October 2010 issue of HR News magazine - IPMA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ Tough CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11 additional effort to accomplish their work above and beyond that needed to just get through the day. Government organizations may have an advantage in keeping their employees engaged due to the likelihood that employees closely identify with their missions. A 2005 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) survey of almost 37,000 federal employees found that 35 percent of federal employees were fully engaged. Although affinity for public service may account for this figure being a bit higher than reported by some studies examining the private sector, it still means that almost two-thirds of federal employees were not fully engaged. Many studies have shown the importance of employee engagement to an organization’s bottom line. Consistent measures of organizational performance are hard to come by across the federal government. Unlike private organizations there is no profit margin, stock price, or other distinct financial measure to examine. However, MSPB’s study still showed a correlation between high levels of employee engagement and certain organizational outcomes. In federal agencies where employees were more engaged, on average, employees used less sick leave, fewer employees filed equal employment opportunity complaints, and there were fewer cases of employees losing work time due to workplace injury or illness. In addition, and more importantly as far as organization results go, a correlation was found between an agency’s level of employee engagement and the one consistent measure of agency programmatic success that did exist at the time of the MSPB survey. During the Bush Administration, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administered the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which was an effort to link federal government program performance to budgeting decisions. The OMB-computed program ratings were based on agency program manager responses to a series of questions about their programs. The results/accountability portion of the PART was designed to determine if agency programs were meeting their long-term and annual performance goals. It also assessed how well the program compared to other similar programs and how well it fared in independent evaluations. The MSPB found a statistically significant correlation between the average levels of employee engagement in agencies, and agencies’ programmatic results as measured by the PART process. That is, the higher an agency’s average employee engagement, the better agency programs scored on the results/accountability portion of the PART. The correlation found between employee engagement and these outcomes doesn’t tell us if high employee engagement actually caused the outcomes to improve or if another unknown factor caused both engagement and the outcome to improve. However, since the correlations are statistically significant we can expect that the linkage between engagement and outcomes is reliable—where you find engaged employees, you will also find a better performing agency. Not Fully Engaged 51% In general i am satisfied with my job (agree/strongly agree) The Difference Between Satisfaction and Engagement Although the MSPB offers a number of recommendations in The Power of Federal Employee Engagement to improve the overall level of engagement in the federal government, for this special issue of HR News we looked specifically at the differences in the level of engagement among employees who reported they were already satisfied with their job (that is, they answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to the survey question: “In general I am satisfied with my job”). Of the respondents to the MSPB survey who reported that they were satisfied with their job (there were 24,825 of them), 49 percent were fully engaged. That leaves 51 percent of employees who reported that they were satisfied with their job but who were not fully engaged. For the remainder of this article we will label the employees who were satisfied with their job and fully engaged as “engaged.” Those employees who were satisfied with their job and not fully engaged will be labeled “satisfied.” What spurs some employees who are satisfied with their jobs to a higher level of engagement? Why are other employees who are already satisfied with their jobs less than fully engaged? We believe exploring the differences between these two groups of employees can assist managers and supervisors to further engage their employees even in the current challenging environment. The differences we found between employees who were fully engaged and those who were merely satisfied with their jobs can be grouped into three areas: communication, performance motivators, and leave motivators. Knowing the opinions of employees on these three groups of items enabled us to successfully place them in the correct classification (engaged or merely satisfied) 86 percent of the time. Communication Fully Engaged 49% We found stark differences between the two groups of employees across a number of the avenues of communication that exist in an | 12 | OCTOBER 2010 HR NEWS MAGAZINE
■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ organization. For instance, across the three items in MSPB’s 2005 survey that asked employees whether their supervisors provide constructive and timely feedback on job performance, and whether their supervisors keep them informed about how well they are doing, an average of 37 percent of fully engaged employees strongly agreed while only six percent of employees who were satisfied strongly agreed. In addition, we found differences in the way these two populations understood their place in the organization. Communicating the mission of the organization and an employee’s place within that mission is critical to engaging employees. Of the employees who were fully engaged, an average of 78 percent strongly agreed that they understand their agency’s mission and how they contribute to that mission. Conversely, only 45 percent of employees who were satisfied strongly agreed that they understand their agency’s mission and how they contribute to it. Some of the most formal ways that organizations/supervisors communicate with employees are through the performance management