Does energy and engagement equal performance?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D. on June 26, 2008 at 8:23am

Thanks Paul - these stories are very thought provoking. What they bring to mind for me are the 'real' definitions of constructs like energy and engagement and the importance of the measurement work we do.

I continue to find, in a number of studies I've been doing (with multiple sources of data), that the way we define these variables really really matters. For example, in a series of within-company studies done over the last ten years, I found that raising employee engagement survey scores for low energy employees LOWERED their performance, but increasing employee engagement scores for high energy employees increased their performance.

That means it is quite possible that if you use certain types of engagement measures (that I would argue probably do not tap into behavior or performance but the same old, same old satisfaction type questions), you can lower performance when raising engagement because you make low energy or less productive people feel even better about 'doing nothing' at work.

Think about the poor manager whose balanced score card pays him/ her for increasing engagement even if the employees are performing worse. Think about the HR department that just 'knows' they are doing the wrong thing by putting in the types of interventions that make the lower performers happier. Then think about the company whose performance plummets and wonders 'why.'

The mechanics of research I used were just a little bit more sophisticated (and not much I must admit). I employed the use of interaction effects, and I found a very different story.

In HR, we like to think all is equal - reduce turnover for everyone, increase satisfaction scores for all, but the world is more complex than that. Maybe it's time to think 'harder' about what we do and bring new rigor to the profession.

Your articles will spur ideas, I hope, for others to do just that. Make us all question. Thanks!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Zinger on June 26, 2008 at 9:41am

I appreciate the juxtaposition of these two stories.

I certainly believe you can have high levels of engagement and energy without performance given the variety of factors that influence performance. I wonder about the reverse can you have high levels of performance without engagement and energy?

And when we speak about performance what measures are we using?

My conclusion is that energy and engagement is a potential strong contributor to performance but there are a plethora of other factors influencing performance.

Yet, without focused energy and engagement you would be hard pressed to get performance.

I will stop here as I think I am beginning to go around in circles.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Hayton on June 26, 2008 at 11:56am

The fact's do tend to speak for themselves, and there are a number of empirical studies that show that attitudes such as job satisfaction do not always create predictable outcomes like improved performance. For example:

1. Employees do not always respond to surveys in a way that is predicted by simplistic theories. For example, employees can report high satisfaction with their job, even when they also report that the job does not fulfill their needs. They can report low satisfaction, even when their needs are being completely met. Lesson here - just because employees report an attitude does not mean they fit a profile of being a happy and productive worker. Real life is more complex than 12 questions!

2. The correlation between attitudes and behaviors (performance, turnover) tends to be quite moderate, and in the case of something like job satisfaction, it is weakly correlated with performance. Why? because sometimes, the people who do not fit in a job (and therefore cannot perform it well) will be VERY happy to have the job! So satisfaction may or may not help performance. IF they fit, then probably satisfaction will enhance contributions.

3. Instead of satisfaction, what about 'commitment' which is closer to some definitions of engagement (whatever we mean by this!). Commitment can take several forms. Affective commitment (positive emotional bond) can be great for producing all sorts of helpful behavior by employees. But people who are committed to a job or employer because they feel some normative pressure (from family or friends) or because they just cannot afford to go anywhere else because of familial obligations or lack of choices - these are not the sort of committed employees you want. This aspect of commitment is unlikely to serve firm performance very well.

4. As has already been suggested, there are many other factors here that influence firm performance. Just having 'happy workers' says nothing about whether you are aligning their behaviors with the goals of the firm. Let alone the other issues influencing firm performance such as, for the B&Q example, consumer spending.

5. As Theresa has already noted, sometimes we want higher levels of turnover (for example among the weaker performers). We do not need everyone to be 'engaged' if they are not able or willing to contribute.

6. At the extreme, some argue that it is only those employee groups who actually create value and are not easily replaced who we should be engaging, although I am not sure I would support that view (not empirically verified). For example, I can quite easily hire and train a store assistant in retail (they are not highly unique or scarce in terms of their competencies), but I do need them to be engaged if they are to provide high quality customer service. However, those who are unable to perform should not be made to feel comfortable through greater emphasis on their engagement.

The bottom of all this is that as each of you have suggested - we need to be critical consumers of this engagement drive. It does not necessarily lead to performance. However, as Dave says, it is a powerful potential driver as long as we attend to: a) definition and measurement issues first and foremost; b) ensuring it is used within an employment framework that distinguishes the contributors from the non contributors; c) considering it just one of our tools for driving performance and not the only one.

Thanks for reading this, and I will look forward to hearing more of your ideas on this. cheers

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jon Ingham on July 22, 2008 at 5:55pm

My perspective is that energy / engagement can't equal organisational level performance, but certainly does influence it. However, this influence is indirect.

You're always going to get high energy businesses that don't perform and low energy ones that do. What delivers performance is very complex and systemic. I don't feel any dissonance between B&Q being given an award for engagement and seeing its sales / value fall.

I would expect to see a more direct relationship between energy / engagement and individual level performance.

Theresa, I've seen you mention a couple of times that increasing employee engagement survey scores can lead to lower individual performance, which then drives lower firm performance.

I understand your point on raising engagement of low energy employees. What other conditions have you found which causes the expected relationship to break down?

▶ Reply to This