The Power of Employee
Engagement
‘What We Do Makes a Difference!’
TEM Conference August 2006
Robyn Clark
Professional & Organisational Development Consultant
The Centre for Professional Development
Macquarie University
“These cannot be the two miners,
they are on their feet they are
hugging their wives. This is the
most incredible thing I have ever
seen, these blokes are on their feet,
in their mine gear, they’ve tagged
off – Frances can you absolutely
believe what you're seeing?” Tim Cox,
ABC Tasmania Mornings presenter.
“It’s what I would have expected of
these two boys.” Beaconsfield Uniting
Church minister, Rev. Frances Seen
Engagement?
• (SMH 9/5/2006 pg 5) from a worker involved in
the Beaconsfield mine rescue:
• "I've never seen a bunch of guys work harder or
better...There's guys you might not have thought
much of as workers, blokes who when they got
down the hole only wanted to get out again. Not
any more. They come and they want to do more
and more...They're just committed. Same with
bosses upstairs. Its brought out the best in
everyone."
Presentation outline
• Compare & contrast definitions of employee
engagement
• Employee engagement in Higher Education
• Higher Education employee surveys - data
• Discuss the implications for Leaders in Higher
Education – using a reframing model
What is Employee Engagement?
 ‘the extent to which employees commit to
something or someone in their organisation,
how hard they work, and how long they stay as
a result of that commitment’
(The Corporate Leadership Council - 2005)
 ‘employee passion, representing the popular
construct of employee engagement and three
subcomponents of organisation commitment,
job satisfaction and intention to stay’
(Dr P Langford, MQ 2006)
Characteristics of Employee
Engagement
– ‘feeling valued for actions
– commitment to something or someone in the
organisation, and how long they stay as a result of
that commitment
– loyal employees (versus satisfied employees) stay
because they want to
– emotionally and intellectually committed to the
organisation as measured by three primary
behaviours: Say, Stay, Strive
– discretionary effort in the form of brainpower,
extra time and energy.’
Source: DDI Talent Management Conference 2006
What is discretionary effort?
Predicted/expected
performance
Performance gap/
additional effort
required
Current performance
What is discretionary effort?
• difference between how well people actually
perform and how well they are capable of
performing.
• wholly within the control of the employee
• Collaboration required between employees &
the organisation to capture additional level of
effort and performance
Employee engagement =
Discretionary effort?
• According to May, Gibson & Harter (2004),
‘for the human spirit to thrive at work,
individuals must be able to completely
immerse themselves in their work. That is
they must be able to engage the cognitive,
emotional & physical dimensions of
themselves in their work.’
Engage Employees and Boost
Performance
• Engaged workers exert more “discretionary
effort.”
• Go beyond meeting the minimum standards for
their job.
• Discretionary effort separates great performers
from average performers.
(The Hay Group, December 2001.)
Managers can increase the
engagement of their employees by:
– offering tangible rewards,
– ensuring quality of work,
– promoting work/life balance (or flexibility),
– acknowledging values,
– creating an enabling environment and,
– providing growth opportunities
(The Hay Group, December 2001.)
Does salary level impact
engagement?
• Lower paid workers –
• motivated by the quality of treatment they receive from
their immediate manager
• Want fair performance evaluations and compensation.
• Higher paid employees –
• want prestige
• are motivated by recognition for their contributions, the
image of their organisation, career advancement,
departmental collaboration and training in new skills.
(Management Issues, 2005)
Disengagement?
• May, et al (2004) describe this as ‘lack
of meaning in one’s work that can lead
to alienation or ‘disengagement’ from
one’s work.’
• results in a largely unproductive
workforce & will impact competitive
advantage.
Cost of disengagement
Gallup survey 2006 of 1,500 Australian workers:
• 20% actively disengaged at work
• costs the economy an estimated $31.5 billion
per year.
• Causes identified
– not receiving praise or recognition for doing good
work
– Lack of open & honest communication
Higher Education context
• Sectoral issues:
• Corporatising universities
• Commercialisation
• Productivity & efficiency
• Changes to work practices
• Changes to work climate
• Competitive market – private providers, etc
Szekeres,J. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 2006
Definition of Employee Engagement
in Higher Education?
• Is it necessary to be different?
• Individual goals aligned to organisational
goals
• Values respected yet sometimes challenged
Academic freedom?
Impact on Engagement
• ‘Academic freedom is the discovery and
dissemination of knowledge – what
university researchers and teachers are
employed to do’
• ‘duty to engage in the process of uncovering
and transmitting knowledge’
= clear purpose of role
Draft Senate Statement on Academic Freedom, Macquarie University July 2006
Data source
• Voice Project
• Data from over 10,000 employees across more
than 700 organisations.
