A recent extensive research by Gallup Inc, a research based performance management company, indicates that majority of Amercian employees, about 71 percent, are either "not engaged" or "actively disengaged" in their work. While I have my own understanding of what employee engagement means, I was particularly curious to know how this research firm defined this concept, particularly the concept of "active disengagement".
Apparently, based on more than 30 years of research, Gallup has identified 12 elements of employee engagement. This set of elements seems particularly intriguing for one particular reason - whether the elements are MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive) across cultural contexts and nature of organizations.
On a different note, I also assume that this framework for assessing engagement is designed keeping in mind a "corporate" type of environment. Reflecting on my brief experiences in different organizational context - large MNC, social enterprise, NGO and academia - I am tending to question the applicability of some of these elements. To illustrate this point, would not the engagement be the highest or appear highest in the nonprofit sector where individuals have a higher sense of and emotional connect to the organization mission? In fact, a research by Towers Perrin does highlight this sectoral trend.
I hope to study and understand the science behind this instrument. I am sure some of the above preconceived notions will get eventually clarified. The literature review by Kingston seems to be a good starting point.
Apparently, based on more than 30 years of research, Gallup has identified 12 elements of employee engagement. This set of elements seems particularly intriguing for one particular reason - whether the elements are MECE (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive) across cultural contexts and nature of organizations.
How does one measure employee engagement? Are current frameworks, such as Gallup's 12 elements, for measuring employee engagement sufficiently robust and universally applicable? How does any such framework account for cultural context and nature of organization?For example, is not the perception of engagement on the above parameters dependent on whether the work context is high or low. I would assume that in a low-context work setting where things are fully spelled out, there is an explicit and higher degree of interactions between manager and employer on his/her progress. So how does this framework account for this context dependency? Similarly how does this framework account for monochronistic and polychornistic work culture. I would assume that employee's emotional connect to the work place depends on other factors specific to a work setting - a task-oriented and highly organized vs an extroverted and people-oriented setting. Again in an individualistic vs a collectivistic work culture, would not the factors that influence the employee engagement be different?
On a different note, I also assume that this framework for assessing engagement is designed keeping in mind a "corporate" type of environment. Reflecting on my brief experiences in different organizational context - large MNC, social enterprise, NGO and academia - I am tending to question the applicability of some of these elements. To illustrate this point, would not the engagement be the highest or appear highest in the nonprofit sector where individuals have a higher sense of and emotional connect to the organization mission? In fact, a research by Towers Perrin does highlight this sectoral trend.
I hope to study and understand the science behind this instrument. I am sure some of the above preconceived notions will get eventually clarified. The literature review by Kingston seems to be a good starting point.