I’m very pleased to share with you the following guest post by David Burkus over at The Leader Lab. David hosts my guest posts at his site and it is high time I reciprocated the honor. Thanks, David!
Quantum physics and employee engagement share a common dilemma: measurement is tricky. Quantum entanglement represents the paradox that when two systems have interacted, measuring one will inevitably bring both into a state of collapse. Erwin Schrodinger related this bizarre phenomenon to the analogy of a cat in a sealed box where the cat’s life is dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. The particle may or may not have collapsed, but opening the box to check (measurement) would certainly collapse the particle and kill the cat. (I’m allergic to cats and so have always been attracted to this theorem). Since the state of the particle, and the cat, cannot be verified without destroying both, the cat must be said to be both alive and dead. Measurement is impossible, since curiosity truly kills the cat.
What does any of this have to do with engagement?
Consultants and academics alike swoon at the concept of employee engagement. Some view it as a salve for burnout; others as a tried formula for developing the most productive workforce. However, just like Schrodinger’s cat, measurement is tricky. The most common predictor of engagement is the Q12, developed and licensed by the Gallop Organization. This twelve question survey measures elements of the work environment that predict engagement, but does not measure engagement itself. A newer instrument, which I lovingly call the E18 measures engagement itself, but is still not exempt from a basic human truth: people lie.
Suppose you don’t believe your survey results are actually confidential. Would you admit to being bored, burned out and ineffective at work? Or, suppose measurement is being used as an assessment of your manager. If you like your manager (or your job), you’ll magically be engaged (on paper) when you might actually be experiencing burnout. My favorite: suppose this is the second or third time you’ve been given the Q12. You’ll likely score yourself as more engaged in the hopes of being exempt from future surveys and the management interventions that follow.
None of these scenarios actually help to improve the engagement of people in an organization. Moreover, frequently measuring the levels of engagement in a workforce is likely to create an annoyance and decrease engagement itself.
Perhaps curiosity kills engagement as well.
David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab, a community of resources dedicated to promoting the practice of leadership theory. He is an executive coach, a sought-after speaker and an adjunct professor of business at several universities. He can be reached at david@davidburkus.com.
Related Posts:
Emotional Intelligence At Work: Choose And Apply Your Measure Carefully
You should follow me on twitter here.
And here I thought at times employee engagement had gone to the dogs but now the cat may be gone! Thoughtful points. Thanks.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Welcome back, David! Engagement is a very important concept. Skeptical discussion can only make it better. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
davidburkus Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 10:12 am
No it’s definitely cats, alive/dead cats at that. Thanks for the comment David. I’m a big fan of your work organizing the Employee Engagement Network.
[Reply]
This also rises another point in quantum the 2 slit experiment (similar to the cat).
Once the measurements are taken they fall into expected patterns, when the measurements are not taken they fall into a wave sequence. The wave sequence is more probable than the expected patterns. Self-assessment, engagement surveys, even anecdotal interviews where people speak their “truth” are impacted by the observer created reality.
[Reply]
davidburkus Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the comment Michael. You’re exactly right. The problem of measurement is that most often it is affected by the measurers.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Welcome, Michael. The wave sequence stuff is above my head, but you are certainly correct that most social science measurement are influenced by observer created reality. It’s a messy science. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]
Yes. I have faced many similar situations. But I rescue the findings of research by putting one short line at the end of research paper: “Responses collected are subject to limitations of the instrument to precisely measure human thoughts/behavior!”
-Anshul
[Reply]
davidburkus Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Thanks for the comment Anshul. I love that recognition in the Academy; but from a consulting perspectives, there has to be a better way.
[Reply]
I love this post and totally agree with its dose of realism. I have long suspected that the hype about engaged employees is just a talisman at best, and a means to assign blame at worst.
As a developer of training programs, I know that the link between learner engagement and training effectiveness is real, and I also know that measuring and/or eliciting self-reporting of engagement is too tricky to yield bullet-proof results, that is, a couple of s conclusive doubt-proof.
I would much rather pay attention to developing training programs based on respect the trainees appeal to the whole personevaluate learning retention and
[Reply]
davidburkus Reply:
December 6th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Thanks for the comment Elizabeth. I believe engagement is a real phenomenon and that engaged employees are generally more productive. However, I don’t believe that we can base the success of a training program or consulting intervention on measurements like the Q12. Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely selling consulting services.
[Reply]
Elizabeth Rickert Reply:
December 6th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
(Hey I got cut off mid-rant, here’s the unscrambled conclusion!)
What I meant to say is, a couple of squeaky wheels in an evaluation survey can skew the whole group, making it hard to get conclusive, doubt-proof findings.
I would much rather pay attention (and devote energy) to developing training programs based on respect for the trainees, frame trainings in ways that appeal to the whole person (not treat the person as an object), and then evaluate learning retention instead of engagement (and get engagement feedback in the process).
In my experience, if employees are treated with kindness and respect, they are much more likely to be engaged.
But of course it’s a little like the chicken and the egg, because in the process of learning how to treat employees with kindness and respect, employers tend to gain a lot of insight into how to build an engaging environment.
I like to say, “A healthy organization breeds engagement; an unhealthy one breeds detachment.”
Maybe instead of trying to measure intangible qualities such as engagement in the workplace, we need to spend our energy on consistently delivering tangible good workplace experiences that foster engagement in the first place.
Whew! Hope that is unscrambled enough. A very worthwhile topic for further thought.
[Reply]
davidburkus Reply:
December 6th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I like your quote “A healthy organization breeds engagement; an unhealthy one breeds detachment.”I may steal that from you.
[Reply]
Bret L. Simmons Reply:
December 6th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Welcome back, Elizabeth. As an educator, I too know the link between engagement and learning is real. The problem as I see it is the responsibility for engagement. Anyone that is waiting around for someone else to engage them is shirking their responsibility and making a big mistake. Engagement is everyone’s responsibility. Thanks! Bret
[Reply]