What's your employee engagement model's weak spot?

Communication can be a challenge, especially in a fully remote workplace. We talk about cascading communications being an integral part of our model, and we are working on getting better! It can be hard sometimes to rely on cascading, especially when teams and leaders are busy. A good rule of thumb is anytime you are in a room where a change or update that will impact more than just the people in the room, there is probably a communication cascade that needs to happen.

Actually, there is a one-size-fits-all model, in the sense that there is a psychological flow to engage that all people follow Any model should be built upon these three universal components, and then ADAPTED in a suitable way. The three universal components are: 1. CLEAR COMMUNICATION Engagement begins with this, and everyone needs this. 2. ENJOYBALE ACTION Then we actually engage "IN" the activity, people want enjoyable. 3. USEFUL TRANSFORMATION What happens as result of what they engage "IN" – the transformation – is useful. In other words, it was worthwhile. These three can be further broken down and adapted, but they serve as your three meta categories for planning.

While it is important to utilize established engagement models that are backed by scientific evidence and industry benchmarks, it's equally critical to tailor e.g. engagement surveys to your organization's unique needs. Not every model fits all scenarios—what works in one culture or industry might not in another. This is why validated benchmarks are crucial! Take the time to analyze your company's culture, strategy, and objectives. Engage with your employees to get their input and develop customized questions that address specific areas not covered by general engagement models. This approach ensures your employee engagement strategies are both effective and relevant to your organization.

This is arguably the easiest and most dangerous trap for leaders to fall into. Not only does it appear disingenuous and performative, but it gives the impression that you don't care to lean in and actually learn about your employees' needs because it's easier and faster to assume what they are and move on. Taking the time to have 1:1 conversations and creating a culture where employees feel comfortable sharing about their needs will prevent you from falling into this trap and will set you up to have a successful engagement model that will serve you and your team for years.

Employee engagement models are by default a one-size-fits-all approach. I advocate for prioritizing exceptional managerial skills in leadership roles. This is often a missed opportunity for improving engagement. By fostering open and honest feedback through the employee-manager relationship, trust and collaboration flourish. Recognizing contributions, offering learning opportunities, and preparing individuals for advancement tailor engagement efforts to specific team needs, rather than relying on generic one-size-fits-all solutions.

The problem? They work! A well constructed survey should with action taken on feedback, at right intervals, wont result in survey fatigue. If people are complaining or not completing, chances are it's your survey rather than the volume you've put out. Furthermore, I'm an advocate for non anonymous surveys when possible. Once you've built that trust with employees, being able to work with them to improve their experience and engagement makes improvements so much easier.

Surveys are valuable tools for gauging employee engagement, yet they shouldn't be the sole method of measurement. A hefty survey with too many questions or conducted too frequently can lead to survey fatigue, diminishing interest and participation. It's advisable to limit large-scale surveys to no more than twice a year and keep them concise. Just as important as surveys is the everyday dialogue between leaders and employees. Consistent, open communication helps to gather nuanced insights and fosters a culture of trust. This ongoing conversation complements the structured data from surveys, creating a more holistic view of engagement across the organization.

While surveys offer insights, they reflect past data and may lead to disengagement over time. Real-time data is attainable through strong employee-manager relationships, fostering trust and collaboration. By prioritizing these partnerships, managers can address issues promptly, ensuring mutual success for the company and employees.

More often than not, engagement models flop because there's this big gap between understanding what needs to be done and actually doing it. After the survey is done, it's not just a matter of a quick fix for a few days. Management needs to think long-term and come up with strategies that keep engagement at the top. But some managers don't even bother looking at the survey results, let alone acting on them. And that's where the trouble starts. When managers themselves aren't engaged, it affects the whole team. So, a starting point for fixing things is straight up about what the survey says. Be honest about it, discuss it thoroughly, and work from there.

