We recently read Gallup’s 2013 report on employee engagement, which reports that seven out of 10 workers in America are either actively disengaged or not engaged in their work. It triggered several questions, and one of the most basic is this: "Are we turning the spotlight on the right people?”
As an aside, we confess some deep-seated skepticism about this number. That stems from the fact that our own data on employee engagement diverge significantly from those of Gallup. Our numbers suggest that there are roughly twice as many engaged employees. Secondly, all HR executives with whom we talk believe they have evidence that far more than 30% of their workforce is engaged. Finally, our personal experience with a wide variety of workers does not support this dismal view of the American workforce. But let’s put aside the debate about the exact number of engaged employees or engaged managers and use the Gallup data to focus on the most important issues.
Place the responsibility where it belongs
The headline of the main body of the report reads: “U.S. WORKFORCE ENGAGEMENT STAGNANT: HOLDING BACK ECONOMY.” This implies that the fault is largely with the employee group, putting the blame on them for being a giant barnacle on the hull of the ship of our overall economy. We think this is misplaced blame. According to the report itself, here are the facts. In the year 2012, the engagement level of both professional workers and clerical and office workers was 30%. Service workers and government workers were just slightly lower at 29%. But here’s the key statistic that seems to be glossed over. Managers, executives and officials in these firms had an engagement level of (a drumroll please) 36%. Thirty-six percent! Imagine that, they are a whole 6% higher than the workforce. And this was a big jump.
Four years earlier, the managers, executives and officials’ engagement level was at 26%.
The problem becomes clearer. The people who are supposed to be leading the organization up the hill to conquer its competitors are just slightly more engaged than the soldiers. The leaders are the ones who should be providing the vision, direction, enthusiasm, commitment and passion for the work of the organization, but they are on average only 6% more engaged than those they are leading.
In Gallup’s defense, they state in this report: “Gallup’s research has found that managers are primarily responsible for their employees’ engagement levels. Organizations should coach managers to take an active role in building engagement plans with their employees, hold managers accountable, track their progress, and ensure they continuously focus on emotionally engaging their employees.” Yet, despite this disclaimer, the thrust of the report is all about the employees’ lack of engagement. Nothing is said about the fact that employee engagement is a close mirror of managerial, executive and company officials’ engagement.
Focus Engagement Improvement Efforts on Leaders
Workers follow the lead from the person above them. Effective leaders produce engaged employees. The chart below clearly shows the impact of leaders on employee engagement. Leaders don’t create high-performance teams primarily by recruiting only the most engaged employees. They take a variety of teams and individuals, and in short order, through their leadership efforts, they create highly engaged and productive groups. Broad-scale programs targeted toward the employees would appear to be a waste of time if the managers don’t provide appropriate leadership for them.
Everyone appears to agree that the primary problem of engagement is a management one, not a working one. If there is an employee engagement problem, it lies squarely at the feet of the managers and the organization that tolerates ineffective managers.
Replace or develop leaders?
So how does that problem get fixed? Here there are very different proposals for the optimum solution. Gallup’s recommended solution is to improve selection:
“Select the right managers. Whether hiring from the outside or promoting from within, organizations that scientifically select managers for the unique talents it takes to effectively manage people greatly increase the odds of engaging their employees.”
We question whether most organizations will replace their managers with a new set of leaders who are believed to have this talent. They will, instead, choose to help each leader use a natural and comfortable approach to inspiring and motivating subordinates. For some, this may be creating a clear vision. For others, it will be a relentless drive for results. For others, it will be extremely principled behavior, while others will respond to a leader who engages and listens to employees. For others, it may be their highly enthusiastic approach to the projects at hand. Varying approaches work. These are skills that can be developed. Leaders can learn to inspire subordinates and we contend that these are learnable skills, not inborn talents. Replacing managers is far more costly than developing the ones already in place.
