CIPR Certificate in Internal Communication
How effective are surveys in
measuring
employee engagement?
December 2008
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
What is employee engagement?
The Institute for Employment Studies (IES) (Robinson et al, 2004, p.9) defines
engagement as ‘a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation
and its values, and that engagement is a ‘two-way relationship between employer
and employee,’ which the ‘organisation must work to develop and nurture.’
Smythe (2007, p.30) also places employees at the centre of the process, as agents
not objects of change and sees employee engagement as a ‘practical capability,’
which can be developed by leaders to add value to the organisation by ‘engaging
with the right people in decision forming.’
However, despite the increased popularity of engagement with HR and internal
communications professionals, there is still not a generally accepted definition
available. This is due to an absence of a coherent body of empirical research, and the
IES (Robinson et al, 2004, p.1) discovered, that ‘for such a well-used and popular
term, engagement has surprisingly little associated research.’
Employee engagement is therefore, a fairly recent development of older theories of
motivation and communication, which originate from social psychology (Smythe,
2007, p. 179). Frank et al. (2004) noted that classic theories of employee
motivation, such as McGregor (1960, Appendix A), Hertzberg (1966, Figure 1.2) and
Alderfer (1969, Appendix C) are seen as providing the roots for employee
engagement, with the most notable dating back to 1943 with Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is normally represented as a pyramid with the more
primitive needs at the bottom (Simons et al, 1987). Figure 1 shows that
psychological and safety needs (salary, job security) are an important, pre-requisite
base in order for engagement to flourish. This increased engagement occurs through
personal growth and rising up the hierarchy, to the highest point of self-actualisation,
achieving career goals. Therefore, taking the time to understand the motivations of
individuals should pay dividends for the internal communicator (Smith, 2005, p. 43),
in trying to determine the drivers or influencers of employee engagement. The
drivers of engagement will be assessed in more detail later in the assignment.
2
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Source: Maslow 1943
Hertzberg developed Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in his Two Factors theory (Figure
1.2) and argued that ‘positive satisfaction’ is only gained when motivators, such as
recognition and personal growth are met and not when hygiene factors such as
salary and bonuses are achieved. Hertzberg therefore, supports Maslow’s theory that
employees become more engaged through personal growth and recognition than
salary.
Figure 1.2: Hertzberg’s ‘Two Factors’
Source: Herzberg 1966
3
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
The lack of research and understanding of employee engagement is evident in the
Melcrum report (2005). The report suggests that inconsistent messaging on
employee engagement will prevent ownership from taking place, and there will be
conflict in the design team due to the different interpretations. Therefore, this lack of
clarity about what employee engagement actually is, threatens the development of
engagement itself.
The Drivers of Employee Engagement
Engagement is all about inspiring employees to ‘give it their all.’ Some of the most
successful organisations are actually known for their unique work environments in
which employees are motivated to do their very best (Bernthal, 2007, P1). Towers
Perrin (2004) found that training and development produced engaged employees,
who had a 3.74 percent higher operating margin and 2.06% higher net profit margin
than average. The Hay Group (2001) also discovered that engaged employees are up
to 43% more productive than disengaged ones.
The research shows that engaged employees perform better. Therefore, it is clearly
in the organisation’s interests to understand the drivers of engagement (Robinson et
al, 2004). Drivers of employee engagement are aspects of the organisation, that if
improved will have the greatest impact on employee engagement (Kenexa, 2007).
However, as with the definition of engagement being defined differently, the research
undertaken over the past few years has also come up with different key drivers and
implications (Soldati, 2007).
The IES (Robinson et al, 2004, p.23) identified the strongest driver of employee
engagement as feeling valued and involved in the organisation. This then led to the
development of the IES diagnostic tool (Figure 2), which can be used to derive
organisation-specific drivers from attitude survey data. The engagement tool shows
that it is more important that employees receive training and performance appraisal,
in order to feel more valued, involved and hence, engaged. In comparison, pay and
benefits are of lower importance to the employee, supporting Hertzberg and
Maslow’s theories regarding the drivers of employee engagement.
4
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Figure 2: Drivers of engagement: a diagnostic tool
Source: Robinson et al. 2004 (IES report, p.23)
Cantrell and Benton (2005) further support the IES, Hertzberg and Maslow’s theories
that reward and recognition as well as performance appraisal, drive the level of
engagement within organisations.
The Corporate Leadership Council’s (CLC) model of engagement, as shown in figure
2.1 illustrates that engagement leads to discretionary effort, going ‘above and
beyond’ the call of duty, in terms of performance and commitment to and for the
organisation. This engaged environment fosters a high retention rate, due to a
strong desire of employees to remain at the company. The study also found that the
greatest impact on discretionary effort comes from emotional commitment, which is
how an employee values and enjoys their job and organisation.
5
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Figure 2.1: CLC Engagement model
Source: Corporate Leadership Council 2004, p.55
Business researchers at Gallup identified 12 questions measuring the effect of
employee engagement, including such issues as retention, productivity, profitability,
customer engagement and safety. These questions, known as the Q12 (appendix C),
measure those dimensions that leaders, managers, and employees can influence in
order to improve employee engagement (Buckingham and Coffman, 1999).
6
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
2.3 Employee engagement surveys
Most large organisations, having first of all established the key drivers, then attempt
to measure employee engagement. This measurement is generally carried out via a
large scale employee survey, the effectiveness of which, will be assessed in this
section of the assignment.
The Melcrum report (2005) found that there has been a rise in organisations
purchasing engagement surveys since the start of the 21st Century. The report also
found that most organisations saw the engagement survey as the engagement
process, rather than a means to measure engagement and then create action plans
to improve engagement within the workforce.
Typically, the employee surveys, which the Melcrum report refers to, tended to be
annual surveys to the entire workforce with over 100 questions. Welbourne (2003)
agreed with Melcrum and argued that mangers measured rather than engaged with
their workforce. ‘It’s fairly easy to run a point in time employee engagement survey
and then show the scores to managers. When you do this employee engagement is
an event…It’s much more difficult to make engagement a way of life in your
organisation.’
Smythe (2007) is ambivalent about measuring engagement, especially with large
scale surveys, which he believes are little more than re-branded employee
satisfaction surveys. ‘Grand surveys painting systematic patterns of satisfaction give
managers little help’ (Smythe, 2007, p.31). Smyth is also critical about the drivers of
employee engagement and believes it is a ‘sinister assumption for management to
understand what drives the “rat in the cage.” He is ‘of the view that attempts to
coerce people to think, feel and behave in ways pre-ordained by an elite, aside from
being distasteful, are unlikely to bring the best out of people’ (Smythe, 2007, p.78).
These criticisms of engagement surveys suggest that they are not an effective
method of measuring engagement, because it is difficult to establish what the drivers
are, which in turn makes it impossible to effectively measure engagement. Smythe is
however, in favour of highly focused surveys, which identify drivers of business
performance and then draws some conclusions to engagement practices, which
contribute to high or low business performance.
7
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Organisations have recently taken on board the criticisms of large-scale
engagements surveys and today’s surveys are often shorter and more frequently
administered than traditional instruments (Vance, 2006, p 19). Bernthal (2007, P1),
states, that ‘instead of conducting broad culture or climate surveys with 100 or more
questions, many organisations are opting for a focused approach that measures
fundamental qualities of the workplace. Survey questions or statements now openly
link employee attitudes to business objectives; for instance, ‘I can see a clear link
between my role and BT’s objectives’ (Vance, 2006, p 19).
The research therefore, shows that organisations that give some thought and focus
to their engagement survey’s, are much more effective in measuring employee
engagement.
8
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
References
Books and Articles

