1. Identifying “reciprocity” as the defining characteristic of “employee engagement”:

Ian, the attractiveness of “employee engagement” to many if not most organizations which have embraced its language is that it can offer the possibility of higher employee commitment/participation/enthusiasm/productivity without a commensurate investment by the organization. It’s become another tightening of the screw and another hike in the volume of the CEO jukebox in some places, couched by HR and IC types in the language of empowerment and benevolence.

Moreover, results may be well be achieved by implying promises to employees without necessarily being willing to back them up.

2) Not differentiating between types of “employee engagement”–employees who seek longevity are different than employees who seek change and innovation–may skew results of studies like Akron U’s, and outcomes in the field.

3) It’s really unclear as to whether injecting a syringe full of “employee engagement” language, tone and culture into an organization will increase actual engagement, or whether simply buckling down on honest language, clear mutual expectations, and keeping track of promises kept will produce desired outcomes instead.

I would like to put a link to your site on my blog roll if you want to do the same for mine. It would be a good way to build up both of our readerships.

thank you.