Andy Parkinson’s World

“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
Mark Twain

In Towers Perrin’s 2007-2008 Global Workforce Study, 29% of the U.S. workforce was engaged, while just 6% were disengaged. By December, 2008, several months into the rapidly deepening recession, another study showed that engagement slipped to 22% and disengagement rose to 11%.

OK, everyone uses the term “engagement” and some organizations have established themselves as “the” experts around the concept with well known surveys that are widely used.

So, what does this term really mean and how can it be measured?

As a “folk term” engagement has been used to describe a diverse set of measures getting at the following concepts—all have been used to define the concept and as a base to develop famous (and not so famous) surveys for research and practice:

Psychological States (e.g., energy, involvement, commitment, satisfaction, job burnout, perceived stress, perceived justice, empowerment)

Personality (e.g., positive affect, negative affect, conscientiousness, resilience/hardiness, optimism, core self-evaluations, proactive personality)

Behaviors/Performance (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior, initiative, high performance, collaboration/team work, dishonesty/theft/loss)

The Envisia Learning approach has been consistent with the other well known vendors of identifying and measuring conditions under which people work (e.g., leadership practices, perceived resources/justice, social connection etc.) that impact retention, perceptions of stress and productivity¹.

In fact, we have shown, like prior research, that talent today don’t leave organizations—they leave toxic leaders and poor leadership practices.  Talent working for the interpersonally challenged reported significantly more perceived stress, greater dissatisfaction and increased intentionality to actually leave the organization.  One could say these employees were “disengaged” and as my colleague and career expert Michele Rosa likes to say, “Eager to stay but ready to leave.”

What We Are Measuring

Here is what we have been using for many years—it’s called the Leadership Effectiveness Index and it appears to have reasonable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of .91) and predictive validity.

Leadership Effectiveness Index Questions

(1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3= Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree

1. My manager/supervisor demonstrates competence in his or her job.
2. My manager/supervisor treats everyone fairly (i.e., plays no favorites).
3. My manager/supervisor creates a motivating and supportive work climate.
4. My manager/supervisor represents my needs, ideas and suggestions to his/her manager.
5. My manager/supervisor takes an interest in my professional growth and
development.
6. My manager/supervisor involves me in decision making, problem solving and planning processes.
7. My manager/supervisor creates a high performance and collaborative work team.
8. I have the opportunity to interact with Management above my immediate supervisor.

The “engagement” literature is becoming a bit like the stress literature—confusing definitions, eclectic measurement tools and diverse methods to assess one or more components of this construct.  Finally, is “engagement” a state that impacts other things or the outcome?

So, feel free to use our “engagement” metric—the Leadership Effectiveness Index but be careful about defining exactly what it is measuring….or, maybe you just don’t care…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: ken nowack, envisia learning, executive development, disengagement, climate surveys, leadership effectiveness, management development, supervisory training, organizational development, leadership training, OD

1. Nowack, K. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Leaders Make a Difference. HR Trends, 17, 40-42