and awards processes. When managers bestow awards and high performance ratings on certain employees they are communicating in a very powerful way what behaviors the organization values and what they would like other employees to emulate. An average of 34 percent of the employees who were fully engaged said that they have been treated fairly to a very great extent in the past two years regarding awards and performance appraisals; however, only seven percent of employees who were satisfied reported the same. When asked if their organization takes steps to ensure that employees are appropriately paid and rewarded, 73 percent of the employees who were fully engaged agreed or strongly agreed, while only 31 percent of the employees who were satisfied agreed or strongly agreed. Performance Motivators The second difference we found between these two groups of employees dealt with what each reported as important in motivating them to do a good job. Employees who were fully engaged consistently rated intrinsic rewards (versus monetary awards and other formal and informal types of recognition) as more important in motivating them than did employees who were merely satisfied. For example, employees who were fully engaged rated the desire to not let coworkers down (67 percent) and the desire to not let their supervisor down (60 percent) as very important in motivating them to do a good job. Only 41 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of employees who were satisfied reported these items as very important in motivating them to do a good job. Another piece of the motivation puzzle is the extent to which the employee identifies with the mission of the organization and how that connection may spur the employee to higher levels of engagement. Of the employees who were fully engaged, 82 percent strongly agreed that their agency’s mission was important to them. Of the employees who were merely satisfied, only 54 percent strongly agreed that their agency’s mission was important to them. What kinds of things organizations reward is also important for distinguishing between the two populations. The 2005 MSPB survey asked whether creativity and innovation are rewarded in the employ- WWW.IPMA-HR.ORG ees’ organizations. Seventy-eight percent of employees who were fully engaged agreed or strongly agreed that their organization rewards creativity and innovation, while only 29 percent of employees who were satisfied agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case. Leave Motivators In The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, MSPB noted that employees who were fully engaged had less intention to leave their current jobs to look for employment elsewhere. Our current analysis puts a finer point on that finding. The MSPB survey asked employees if they were to leave their agency in the near future, how important several factors would have been in their decision to do so. We found that the employees who were satisfied cited factors such as an opportunity to make better use of their skills and abilities, increased opportunities for advancement, improved opportunities for training, and opportunity for recognition for performance, more frequently than employees who were fully engaged. This could mean that these types of factors were more frequently available to the employees who were fully engaged, contributing to their engagement. Moving from Satisfaction to Engagement Given the differences we found between engaged employees and those who were merely satisfied, how can managers help to move their employees beyond satisfaction even in these challenging times? It is obvious that formal and informal communication between managers and employees about job requirements, performance expectations, and employee accomplishments are vital to foster a fully engaged workforce. MSPB discussed the importance of this communication both in the Power of Federal Employee Engagement and its follow-up report, Managing for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage. In addition, in its recent report, The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, Gallup found that employee engagement benefits from managers discussing any aspect of employee performance—even negative ones—with employees rather than giving no feedback at all. Given the differences we found in what motivates satisfied employees versus what motivates engaged employees, managers would be wise to focus attention on continually communicating to employees the importance of their jobs, how the work they do fits in with the larger organization mission, and how their work products relate to the larger organization goals. The more formal ways that an organization communicates with employees are also important for fostering engagement. Extreme caution should be used in doling out awards in any organization. Managers need to realize that what actions they reward sends a powerful message to all employees about the actions that the organization (or the manager) values. Does the message that is sent by the award actually match the message that the organization wants to communicate? Most important of all for engagement, does the organization award creativity and innovation or does it overtly or subtly stifle those things? CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 OCTOBER 2010 | 13 |
Page 1 and 2: THE MAGAZINE NOF THE INTERNATIONAL
Page 3 and 4: In this month’s issue of HR News
Page 5 and 6: FEATURES 6 Ready, Set, Engage: The
Page 7 and 8: 1617 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 223
Page 9 and 10: ■ employee engagement ■ employe
Page 11 and 12: ■ employee engagement ■ employe
Page 13: ■ employee engagement ■ employe
Page 17 and 18: Standout Public Servants Receive Co
Page 19 and 20: By Howard Goldsmith and Lawrence Si
Page 21 and 22: D) Anoka County Count (MN) Arapahoe
Page 23 and 24: Partnership for Public Service Rele
Page 25 and 26: your emergency response time exceed
Page 27 and 28: One month after Jones was reassigne
Page 29 and 30: Dr. Reginald F. Wells Chosen to Rec
Page 31 and 32: San Diego Chapter of IPMA-HR Receiv
Page 33 and 34: Certification Corner Congratulation
Page 35 and 36: TESTING ORDER FORM A. ORDER We have
Page 37 and 38: IPMA-HR, the premier association fo
Page 39 and 40: ��

October 2010 issue of HR News magazine - IPMA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?