As others have said, this is THE issue If surveys have not created action before, then people are less likely to respond to them. It's fairly understandable. One way to address this is to ask only a few questions, and explain that you want to address and take action on one small area. This way, you're showing you're being more action focussed

Employee engagement studies that don't result in any communication, action or change will ultimately undermine the very thing they hope to measure. Have a plan for how you will share the results with the organization - both the "wins" and the opportunities to improve. If there are areas where the insights suggest improvements, engage employees to be part of the process. If the results aren't clearly actionable, or suggest more than one possible set of next steps, add some targeted qualitative follow up sessions to the project, to further explore the issues and help direct efforts.

How about we think about flipping the message here... So often employees feel that it is the organisations responsibility to engage them and 'do things for them', is this the case? Who drives engagement? The person that drives engagement is the individual not the organisation. If we reverse this and help individuals to understand they own their engagement, gives managers the training to support their employees with the organisation providing the tools and flexibility to help people become more engaged does this eradicate the action gap? It puts the responsibility back on the individual to own, develop and drive their engagement.

This is indeed a BIG problem. We find organisations that struggle with employee engagement generally fit into one of these three categories: 1. Measure lots but don’t take (enough) action. These organisations set targets or KPIs but put too much emphasis on measuring at the expense of taking any (or enough) action afterwards. 2. Don’t measure enough or take action. Such organisations don't do enough of anything and the result is nothing changes (or issues left unchecked get worse). 3. Take action without proper measurement; this group are eager to affect change, and often do so too fast and without either proper consideration or the evidence, meaning they go at the wrong things.

Use results and evaluate constantly. This stage of engagement is often overlooked, teams often focusing on "what great ideas can we implement", which is absolutely fine, but pointless if you don't take stock and learn from the results.

A sustainability challenge in employee engagement models suggests a need for reevaluation. Relying solely on surveys overlooks the benefits of real-time issue resolution facilitated by strong employee-manager relationships. Managers who prioritize trust and collaboration can address concerns promptly, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. By focusing on this partnership, both company and employees can adapt and succeed together.

There is only ONE way to ensure sustainable engagement: Coaching on the job. Managers coaching their managers as they engage their teams. Managers account for 70% of engagement variance, but most managers are not engaged in a way that helps them engage their team.

One of the biggest challenges to sustainability is trying to do too much at once. If you have more than 2 weak areas in your engagement survey results, you need to focus and prioritize where you’ll make improvements. Spreading the team thin on improving multiple areas is a surefire way to make the changes are ineffective or unsustainable.

If you create a simplistic, meaningful model that employees buy into and can assess their own level of engagement on a daily / weekly basis this reduces the sustainability challenge. It takes work to build trust so employees happily share where they are and why they are where they are but it makes engagement a regular topic of conversation in the business and supports growth, productivity, wellbeing, opportunity etc. Remember that engagement is contagious, if you work for someone truly engaged you often become more engaged yourself!

Power of organisational communication (one way and two way) triples when it is consistent in terms of timing and spaces. Communication Pods and Influencers must be empowered and well informed to engage with employees. When this is not strong and if the influencers or HR partners/officers are not equipped enough, it is a weak spot that needs to be fixed with highest priority.

Many engagement models are management-led and "top down" so the missing ingredient is often individual colleagues themselves. You should find ways to include individual employees in your engagement model. One approach we take, for example, is to direct employees to resources that are relevant to them at the end of a survey or a feedback session. In that way you can instantly close the feedback loop and involve people right away.

I've found that engagement is only as good as your 1) internal communications and 2) Manager training and education. Internal communications today need to serve a lot of functions, so they MUST be transparent, targeted (don't send everything to everyone) and relevant. When it comes to managers, they are the most influential people for the employees they manage. So, if you don't give them the tools they need to drive engagement, they will be the most inconsistent link in your engagement model and the company has no one to blame, but itself!

Nick's point is very good I'd suggest as a litmus rest, that engagement might only be as good as your meetings. Meetings are where most engagement happens. It sets engagement, and tell su the levels of engagment Improve your meetings, and you improve everything.

There are so many factors that influence engagement but I believe the one that is missing in most organisations is that they don't have a meaningful answer to WHY are we doing this. If they did this would make the comms around it more powerful, would help the employees understand the meaning behind it and finally is the opportnity to say that engagement is driven by the individual and the organisation is here to help and support them on their own personal 'engagement journey'