Shown on the right is a compilation of what

various consulting �rms are saying ...

As shown above, the predictors of employee engagement vary as widely

as the de�nitions.

Conclusion: Engagement is a term that has often been con�gured to

�t the needs of a particular study, and not a concrete term that has

presented obviously discernible qualities.

2

Continued

Acknowledgement: This series of papers is based on the work of Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. -- FirsTier Banks Distinguished Professor of Business and Director, Center for Entrepreneurship; and Steven Schlachter, Ph.D. Student; Research Assistant, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, in the IRF-funded paper “Engaged in What? Creating Connections to Performance with Rewards, Recognition, and Roles.”

• Absorption -- being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.

Rich, Lepine, & Crawford (2010) is a promising measure that uses a job

engagement scale to return to Kahn’s (1990) de�nition, which draws on

work from Brown & Leigh’s (1996) measure of work intensity, Russel &

Barrett’s (1999) research on core a�ect, and Rothbard’s (2001) measure of

engagement. By modifying these scales the authors were able to

construct a measure that more properly re�ected Kahn’s (1990) concep-

tualization of engagement developing from physical, cognitive, and

emotional energy

Numerous vendor created (and proprietary) measurement scales are

also used -- some of which include scales from Blessing White, Gallup,

Hewitt, Sirota, Towers Watson, Valtera, and Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

The Gallup Workplace Audit (also known as the GWA or Q12) is used

extensively and has evolved from a measure of workplace attitudes. The

�rst version of the GWA appeared in the 1990’s to judge workplace

attitudes. 2009 marked its seventh interation.

Measurement of Employee Engagement

Although researchers do not agree on what employee engagement is

or what its predictors are, there’s no lack of measurement systems in the

marketplace.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). With a

seventeen-item scale, this model is divided into categories that include

vigor, dedication and absorption.

Common Measurement Systems

• Vigor -- high levels of persistence, energy, and mental resilience while working, and the willingness to invest effort in one’s work.

• Dedication -- being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.

WIIFM?

Outcomes of Employee Engagement

All of this work is being done to e�ect improvements in organizational

e�ectiveness. Outcomes cited range are widely varying and include

improvements in customer satisfaction, reduced burnout/turnover,

improvements in safety, overall job performance improvements, and

many more.

Engagement outcomes have in the

last decades been generally focused

on the organization. If we revisit

Kahn’s original de�nition, absent are

those factors that provide the

employee the motivation and desire

to e�ect improvements. Part two of

our series on employee engagmenet

will cover how to put the ‘What’s In It

For Me?’ back into the equation.

3

ContinuedHISTORY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT


RO

LES

OF

EN

GA

GE

ME

NT

WIIFM?

Asked the supervisor: “Why weren’t you more

engaged in the ___ initiative?” Responded the

employee: “I thought I had more important priori-

ties.”

A scuba diver working at a summer camp does not

face the same hierarchy or heavy rules-based structure of an

architectural �rm. This highlights another body of research which

suggests that engagement e�orts can only do so much -- the other

part of the puzzle being enablement.

Skepticism Around Engagement

Skepticism around engagement as a movement exists for many

reasons like the one noted above. After all, employees at summer

camp have to feel that they are able to inject themselves into their

work just as much as employees at a rigidly managed architectural

�rm. In sum, employees must feel enabled.

According to Royal & Agnew (2011) enablement is divided into

two components:

• Optimizing Employee Roles

• Creating a Supportive Environment

It’s a two-way street: Engagement is important to foster, but unless

the organization provides its employees with the resources

needed to meet the maximum potential of their engagement --

and they feel enabled to do so -- the employee is not getting

anything out of demonstrating he/she is truly engaged.

Commercialization of Engagement

As can be seen by the many variations of what engagement is, what

its determinants are, how it’s measured and the sheer amounts of

dollars �rms are making from it, skepticism is increasing.

And because engagment has turned into such a big industry, the

methodology by which engagement is measured and used to move

an organization forward is being heavily scrutinized.

There are many factors that a�ect engagement. Equating a �rm’s

success with engagement scores beg the question: Which came

�rst? Did the �rm become successful as a result of higher engag-

ment scores, or were employees more engaged because the �rm

became so successful? Said Cornell University HR Professor

Christoper Collins (Flander: 2008): “Engagement studies are

inherently misleading since they don’t show which came �rst -- the

engagement or the company’s success.”

Engaged In What?

Vague measures of being “emotionally attached” or going “above

and beyond” do not paint a clear picture when responses are tied to

a “disagree or agree” 12 point scale. We must understand how it

works.

What most agree on is that when an employee is engaged, he or she

does indeed “go above and beyond.” But we need speci�c language

and de�nitions of what “going beyond” means in order to map the

link between engagement and performance.

Optimizing employee roles is central to

understanding engagement. As Kahn

(1990) pointed out originally, employee

engagement involves the employee being

able to bring his/her preferred roles to

work. By going back to this de�nition of

engagement, we are better able to answer

“What’s In It For Me?” (WIIFM).

