How can you tell whether someone is committed to you? Or how can you tell that someone has a bond with you?
I don't know about you, but I can tell you my own answer.
If they do everything they can for me and more, if they choose to find solutions instead of walking away when things get hard, or if they spend extra effort and time to help me become better, in other words, if they can stand by me under any circumstances, I can say, "This person is committed to me."
So what if we asked companies the same question? What do you think they would say?
How can you tell whether an employee is engaged?
If an employee is willing, out of their own intrinsic motivation, to do their very best for their company or employer, if they do not tend to leave at the first sign of a crisis or setback, if they make an effort to solve problems rationally and appropriately using the right communication channels, and of course, before all that, if they are fundamentally satisfied, then we can say that employee is engaged.
Engagement is not a general concept like satisfaction. In terms of meaning, we can think of it as a concept that is born and develops very deep down. From a company's perspective, this can also make it somewhat more challenging. We can create satisfaction much more easily, but it is hardly possible to achieve what we call engagement simply by improving environmental or physical conditions or by offering employees much better terms. Yes, all of these are essential for creating engagement, but there are many more, and many different, bricks we need to lay on top of them.
What Is Employee Engagement? Or Who Is an Engaged Employee?
We have actually already defined it to some extent. A "satisfied employee" is a precondition for an "engaged employee." If we have not been able to create "satisfaction," our first link, we cannot move on to the next link no matter how much we want to. In other words, "employee satisfaction" must exist at the foundation no matter what. You can think of it as the foundation on which the building rises.
In its simplest form, employee engagement can be defined as "the state in which an employee is willing to do more for their company and/or employer and to take action to do so." The employee has a positive perception of their company or employer, speaks positively about it, and has an "emotional bond" with their organization. Thanks to this bond, even when they face negative situations, they do not show a sudden inclination to leave at first. They stay a while longer and look for solutions and ways to communicate. In other words, engaged employees are the ones who don't abandon ship right away.
But this should not lead to the conclusion that engaged employees never abandon ship. We cannot say that, because I have seen many cases in which engaged employees' goodwill was abused and they reached the point of abandoning ship very quickly. So we can say that an engaged employee is someone who, thanks to the bond they have built with the company, has the potential to endure deteriorating situations for longer, and who also makes an extra effort to find a solution.
How does engagement develop?
I believe there are a few important feelings at the root of engagement. The first of these is "Trust." Where there is no mutual trust, it is extremely difficult for a "bond to form" between two parties and for that bond to strengthen over time into "engagement." Trust is the first and most important dimension of engagement. Even so, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, 1 in 3 employees does not trust their employer. We should not move on without sharing this figure.
2. Second, I believe "Dedication" is another important dimension of engagement. Because doing your very best for someone, and being willing to do even more, is only possible through "dedication." This has another upside. Over time, dedication lays the groundwork for a sense of "belonging," and this feeling leads the employee to take greater ownership of their company or employer and strengthens the emotional bond between them.
On the other hand, as a result of dedication, as the employee's contribution to the company grows positively over time, this can turn into "pride" in themselves and their company, and, when the company reciprocates, into a much stronger sense of "loyalty." Isn't the feeling of "Yes, I am doing something, and my efforts and hard work are also being recognized by my company and my employer" the strongest motivation for engagement anyway?
3. As the third dimension, we can talk about "Honesty, Fairness and Transparency." I liken this to two people being able to sit back to back without seeing each other. Could you lean your back against someone you believe is not honest, fair and transparent with you? Or, looking at it in terms of the company–employee relationship, could you trust and be committed to a company that you believe does not have an honest, fair and transparent perspective and management approach toward you?
Finally, as the 4th dimension, we cannot go without mentioning "Communication." In both positive and negative situations, trying to solve problems from a rational perspective using the right communication channel and method, and being able to solve them, in other words the motivation to put things right, is also one of the most important preconditions for "engagement." But of course we should also mention the principle that communication must be "mutual." While the employee keeps communication channels open, the employer or managers need to behave the same way. However, we are not yet very successful in this area. According to a recent Interact / Harris survey, 91% of the employees surveyed think their leaders lack communication skills. Leaders have a job to do here as well.
How should the company–engaged employee relationship be structured?
We have talked a lot about the characteristics of engaged employees. They are active, they take action, they get moving, they look for solutions. They make an effort and work hard to fix negative situations. That is why we can also see engaged employees as the company's locomotives. Even while trying to improve their own conditions, they may well serve the overall well-being of the company.
Moreover, "employee engagement" is not limited to this. That engaged employees contribute more to their companies' business results and make more effort to do so is among the facts that research has shown us. In this sense, when companies manage their engaged employees correctly, they can achieve many different gains. When this relationship is structured correctly and managed well, it becomes a resource that makes a strong and continuous contribution to organizational and individual performance and to the company's productivity, efficiency and business success.
This is where, in my view, the really important question comes to mind:
How do companies create the right conditions for their employees to "do their very best willingly and wholeheartedly"?
If you are curious about how engagement is measured in your organization, take a look at our posts on what an employee engagement survey is and how to measure employee engagement. For the models that explain engagement, see our post on Gallup Q12 and employee engagement models.
We will pick up in the next post exactly where we left off here.
See you then,
Wishing you healthy days,
