Does Employee Engagement Matter in a Downturn?
March 21st, 2010There’s been much written about employee engagement in recent years as this relatively modern phenomenon continues to evolve from its internal communication roots.
Although often over complicated, the general premise of employee engagement is simple. Individual contributions of employees in the workplace is influenced by the strength of their emotional connection to their employer. The stronger and more positive that connection, the more likely it is that the employee will contribute their best effort for the sake of their organization or brand.
At its core, EE is based upon reciprocity. The employer works to create a work environment that is satisfying and rewarding for employees and stimulates their emotions and higher order needs. It literally invites them to bring themselves to work and become similarly invested (engaged) in their organisations long-term success. The concept is fairly simple to grasp, but not necessarily easy to implement.
One of the challenges is that emotional connections can be difficult to define and measure and are prone to shift in response to changes in the work environment. More confounding is that these relations are influenced by multiple variables (line management relationships, organizational mission and values, workload, peer relationships, etc.).
Add to this the cost/resource challenges created by the worst recession since the Great Depression and the fact that EE is reliant on discretionary budgets and EE as a business strategy can quickly become a “nice to have” in the good times.
These challenges aside, engagement as a strategy is not only important, but vital, especially in a climate of economic uncertainty, to the long-term viability of most business enterprises. According to a proprietary report just completed by the University of Akron’s Centre for Organizational Research, engaged employees tend to:
- Be more satisfied with their jobs
- Be more likely to stay with their employer even when other opportunities emerge
- Be more tolerant of (perceived) temporary economic hardships due to the economy
- Bring a consistently higher level of commitment, creativity and energy to their jobs
- Demonstrate higher levels of “good citizenship” behaviours both at and away from work
As a general rule, it’s safe to say that most employees are not engaged with their employers right now. In fact, the most recent Conference Board survey in the US found that only 45% of employees currently report being satisfied with their jobs (the lowest since the survey was started in 1987). As many as 60% indicate that they plan to actively seek new employment sometime in 2010.
Can Employee engagement really be reserved as “nice to do” strategy for when times are good? Employees are smart and quickly spot insincerity. In tough times, resorting to push communication cloaked in the trappings of engagement is like washing the car and then parking it under a tree full of pigeons.

April 19th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Thanks, Ian for an interesting post. A few comments:
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.