George Reavis's Page

Great points all Theresa! I agree with everyone one of them completely!

Taking a user-centered approach and working backwards beginning with team leaders and line managers--people engage themselves in their own daily activities No one can engage someone else! They can only help others learn to have the activity itself provide the feedback as opposed to only providing additional feedback from colleagues and supervisors. 

I define engagement (agreed it has become a buzz word) as simply "involvement with heart and mind" where "involvement occurs when skills/abilities match challenges/tasks. This must come from within to allow them to feel pride, purpose, passion, self-motivation, participation, and enthusiasm. Engagement should not be about doing more with or for less but simply doing it with heart (appreciation, intention) and mind (reflection, attention, connection).

I don't use or rely on 'surveys' either. They are for measuring (attaching numbers) or managing people which is sadly demanded by stakeholders. A preference is to use activities which provide assessments (opinions) and sustain a dialogue (two-way discussions) within a group.

The devotion should come from the daily activities and a sense of purpose/accomplishment. From the beneficiaries of the groups efforts. Often the customer or for instance in an educational or classroom setting it might be the group members themselves.

The point should be to conduct a process (steps or 'recipe') through daily operations (on the front line) which allows people to experience gratitude, commitment, learning, focus and enjoyment. Guide them in re-asking (mostly non-verbally) the critical questions for "How are we doing?" both individually and collectively. Help them to "love/marry themselves" and learn a life skill!

The subject must be addressed on the level of the person(s) with the most influence which is ones immediate supervisor/leader. All of your points, Theresa, are why leaders, managers, and employees alike become so frustrated.

A simple analogy is that if you brought ten new people into a group today and only performed your normal managerial duties/routine you could expect as a group leader to experience the following (the exact numbers are from studies but are not important):
- 3 would be engaged. They just "get it". They ask the questions and provide answers before you do. They demonstrate the five elements of heart and mind from above and energize others. They in turn are energized by those same others more so than by yourself.
- 5 would not be engaged (think of this as a neutral position) and require maybe even demand instruction and attention. They are attuned to feedback from supervisors and colleagues and follow directions well. They give good effort, are conscientious and try to please. They depend on you for their encouragement. Ironically, this group may do the best on most 'management reviews'.
- 2 would be actively disengaged. They just "don't get it". Probably not intentional but they just do not seem to pay attention (to what the group is there for) and are the source for most concerns and complaints. 
Most group leaders are engaged themselves (a big reason they were selected whether recognized as such or not) and beat themselves up over the different responses from these ten individuals.