The Power of Employee Engagement ‘What We Do Makes a Difference!’ TEM Conference August 2006 Robyn Clark Professional & Organisational Development Consultant The Centre for Professional Development Macquarie University

“These cannot be the two miners, they are on their feet they are hugging their wives. This is the most incredible thing I have ever seen, these blokes are on their feet, in their mine gear, they’ve tagged off – Frances can you absolutely believe what you're seeing?” Tim Cox, ABC Tasmania Mornings presenter. “It’s what I would have expected of these two boys.” Beaconsfield Uniting Church minister, Rev. Frances Seen

Engagement? (SMH 9/5/2006 pg 5) from a worker involved in the Beaconsfield mine rescue: "I've never seen a bunch of guys work harder or better...There's guys you might not have thought much of as workers, blokes who when they got down the hole only wanted to get out again. Not any more. They come and they want to do more and more...They're just committed. Same with bosses upstairs. Its brought out the best in everyone."

Presentation outline Compare & contrast definitions of employee engagement Employee engagement in Higher Education Higher Education employee surveys - data Discuss the implications for Leaders in Higher Education – using a reframing model

What is Employee Engagement?  ‘the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organisation, how hard they work, and how long they stay as a result of that commitment’ (The Corporate Leadership Council )  ‘employee passion, representing the popular construct of employee engagement and three subcomponents of organisation commitment, job satisfaction and intention to stay’ (Dr P Langford, MQ 2006)

Characteristics of Employee Engagement –‘ feeling valued for actions –commitment to something or someone in the organisation, and how long they stay as a result of that commitment –loyal employees (versus satisfied employees) stay because they want to –emotionally and intellectually committed to the organisation as measured by three primary behaviours: Say, Stay, Strive –discretionary effort in the form of brainpower, extra time and energy.’ Source: DDI Talent Management Conference 2006

What is discretionary effort? Predicted/expected performance Current performance Performance gap/ additional effort required

What is discretionary effort? difference between how well people actually perform and how well they are capable of performing. wholly within the control of the employee Collaboration required between employees & the organisation to capture additional level of effort and performance

Employee engagement = Discretionary effort? According to May, Gibson & Harter (2004), ‘for the human spirit to thrive at work, individuals must be able to completely immerse themselves in their work. That is they must be able to engage the cognitive, emotional & physical dimensions of themselves in their work.’

Engage Employees and Boost Performance Engaged workers exert more “discretionary effort.” Go beyond meeting the minimum standards for their job. Discretionary effort separates great performers from average performers. (The Hay Group, December 2001.)

Managers can increase the engagement of their employees by: –offering tangible rewards, –ensuring quality of work, –promoting work/life balance (or flexibility), –acknowledging values, –creating an enabling environment and, –providing growth opportunities (The Hay Group, December 2001.)

Does salary level impact engagement? Lower paid workers – motivated by the quality of treatment they receive from their immediate manager Want fair performance evaluations and compensation. Higher paid employees – want prestige are motivated by recognition for their contributions, the image of their organisation, career advancement, departmental collaboration and training in new skills. (Management Issues, 2005)

Disengagement? May, et al (2004) describe this as ‘lack of meaning in one’s work that can lead to alienation or ‘disengagement’ from one’s work.’ results in a largely unproductive workforce & will impact competitive advantage.

Cost of disengagement Gallup survey 2006 of 1,500 Australian workers: 20% actively disengaged at work costs the economy an estimated $31.5 billion per year. Causes identified – not receiving praise or recognition for doing good work –Lack of open & honest communication

Higher Education context Sectoral issues: Corporatising universities Commercialisation Productivity & efficiency Changes to work practices Changes to work climate Competitive market – private providers, etc Szekeres,J. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 2006

Definition of Employee Engagement in Higher Education? Is it necessary to be different? Individual goals aligned to organisational goals Values respected yet sometimes challenged

Academic freedom? Impact on Engagement ‘Academic freedom is the discovery and dissemination of knowledge – what university researchers and teachers are employed to do’ ‘duty to engage in the process of uncovering and transmitting knowledge’ = clear purpose of role Draft Senate Statement on Academic Freedom, Macquarie University July 2006

Data source Voice Project Data from over 10,000 employees across more than 700 organisations. Employee surveys

Employee Engagement in Higher Education Using the data from Voice Project: 7 Higher Education institutions 8419 staff (2500 academic & 4500 general – some did not nominate) Surveys over last 3 years Database of organisations - sample representative of the Australian economy

Griffith Voice “Your Voice!” Staff Survey Response  Employee Surveys

Voice Project Outcome measures P assion P urpose P articipation P rogress P roperty P eople P eace 7 P’s

Voice Project measure: Passion Job Satisfaction –My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment –I like the kind of work I do –Overall I am satisfied with my job –76% of all university staff surveyed are favourable/satisfied about their job (better than 71% of all organisations surveyed n=1003) –No significant difference between Academic (78%) and General Staff (76%)

Organisational commitment: –I feel a sense of loyalty and commitment to this org/uni –I am proud to tell people that I work for this uni –I feel emotionally attached to this uni –I am willing to put in extra effort for this uni –71% of all university staff surveyed are favourable about their organisation – not their discipline –(better than 59% of all organisations surveyed n=1003)

Intention to stay: –I am likely to still be working here in 2 years time –I would like to be still working here in 5 years –I can see a future for me at this uni. –63% of all university staff surveyed are favourable about staying with their organisation –(better than 77% or ¾ of all organisations surveyed n=1003) –Staff want to stay but indicated a need to improve participation – only 49% favourable

Universities – All Staff

Strategies to improve Improve Participation: –Performance appraisal –Learning & development –Participation & involvement –Rewards & recognition –Supervision –Leadership –Communication & cooperation –Recruitment & selection

Macquarie University actions Your Say Response rate 74%

What is Macquarie University doing? Improve ‘Participation’ outcomes: –Performance Development System & individual KPI’s –Participation & involvement –Reward & recognition system

What else is MQ doing? –Supervision & leadership development programs –Increased institutional communication & cooperation –Recruitment & selection procedure changes –New staff advertised

Organisational framing Bolman & Deal (1997) developed a tool to view issues or challenges in an organisation Look across all four frames for ways to improve & maintain employee engagement Variety of frames

Frames through which we can understand organisations STRUCTURALHUMAN RESOURCE (reporting lines, accountabilities)(needs, skills, issues) CULTURAL (values, beliefs, norms) POLITICAL (power bases, decision making protocols)

STRUCTURAL Pay & benefits Communication processes Roles aligned to talent Clarity of reporting lines Renew organisational systems HUMAN Professional development Individual motivators – reward & recognition schemes Defined outcomes - KPIs Autonomy & Innovation CULTURAL Attitudes and behaviours Values – respect differences Symbols – Town Hall meetings, VC website Rituals – committees POLITICAL Sources of power – expert, positional, personal networks Decision-making forums - EBA Informal lines of influence - networks

Conclusion Higher Education has some clear challenges Organisations value employee commitment Effective and ongoing organisational communication Recognition of the ‘whole person’

Presentation outline Compare & contrast definitions of employee engagement Employee engagement in Higher Education Higher Education employee surveys data Discuss the implications for Leaders in Higher Education – using a reframing model