Just Say No To Employee Engagement - Businessweek Debate Room

I urge you to take a minute and jump over to the BusinessWeek online section called "The Debate Room." 

Myself and Greg Lederman from Brand Integrity take to the podium for a verbal smackdown.

For those not familiar, the Debate Room presents two sides of an issue and asks readers to weigh in and comment.  Obviously, the topics are polarizing and the comments are probably the best part.  As of around 5:30 pm EDT May 28th the debate was around employee engagement - the topic was:

Employee Engagement: Enough!
The recession is no time to worry about employee engagement. Pro or con?

Believe it or not - I took the "Pro" side of that discussion - meaning I believe you really need to worry about something other than engagement right now.

I can hear supporters of employee engagement cracking their knuckles in preparation for typing their comments.  I hope they do.  I also hope some of them jump over here and take a few minutes to read this post to understand my point of view.

First - I'm not anti-engagement.  I'm pro quality business management.  Second - Employee engagement is a good thing - I like it - I really do.

But...

Engagement is second on the "must do today" list.  First - you have to run your business.  And you need to run it well. 

The point is that until a company sets its mind to addressing issues in the management ranks no "program" or initiative targeting engagement is going to work.  It will be lipstick on a pig.  Focus on the root cause of employee disengagement - and I believe that is poor management - or clueless management as the case may be.

You may be clueless if you're worried about employee engagement but...

• You still paid bonuses (and defended them) to managers in divisions that lost money
• You still have executive parking right where the employees walk in everyday - and they never see executive cars in the morning or the evening (just 11am - 3pm)
• You tell employees "don't rock the boat" just keep your head down and do what you're told
• You micro-manage everything because you don't want ANY bad news leaking out of your department

Well, you get the idea.

Enjoy the debate over on Business Week - just know we love employees and we love engaged employees even more.  We're not too keen on clueless management and engagement programs with no foundation within executive ranks.

PS... media week for me - also in a USAToday post on the new Ritz Carlton on BofA campus.  Commenter called me a chucklehead.  I think I might like that.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Engaged employees are good, but don't count on commitment (scienceblog.com)
• I Love New York - But Not the VH1 Kind - Engagement Gets Social (incentive-intelligence.typepad.com)
• How Much Recognition Do Employees Need? (drivenleaders.com)

Comments

[Frank Roche]

Really, really good stuff, Paul. I think you made a great argument -- get management right and engagement is an outcome. You've got some really good comments over at Business Week, too. Nice work.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Frank. It's pretty easy when it's the truth!

[Debbie Norris]

I don't think you're really saying that engagement is secondary. I think you're real argument is that effective management can set a good baseline for engagement and that, perhaps, some engagement strategies are a little on the lightweight side. Fortunately, I think most companies--even during this recession--can find ways to "go" engagement well while running the business. The two aren't really mutually exclusive.

[Paul Hebert]

Ya caught me Debbie. You are right. I'm not against putting in place process, programs, etc. that help get employees engaged. What I was really trying to point out is that many companies treat symptoms instead of the disease. In most situations, employee engagement can be impacted by getting managers trained better and working with that segment of their population rather than just throw up a "program du jour" and wonder why the employees are not engaged. They are not mutually exclusive. But I do think in tough times - focusing on the cause first is more important than focusing on the symptom.

[Richard Parkes Cordock]

Paul - I'll take a look at the Business Week debate, but to add my two-pence worth here...

I agree with Debbie's comments (and your follow up comments) that a successful company and engaged employees go hand in hand.

If you have demotivated, negative employees and poor leadership, it's more likely that your performance will suffer.

But get leaders and employees who are driven, focused on their prospects, customers and market place, and you have a real chance of winning.

The net output of good management is an engaged workforce.

www.enterpriseleaders.com

[Paul Hebert]

I think we can all agree that engagement = good.

What I was trying to communicate (and I was a bit ham-strung by having to take a position) was that the first thing to do is teach managers how to engage with their staffs and have them master those basics.

I think we can say without an argument that the better your managers the better your employees and the better those two groups are the better the company.

I just hate to see companies abandon things like training because the last engagement survey said they needed a latte machine in the break room.

Thanks for your comments.