1

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Roles Engagement

ABOVE & BEYOND

This is the main part of traditional job descriptions -- what we are hired to do. This role does not include behaviors that go “above and beyond.”

How we behave in teams -- including the actions we take and the level of support we provide to our team and team members. Not considered part of the core job, but relates to behaviors demonstrating or being associated with a team effort.

Taking time to not just make big innovations but to improve how work is done overall. Making small and big innovations, as well as supporting the new ideas and innovations of others (vs. doing the work on their own).

The engagement of citizen-like behaviors to help the company. Not considered part of their core job, the employee’s behaviors help the organization. (Example: Turning off the lights to save money.)

When employees are doing things to help advance their careers -- improving skills through training, courses, mentoring, being mentored -- generally working to keep up one’s skills. This is a clear WIIFM when it’s what the employee wants.

The fact is we have lives beyond the organiza-

tion. If our work lives extend too far into our “life hours,”

then we become less enamored with our work and

burnout. Certainly the fact that the scuba diver was

doing what he loved (and which was part of both his

work and personal life, he was more energized. Taking

Kahn’s position of preferred roles, we can begin a more

organized dissection we call ...

Five distinct roles can be used to de�ne what employees are asked

to be engaged in at work. These �ve roles, introduced by

Welbourne, Johnson and Erez (1998) introduced a role-based

performance scale in an article published by the Academy of

Management Journal. These �ve roles were chosen by examining

the types of work employers allocate resources for.

What’s most important here is that employees continually have

priorities that they make based on their allotted time, and going

above and beyond can’t happen at the expense of the core job role.

These roles and the behaviors associated with them are hierrchial. You can’t do them all at once.

if you reinforce one as the “new top” then something else has to move down in importance.

Simply put, not everything can be priority one -- or the employee will likely burnout.

The next page presents a methodology by which they can be prioritized according to the changing

needs of the organization over time.

2

Continued

The

Everything that’s not part of the core job roleThe fundamentals of meeting core job requirements.

ROLES OF ENGAGEMENT


By focusing on �ve distinct roles and marrying

appropriate rewards and administrative functions

according to mission, vision and values, organiza-

tions will have the language necessary to link engage-

ment to bottom-line business strategy.

A business can have a stellar engagement plan, but if the rewards and recognition system sends con�icting signals about the behaviors

employees should be engaged in performing, then the engagement plan is at risk.

Set up appropriately, corporate-wide rewards such as compensation attract

and retain people in speci�c jobs; however, they are not enough, because

they do not signal what non-core job role behaviors are important or what is

uniquely expected from employees. De�ning which non-core job roles are

important leads to decisions that can be used to shape a recognition

program.

Corporate Wide Base Reward Plans

Other types of rewards are used to incent, reward, communicate and

di�erentiate. These programs signal what non-core job behaviors are

important in order to realize a competitive advantage in the market.

Other Rewards & Recognition Plans

By building in the capability for change, the organization creates agility. Agile

organizations are better served when their rewards and/or recognition systems

can be administered by managers. When managers can "own" the plan, it

means they can reward what's needed today vs. what was determined

important by leadership last year.

Agile Organizations

Staying In Company - Core Job Behaviors

When we communicate what the most important behaviors are for managers

to focus on, the importance of one role is raised, with others receiving a

lesser priority. This approach respects the employee’s time constraints, and

provides focus to avoid burnout.

Employees cannot be engaged in everything. The success of any employee

engagement program will be the degree to which employees know which

behaviors are critical for them to be engaged in performing. Engaging in all will

result in burnout and frustration.

Roles

Agile Organization

RolesOther Rewards & Recognition

PlansCore Job RoleInnovator RoleCareer RoleTeam RoleOrganization Role

Big Idea

Staying In CompanyCore Job Behaviors

Corporate Wide Base Reward Plans

Build TrustRetain EmployeesReinforce Fairness

Send Message About “Engaged In What” Behaviors

Di�erentiate Based On Performance

Managers have the freedom to use a variety of rewards and recognition plans to reinforce non-core job roles “as needed.”

Behaviors are hierarchial. You can’t do them all at

once. If you reinforce one as the new “top,” then

something moves down in importance.

If employees become engaged, what’s in it for them? With all

the talk about engagement, the subject of the

link between rewards and engagement has

taken a back seat. Employees get important

clues about what’s really important when

rewards and recognition are linked to

the engagement process.

The Big Idea

Managers can use formal and informal recognition systems to align employees

to behaviors that are needed promptly at the time in question. Recognition

systems are more �exible and easier to change. When implemented by manag-

ers, their use can be the link between engagmeent and role-based behavior.

3

ContinuedROLES OF ENGAGEMENT


(2013)

43,890 employees

16 full service health centers

Locations in Ohio, Nevada, Florida, Canada and Abu Dhabi

Ranked one of the top hospitals in

America (U.S. News and World Report 2013) the Cleveland Clinic is a

growing organization, with success greatly supported by their employee

engagement work began in 2008. Central to their initiative is an innova-

tive, multi-tiered recognition program used to strategically align

employee engagement with organizational goals.

