On Employee ‘Engagement’

Any rational business cares about its employees, and it cares whether employees are happy with their work  — whether employees are “engaged.”

This is common sense.  Engagement affects employee turnover (and the cost of recruiting replacements).  Engagement affects the cost of training new employees.  There’s some evidence that engagement correlates to corporate profitability.  And, as a general principle, it’s nice if people are happy.

This stuff matters.

If engagement matters, you should measure it and monitor it.

Things that are measured and monitored get done:  Number of hours billed.  Number of days worked.  Amount of revenue generated.  Value of costs saved.

Things that are not measured and monitored don’t get done:  Being collegial.  Mentoring.  Contributing to your community.  Raising the firm’s profile.  Pro bono work (in many firms).  Time spent training other lawyers. 

Employee engagement should naturally improve once everyone knows that the entity cares about it.  At a law firm, everyone ignores secretaries and mistreats paralegals, because secretaries and paralegals are low on the pecking order, and no one worries about those employees’ engagement.  Once word goes out that a firm cares about everyone’s engagement, lawyers will realize that it doesn’t hurt to say hello to secretaries, treat paralegals like human beings, and otherwise behave properly.

The problem is devising a test that (1) accurately measures engagement and (2) isn’t subject to abuse.

Think first about whether an engagement survey accurately measures engagement.  A typical question on a survey might ask:  “Is [your employer] viewed as one of the best places to work for people in your field?”  If the answer is yes, then the employee is more engaged.  If the answer is no, the employee is less engaged. 

That question makes sense for some employees, but it’s ridiculous for others.  Suppose you’re a tech geek.  You work at Google.  Is your employer viewed as one of the best places to work for people in your field?  Sure!  Tech people would die for a job at Google!

Suppose you’re a tech geek.  You work at the law firm of Bigg & Mediocre.  Is your employer viewed as one of the best places to work for people in your field?  Of course not.  Why would a tech geek go to work at Bigg & Mediocre?  Any rational person knows that Bigg & Mediocre is not one of the great places for tech geeks to work.

That doesn’t mean that it’s nuts for a tech geek to go to work for B&M.  The tech geek may be making a lifestyle choice.  The tech geek may have family in a city where B&M is located, but Google is not.  The tech geek might be perfectly happy — fabulously engaged — at B&M.

But a standard engagement survey is likely to show that employees are less engaged if employees honestly — and intelligently — answer that their employer is not a destination of choice for people in their field.

Here’s another question you’ll find on engagement surveys:  “Do you often talk about the possibility of finding a job with another employer?”

All managers worth their salt know that competent managers discuss other jobs with their direct reports:  “What’s your career path here?  Do we offer what you want?  If we don’t, or if there’s no chance of following your chosen path at this firm, where will you find a job that thrills you?  Let’s talk about other places where you might prefer to work.”

That’s honest.  That’s helpful.  There’s surely no shame in having that discussion.

But heaven forbid the employee fills out the engagement survey by saying, “I speak occasionally with my supervisor about leaving this firm.”  The employee’s not engaged!  And the supervisor is complicit!  What the heck’s going on in this joint?  Let’s fix the problem!

Procrustean engagement surveys might not work. 

The surveys must also not be subject to abuse.  For example, a manager might tell one of his direct reports:  “I know you haven’t yet filled out the engagement survey.  Please log on to the computer now, go into the survey, and complete the survey while I stand here, watching over your shoulder, to see what you say.  Remember that my compensation depends, in part, on whether people who report to me are engaged.” 

Or:  “Why don’t you log into the engagement survey and then go grab a cup of coffee?  I’ll fill out your survey for you while you’re gone.  Come back in a half hour.” 

Or:  “There’s only 85 percent engagement of people working on my team!?!  That’s outrageous!  You should all be engaged!  One hundred percent! I know these surveys are supposed to be anonymous, but I’m going to ask HR to tell me who’s not engaged.  If HR won’t answer that question, I’ll find another way to break anonymity.  I’ll ask for one report that categorizes employees by region, one that categorizes employees by age, one that categorizes employees by sex, and one that groups everyone together.  All of those reports will be anonymous, but I’m sure I can crack the anonymity by putting those reports next to each other and analyzing the results.  I’m going to figure out who’s not engaged and punish that person!” 

I’m all in favor of improving employees’ job satisfaction.  But make sure you’re measuring the actual engagement of employees who have not been coerced .

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].