Friday, October 14, 2005
The E-factor
Why is engagement important? Actually, I just threw it out to illustrate how selection could be improved from a school-of-thought approach. Now that I think about it, the E-factor is important. There must be a subconscious component at work here.
Managers tell us:
• Engaged employees are more productive
• Engagement creates retention
• Engagement stems from some interest and a desire to act on it
• Engagement is not static, but changes over time
• Its easier to manage people who share interest in the work than selling them on something they're not innately drawn to
When all is said and done, engagement is a higher form of motivation. Although not recognized as such, it is the holy grail for hiring managers. For an engaged employee, compensation, job descriptions, and political boundaries are secondary. They still need attention, but they aren't the reason we go to work in the morning. With strong engagement there is some latitude with secondary issues.
If we apply something akin to Maslow’s hierarchy to employment, a candidate’s economic needs would be at the bottom, geographic issues and social needs directly above, and engagement factors at the top. As with the Maslow model, a high E-factor would need alignment among the lower factors for a match. But, given the potential for fantastic gains, how is it that we're not selecting for engagement? Or, at the very least, testing the model? A ‘school of thought’ approach would require study and support for hypotheses supporting a "theory of engagement" that suggests engaged employees create better business results. It would make a nice PhD thesis.
Managers tell us:
• Engaged employees are more productive
• Engagement creates retention
• Engagement stems from some interest and a desire to act on it
• Engagement is not static, but changes over time
• Its easier to manage people who share interest in the work than selling them on something they're not innately drawn to
When all is said and done, engagement is a higher form of motivation. Although not recognized as such, it is the holy grail for hiring managers. For an engaged employee, compensation, job descriptions, and political boundaries are secondary. They still need attention, but they aren't the reason we go to work in the morning. With strong engagement there is some latitude with secondary issues.
If we apply something akin to Maslow’s hierarchy to employment, a candidate’s economic needs would be at the bottom, geographic issues and social needs directly above, and engagement factors at the top. As with the Maslow model, a high E-factor would need alignment among the lower factors for a match. But, given the potential for fantastic gains, how is it that we're not selecting for engagement? Or, at the very least, testing the model? A ‘school of thought’ approach would require study and support for hypotheses supporting a "theory of engagement" that suggests engaged employees create better business results. It would make a nice PhD thesis.