Alderfer, C (1969) An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4, pp. 142–175.

Bernthal, p (2007) Measuring Employee Engagement, Development Dimensions
International.

Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C (1999) First Break All the Rules: What the
World’s greatest Managers Do Differently, Simon and Schuster.

BSI Consulting. (2008) Employee Engagement – A Concept Clean Up,
www.bsiconsulting.com.au, accessed 26 December 2008.

Corporate Leadership Council (2004) The effort dividend. Driving employee
Performance and retention through engagement. A Quantitative Analysis of the
Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, CLC, Washington, DC.

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P., and Taylor, C.R (2004) The Race for Talent:
Retaining and Engaging Workers in the 21st Century, Human Resource Planning
27 (3).

Hay Group (2001) Engage Employees and Boost Performance.

Herzberg, F (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland: World Publishing.

Kenexa (2007) www.kenexa.com, accessed 27 December 2008.

Maslow, A (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 50, pp.
370-396.

McGregor, D (1957) The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill.

Melcrum (2005) Employee Engagement; How to Build a High-Performance
Workforce, Melcrum Publishing.

Reinard, J (1998) Introduction to Communication Research, 2nd ed. New York,
McGraw-Hill.

Robinson D., Perryman S., and Hayday, S (2004) The Drivers of Employee
Engagement, Brighton, Sussex: IES Research report.

Simons J., Irwin D, and Drinnien B (1987) The Search for Understanding, New
York West Publishing Company.

Smith, L., and Mounter, P (2005) Effective Internal Communication, London,
Kogan Page.

Smythe, J (2007) The CIO: The Chief Engagement Officer, London, Gower.
9
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication

Soldati, P (2007) Employee engagement: What exactly is it? Management Issue,
www.management-issues.com, accessed 21 December 2008.

Towers Perrin (2004) Reconnecting with employees – Attracting, Retaining and
Engaging Your Workforce, Towers Perrin study.

Vance, R (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment: A guide to
understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization ,
SHRM Foundation.

Welbourne, T (2003) Employee engagement: Doing it vs Measuring.
www.HR.com, accessed 27 December 2008.
Websites

Wikipedia (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_methods

BT (2008) www.bt.com
10
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Appendix A
McGregor: X and Y Theory (1960)
‘Theory X’
Management
Theory X - authoritarian,
repressive style. Tight control, no
development. Produces limited,
depressed culture.
staff
Staff
‘Theory Y’
Staff
Theory Y - liberating and
developmental. Control,
achievement and continuous
improvement achieved by enabling,
empowering and giving
responsibility.
staf
f
Management
11
CIPR Certificate in Internal Comminication
Appendix B
Alderfer: ERG Theory (1969)
12