• Employee surveys
Employee Engagement in Higher
Education
• Using the data from Voice Project:
• 7 Higher Education institutions
• 8419 staff (2500 academic & 4500 general –
some did not nominate)
• Surveys over last 3 years
• Database of organisations - sample
representative of the Australian economy
Response  Employee Surveys
“Your Voice!” Staff Survey
Griffith
Voice
University of Adelaide
your voice
your voice
Charles Sturt University Employee Survey
Voice Project Outcome measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passion
Purpose
Participation
Progress
Property
People
Peace
7 P’s
Voice Project measure: Passion
• Job Satisfaction
– My work gives me a
feeling of personal
accomplishment
– I like the kind of
work I do
– Overall I am satisfied
with my job
– 76% of all university
staff surveyed are
favourable/satisfied
about their job
• (better than 71% of all
organisations surveyed
n=1003)
– No significant
difference between
Academic (78%) and
General Staff (76%)
• Organisational
commitment:
– I feel a sense of loyalty
and commitment to this
org/uni
– I am proud to tell
people that I work for
this uni
– I feel emotionally
attached to this uni
– I am willing to put in
extra effort for this uni
– 71% of all
university staff
surveyed are
favourable about
their organisation –
not their discipline
– (better than 59% of
all organisations
surveyed n=1003)
• Intention to stay:
– I am likely to still
be working here in
2 years time
– I would like to be
still working here in
5 years
– I can see a future
for me at this uni.
– 63% of all university
staff surveyed are
favourable about
staying with their
organisation
– (better than 77% or ¾ of
all organisations surveyed
n=1003)
– Staff want to stay but
indicated a need to
improve participation –
only 49% favourable
Universities –
All Staff
Excellent
>=80%
Good 50-80%
Poor
<50%
Legend
SD
D
M
>=75%
A
SA
25-75%
<25%
Aus Econ
%N/A
%ile Rank
High Correlation (r > .50)
Medium Correlation (.40 < r < .50)
Correlation
With
Low Correlation
(r < .40)
Mean
% Fav
Engagement
Employee Engagement
- Job Satisfaction
- Organisation Commitment
- Intention to Stay
6%
2%
9%
6%
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
71%
77%
72%
65%
Purpose
- Organisation Direction
- Results Focus
- Diversity
28%
29%
26%
29%
3.7
3.4
3.8
3.8
65%
55%
68%
71%
Participation
- Performance Appraisal
- Learning & Development
- Participation & Involvement
- Rewards & Recognition
- Supervision
- Leadership
- Communication & Cooperation
- Recruitment & Selection
17%
23%
16%
29%
3%
14%
12%
21%
18%
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.1
2.7
3.2
49%
53%
52%
48%
53%
73%
41%
25%
46%
Progress
- Change & Innovation
- Organisation Performance
- Customer Satisfaction
37%
45%
18%
47%
3.5
3.1
3.7
3.6
54%
40%
64%
59%
Property
- Facilities
- Resources
- Safety
- Processes
20%
39%
2%
24%
16%
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.7
3.1
54%
45%
61%
67%
42%
People
- Teamwork
- Talent
- Motivation
19%
2%
27%
28%
4.1
4.3
4.1
3.9
77%
85%
76%
70%
60%
66%
Peace
- Wellness
- Work/Life Balance
19%
18%
19%
3.5
3.3
3.7
60%
52%
67%
17%
16%
25%
Additional Scales
- Workload
- Research
- Teaching
- Community Engagement
49%
15%
56%
64%
61%
3.3
2.7
3.6
3.6
3.4
52%
34%
59%
64%
53%
73%
69%
61%
77%
34%
25%
39%
37%
41%
48%
19%
18%
26%
30%
25%
35%
41%
19%
Strategies to improve
• Improve Participation:
– Performance appraisal
– Learning & development
– Participation & involvement
– Rewards & recognition
– Supervision
– Leadership
– Communication & cooperation
– Recruitment & selection
Macquarie University actions
• MQ@50
• Your Say
• Response rate 74%
What is Macquarie University doing?
• Improve ‘Participation’ outcomes:
– Performance Development System &
individual KPI’s
– Participation & involvement
– Reward & recognition system
What else is MQ doing?
– Supervision & leadership development
programs
– Increased institutional communication &
cooperation
– Recruitment & selection procedure changes
– New staff advertised
Organisational framing
• Bolman & Deal (1997) developed a tool to
view issues or challenges in an organisation
• Look across all four frames for
ways to improve & maintain
employee engagement
• Variety of frames
Frames through which we can
understand organisations
STRUCTURAL
(reporting lines, accountabilities)
HUMAN RESOURCE
(needs, skills, issues)
CULTURAL
POLITICAL
(values, beliefs, norms)
(power bases, decision making
protocols)
STRUCTURAL
HUMAN
• Pay & benefits
• Professional development
• Communication processes
• Individual motivators – reward &
recognition schemes
• Roles aligned to talent
• Clarity of reporting lines
• Renew organisational systems
CULTURAL
• Attitudes and behaviours
• Values – respect differences
• Symbols – Town Hall
meetings, VC website
• Rituals – committees
• Defined outcomes - KPIs
• Autonomy & Innovation
POLITICAL
• Sources of power – expert,
positional, personal networks
• Decision-making forums - EBA
• Informal lines of influence networks
Conclusion
• Higher Education has some clear challenges
• Organisations value employee commitment
• Effective and ongoing organisational
communication
• Recognition of the ‘whole person’
Presentation outline
• Compare & contrast definitions of employee
engagement
• Employee engagement in Higher Education
• Higher Education employee surveys data
• Discuss the implications for Leaders in Higher
Education – using a reframing model