3 Types Of Employee Engagement And Its Result

I found an interesting article in the Gallup Business Journal “How to tackle U.S. Employees’ Stagnating Engagement“. As per usual the article places a significant amount of the blame for the slow economic recovery on the American worker.  In the article employees were placed in one of three categories:

Category 1: Engaged- employees work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward.

Category 2: Not-Engaged- employees are essentially “checked out”. They’re sleepwalking through their workday, putting time — but not energy or passion — into their work.

Category 3: Actively Disengaged- employees aren’t just unhappy at work; they’re busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.

The article offers advice on how to combat this stagnation, but overlooks many of the basic causes for “employee stagnation”.  As a result of the economic downturn of 2008 many companies cut back on employment, reduced or negated raises, and other forms of compensation, except for the executive level.

Wheels-turning

The following is an excerpt written by Bill Knight, “Since 1982 the CEO/worker pay gap has jumped from 42 times more than the average rank-and-file worker to 2012’s record of 354 times greater. In real dollars, a CEO of a Standard and Poor’s 500 Index company averaged $12.3 million a year in total compensation, while the average rank-and-file worker earned $36,654.”

In many cases the CEO is not the founder of a particular corporation and offers very little in the way of innovation or actual work. CEOs and executives unlike rank-in-file workers are actually compensated for doing a bad job. For evidence of this, look no further than tax payer bailouts of financial corporations, where millions of dollars in bonuses were paid to executives of organizations that were failing. Yet the American worker is to be blamed for not being engaged?

How many times of middle and upper managers been directly responsible for creating environments that are counterproductive and even hostile to employees? Yet while good employees leave for better opportunities and or less hostile working environments the very individuals or policies that cause this exodus remain in place and the executives charged with overseeing the operation point to the fact that the employees’ are disengaged. It is kind of like straggling the chicken to increase egg production.

While there are a considerable amount of individuals that would disagree with my point of view for any and all of the following reasons: Employees are free to break away from a company and start their own business. Employers are not responsible for creating an environment where the employee is having fun, that’s why it is called work. Employees’ have an obligation to actually earn what they are being paid for, not expect increases based on mediocre performance. Employees’ are responsible for proving their worth to their employer.  Unions are to blame, and have priced the American employee out of the market and made them lazy.

I would counter with the fact that almost all business’ require employees, and all business’ require management.  The amount of management can be disputed. Most American corporations are top-heavy and bloated, severely overcompensated, with leadership that is more worried about themselves than the companies that they control. The problems with the American workplace are not unlike the problems our Federal government.

What are your thoughts?

Bill Tucker – Design Professional

Gould Design, Inc.