The Smart Workspace Design Summit is an experience-based event bringing together those who strive for better workspaces. SWDS is where people, place and technology come together to start building the human-centric office of the future, today…
Speaker's blog: What is employee engagement good for?
Andrew Marritt is the founder of OrganizationView, a Swiss-based people analytics practice. He will speak more about the use of text analytics in HR at the HR Analytics online conference.
Greta Roberts, who I have a lot of time for, published an article yesterday called Employee Engagement? It’s Just a Meaningless, “Feel Good” Business Metric. Looking at our data and analysis, we disagree.
Greta describes Engagement as a middle measure. We would probably use the term ‘leading indicator’. I would argue both are emotional terms, but both are potentially accurate.
Article mentions 6 reasons, each of which I think are worth addressing:
1. Employee engagement isn’t the goal. Business performance is the goal.
I suspect a good parallel is that customer satisfaction isn’t a goal - sales is. Greta mentions that most businesses don’t and can’t link performance to engagement results. My view is that (a) I suspect more businesses could do this if they wanted - just ask their survey provider and (b) this argument is more a criticism of how engagement is measured and analysed than it is of the usefulness of measuring engagement.
OK, there isn’t much to disagree about this. Much of the published research has (a) been mostly correlations, written as to provide an impression of causation (b) written by consultants with a tool to sell. We've done a big literature review on this as part of a presentation to an industry group.
OK, so one could level this claim at us; however, we’d be more than willing to quantify the results with clients. I think it’s necessary to justify the ongoing use.
Are these studies useless? For the analyst they’re not. I would argue one of the ways of using them is as hypotheses to test. Testing others' findings in your own context is a valuable activity for analysts. In some ways, it’s one of the advantages of using a firm with deep domain expertise, like Greta’s firm or our own - we often know where to concentrate analysis resources.
I propose that you should be starting an engagement project with the objective to link engagement to performance. Design the intervention on that basis. Run an experiment, but certainly capture the data in a way to enable you to do the analysis.
3. Rigorous analytics often show little or no correlation between high engagement and an increase in business performance or a decrease in turnover.
This conflicts with what we’re seeing from our data and analysis.
Now, let me be clear, there is muddied water between the relationship between engagement and business performance. The key issue is that whilst we see engagement linked to performance, we also see employee populations of higher-performing companies more engaged.
There are a few ways of doing this analysis to disentangle the results. First, you need to capture engagement on an individual basis. In truth, most survey firms do this. Most surveys are confidential, rather than anonymous. Whilst we don’t report or analyse groups below a certain number, we do have the ability to do analysis using linked data. It’s pretty easy to tune ML algorithms to do this and also reduces the chance of overfitting.
A simple test to see if your survey is really anonymous: if your survey doesn't ask employees where they work, they’re almost certainly linking the perception data to demographic data later because you'll need to link to function, etc. for reporting purposes. There is no reason you couldn’t link individual performance data from a CRM system, for example, this way.
Second, as engagement data is captured more regularly, it’s becoming more valuable to analyse as a time series. The additional frequency is helpful in identifying the order of events – i.e., which comes first, the engagement or the performance? We could use such patterns to infer causality. In fact, when a presenter from IBM was questioned on how they had identified causality to engagement during a presentation I chaired at People Analytics 2015, it was via time series data.
One of the reports we provide for clients with Workometry is the rates of which employees are shifting between engaged and disengaged states. We do this by looking at patterns of engagement on an individual level over time.
An earlier one of my posts used systems dynamics to explain why this is so important. I argued that it wasn't the amount of engagement that is important, but the rate that the business was disengaging people. Either way, you need to be measuring engagement to get this.
You can find the complete blog post with all six reasons here.
Interested in this topic?
HR Oman Summit
Themed as "Connecting People to Change", the HR Oman Summit has emerged as a platform for HR Leaders & Experts in the region to Discuss, Develop, Drive the National Priority of Human Resource Development through Leadership Development & Excellence building.
Certified Financial Modeling Professional
Build more powerful and more accurate forecasting models to better analyze financial data, predict revenues and costs, assess risks—and justify critical business decisions.
Will Artificial Intelligence take over HR?
We can still remember movies like A.I. Artificial Intelligence, The Terminator or I Robot that enjoyed great popularity at the beginning of the 21st century. Both artificial intelligence and robotics were common features. Today, barely 15 years later, artificial intelligence has become a part of real life and come to the center of attention for technologists, scientists and researchers.
Pave your way to successful cultural change with Google
In the business world, these are the three words that are invoked the most these days: Corporate Culture and Transformation. Adapting to the ever-changing business environment starts from within – with a change of culture.
How do Digital Winners benefit from Digital Transformation?
High-performing companies are 1.5-times more likely to use technology and digital transformation to knock out their competition. See how technological innovations can influence also your performance!