The First Step of Employee Engagement is in Your Head
The other day a colleague of mine who is a HR VP told me that employee engagement was “hot.” The way he stated it leads one to believe that employee engagement is a new concern, a new concept, a new philosophy, or, if you will, a new mantra.
I was a bit astonished if not perplexed. It never dawned on me that the notion of employee engagement had been on some invisible back burner and was suddenly emerging as a popular management tool since it has been and integral concern of organizational and management theory for decades. Indeed, a disproportionate amount of the literature in the fields of organizational psychology and organizational behavior is sharply focused on employee engagement. The terminology may be different and the variables augmented, but the same concepts are explored.
Employee engagement, concerned with how employees establish bonds of commitment, motivation, drive, and focus with their organization, is driven by a very simple dichotomy exemplified by Douglas McGregor who draws two distinct assumptions that we make about employees. Theory X assumes that employees want to be directed and avoid responsibility and Theory Y maintains that workers seek autonomy and responsibility. One set of assumptions believes that people are driven by simply the “what’s in it for me?” game while the other assumes a greater sense of collective engagement.
The issue of employee engagement is not simply one of trying to understand what’s in the head of employees, but rather the honest assessment of what mindset you, as a supervisor, manager, or leader, want to project to employees.
W.I. Thomas, a famous sociologist, once said “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Indeed, self-fulfilling prophecies are a powerful tool, so the first step in employee engagement is not to ask ourselves what’s in the head of employees but to instead ask ourselves what’s in the head of their supervisors.
If supervisor’s assume a “what’s in it for me?” mindset (Theory X) they will create one set of expectations and if they assume that employees are self motivated and concerned with the collective good (Theory Y) they will create a distinctly different set of expectations. In one case, (Theory X) supervisors will establish extrinsic engagement and in another case you will establish intrinsic engagement (Theory Y). When you establish extrinsic engagement you are engaging employees by your ability to pay them, reward them, and recognize them. On the other hand, when you establish intrinsic engagement you are engaging your employees by stimulating their sense of self-fulfillment and group participation. In order to engage employees your challenge is to balance these two mindsets. Your challenge is to know what type of bonds of engagement you want to establish.
Social science, be it concerned with industrial psychology or management theory, teaches us that solely thinking with an “either/or” mindset is dangerous. As such, it becomes obvious that the crucial skill you need in order to engage employees is the ability to know when to use one engagement tactic over another. The same motivation, the same commitment, the same involvement, the same engagement, is not appropriate for all situations. In the future we hope to elaborate on some of this.
Tagged as collective engagement, douglas mcgregor, employee engagement, industrail pyschology, leaders, leadership, managers, new mantra, organizationak and management theory, social science, supervisors, theory x, theory y, wi thomas + Categorized as Proactive Leadership
I concur with the general gist of your piece. I think it is more useful however to see McGregor’s Theory X as “assumes that employees want to be directed and avoid responsibility” rather than characterise it as WIIFM (What’s in it for me). WIIFM is a perfectly valid strategy for both X and Y types, it is in the nature and manifestation of the WIIFM that makes the difference. Phil Race’s research on the Learning Process identifies a wanting stage to learning (WIIFM) and a stage that is crucial to effective learning. It is the purpose and the reason why one undertakes self-improvement in the first place. It is only when WIIFM becomes “I’m not going to do that unless you reward me” that it fits the Theory X. This form of WIIFM is very likely consequence of long-term use and manipulation by extrinsic motivators. The ‘good form’ of WIIFM is a natural part of the process of effective learning (that is congruent with intrinsic motivation and sabotaged by over-use of extrinsic motivation.
I would also add that for me Theory X is based on ‘Old Psychology’ whereas Theory Y is compatible with the ‘New Psychologies’ (see my blog)
It is not surprising that your VP HR colleague told you that employee engagement is now a “hot” management activity. Remember that we are coming off of years of YOYO (You are on your own.) mentality in the economy and in the workplace. Engaging employee through MBWA (Management by walking around) was supplanted during the YOYO years by HIO (Hiding in the office) management while workforces were decimated through layoffs, outsourcing, and offshoring. Competitive advantage through innovation and human resources motivation was scuttled for competitive advantage through shifting operations to low wage areas such as China, India, and Eastern Europe, much to the serious detriment of our country. Hopefully, MBWA with its employee engagement, motivation, and innovation stimulating benefits will return to the American work scene as the pendulum swings back from the end of the long endured YOYO era arc.
Barry,
You make an excellent point. The “what’s in it for me” employees defiantly exist in theory X AND theory Y. To say that WIIFM is exclusive to theory X was a (lazy) short-cut to frame my larger argument.
More interestingly, your point concerning the best way to implement WIIFM rests, I think, remains at the heart of employee engagement. As you state, there is both healthy and unhealthy ways WIIFM can take shape and grow. I think it would be a great post to discuss this concept further. I will try to think of some relevant examples.
Also, for those of you interested in Barry’s last point check out his article on New Psychologies here: http://barrymapp.com/?s=New+Psychologies
Lee,
Managers reacting to market forces and uncertainty, it seems, will do anything to reduce risk. The swing between the YOYO style and the MBWA style could reflect, depending on your opinion, current economic factors coupled with larger business trends. Further study on management styles as they correlate to these variables would be exciting.
What I wanted to stress in the post was that employment engagement always existed in some sense in management literature and that it’s not exactly a “new” concept. However, it is making a come back and outpacing YOYO strategies–especially since we saw the bust of the internet bubble and witnessed 2008′s crisis first hand.
Lastly, I will join you in your excitement to see a return to the MBWA management style. If done right it can lead to great things. However, we have to celebrate cautiously. In the wrong organizational hands MBWA can cause turmoil of all stripes.
Best,
Sam