A Role-Based Engagement Strategy

Cleveland Clinic used a role-based approach to drive desired outcomes,

choosing speci�c behaviors to target, measure and reward by both

headquarters and front line managers. Embracing employee engage-

ment in 2008, Cleveland Clinic made it a part of a major change

initiative designed to transform how every employee delivered patient

care -- a hallmark being for every employee to focus on his/her role as a

caregiver.

“We are all caregivers" extends as the overall theme and identity to

embrace by every single employee in order to ensure a more "patient-

centric delivery model" which began in 2006. This coincided with a

major facilities expansion, restructuring, and the appointment of a chief

patient experience o�cer in 2007.

CA

SE

ST

UD

Y

Their Foundation: Total Rewards

Cleveland Clinic o�ers total rewards to their employees. The organi-

zation assured they had comprehensive and adequate health care,

including wellness programs, pension / investment, tuition

reimbursement, adoption help, an Employee Hardship Fund in

which employees apply for �nancial support based on emergency

needs; home purchase assistance; employee discounts for purchases

such as computers, sporting and theatre event tickets, cell phones

services and other local venues (employees saved over $2 million

dollars annually on discount purchase programs). In addition, they

adjusted jobs to assure that they were paid at current market levels.

1

It was on top of this

solid foundation that

they added their

Caregiver Celebra-

tions program, which

started in 2010.

While reading the following, make a mental note of the various connec-

tions to core values. Cleveland Clinic went well beyond engagement

to develop a strategy focusing on them.


Metric Used

Education&Training

MissionVisionValues

Recognizes individuals or teams for exceptional e�ort or initiative resulting in a signi�cant impact on patients, business, innovation, etc. A total of 4% of employees receive a monetary gift certi�cate or cash award each quarter.

“So far the biggest and most ambitious part of our engagement initiative has been something we call “The Cleveland Clinic Experience.” This is a series of half-day learning sessions attended by every one of our 43,000 caregivers.”

Role-Based LensCleveland Clinic provides an example of how a role-based approach

combined with employee engagement, can lead to achieving firm-level

success. One can analyze their overall rewards strategy as follows, using the

role-based lens:

Core Job Role. Overall market-level base salary and benefits programs signal a willingness to pay what it takes to bring in top talent; benefits are designed to keep them. The organization wants to create a high quality compensation package to incent, be fair and keep people working at their best in their core job roles.

Career Role. Their tuition reimbursement program signals that learning new skills is important -- and it’s considered to be one of the best in the market based on benchmark studies. Cleveland Clinic’s mission emphasizes the importance of “further education of those who serve.”

Team Member Role. Individuals and teams are part of Cleveland Clinic’s recognition program, supporting the importance of being a team member. Teamwork is one of Cleveland Clinic’s core values.

Innovator Role. Innovation is a core value, with individuals being recog-nized based on their ideas or innovations that have been used, with more rewards for innovations targeting improved patient experiences.

Organization-Member Role. The emphasis on "everyone being a caregiver" brings the organization-member role front and center. Employ-ees think about being part of one organization -all with the same daily goal. This is a very powerful message that is not only delivered but reinforced by actions and the rewards program.

The Gallup Q12 employee survey was used to establish a baseline set of employee engagement metrics.

The "We Are All Caregivers" initiative was complemented by leadership education. The group taught and built a model based on service leadership, which was a variant of servant leadership (based on book by Robert K. Greenleaf ).

All initiatives were designed to complement their traditional mission, vision and values ("striving to be the world's leader in patient experience, clinical outcomes, research and education.") "Compassion and integrity" were added as new values that already included quality, innovation, teamwork and service.

RecognitionPrograms

Cleveland Clinic’s values, vision, goals, mission, daily behavio-ral expectations and engagement come together in their rewards strategy. Patient satisfaction and engagement scores have increased dramatically.

Individuals receive $2,000 and teams split $2,000 amongst their members. One individual and team receive the top CEO Award valued at $10,000.

A non-monetary award administered peer to peer, by manager or physician to employee or from patient to employee to say “thanks” to a caregiver for a job well done. Reinforces behaviors that support Cleveland Clinic values and a patient-centric culture.

Managers recognize individuals and teams for outstanding performance that leverage values and patients �rst culture. Recognition gift denominations range from $10 to $100. Overall program awards can be approved or denied by the institutes, divisions and hospitals -- a level of �exibility that was important to support business goals as the organization changed.

The Cleveland Clinic demonstrates

synergy between values, vision,

goals, mission, daily behavioral

expectations and engagement -- all

coming together with their rewards

strategy. The connections are what

have led the many changes that

have dramatically improved patient

satisfaction scores, engagement

scores and the work done at

Cleveland Clinic.

2

Continued

Results

CASE STUDY

4.50

4.40

4.30

4.20

4.10

4.00

3.90

3.80

3.702008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cleveland Clinic Gallup Q12 Survey -- Grand Mean

the “employee engagement” - center for effective ... paper “engaged in ... valtera, and watson...

Documents