Engagement has been described as a hallmark of a successful business, but a recent poll found that only 32 percent of workers are engaged.
Engagement is a goal for many organizations. In the January 2018 issue of Forbes, it’s described as a hallmark of a successful business, a cultural cornerstone that reduces the risk of turnover while enhancing product quality, process quality and customer satisfaction.
Unfortunately, the same story also cites a Gallup poll from 2017 that found only 32 percent of workers are engaged, i.e., “involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace.”
The majority are disengaged, a problem that management consultant and bestselling author Tom Peters has also noted.
When developing strategies for engagement, though, it’s important to remember that engagement can go wrong. Enthusiasm for sports teams or political parties can become so driven by passion that judgment is clouded, and intense engagement in online social groups communities of practice can devolve into anger and name calling. Trolls on Twitter, for example, are highly engaged -- but this is clearly not the kind of behavior organizations would ideally like to model or promote.
Cult members also typically are highly committed and engaged -- in the most extreme cases, this engagement can be life-or-death. Heaven’s Gate in 1997 and Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple in Guyana in 1978 are two of the more tragic examples.
How can an organization protect against “bad engagement”? Evan Czaplicki (creator of the programming language Elm) reflected on this problem in the open source software development community. For years, open source has been plagued by highly engaged community members who interact with one another unconstructively, ultimately damaging the feelings of trust and cohesion that would help community members meet their goals.
Some of his recommendations to promote “good engagement” by steering away from the bad include:
- Limiting the number of characters people have to respond with
- Limiting the types of interactions that are possible, e.g. upvoting or downvoting content
- Making it possible for people to express intent with their statements or comments
- Helping people identify and communicate their priorities as part of the exchange (e.g. simplicity vs. extensibility, freedom vs. community building)
For more hints and tip join our Intelex Engagement Group at http://bit.ly/2KCkmML
Czaplicki, E. (2018, September 27-28). The Hard Parts of Open Source. Strange Loop Conference. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4EX4dPppA&t=3s Kappel, M. (2018, January 4).
How To Establish A Culture Of Employee Engagement. Forbes. Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikekappel/2018/01/04/how-to-establish-a-cu...
About the Author: Nicole Radziwill Quality Practice Lead
Nicole Radziwill is the Quality Practice Lead at Intelex Technologies. Before Intelex, she was an Associate Professor of Data Science and Production Systems, Assistant Director (VP) End-to-End Operations at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), and manager and consultant for several other organizations since the late 1990's bringing quality management to technologically-oriented operations. She is a Fellow of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) with a Ph.D. in Quality Systems from Indiana State University. Nicole serves as Editor of Software Quality Professional (SQP) journal and is a former Chair of the ASQ Software Division. She is an ASQ Certified Manager of Quality and Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE) and Certified Six Sigma Black Belt (CSSBB).
This material provided by the Intelex Community and EHSQ Alliance is for informational purposes only. The material may include notification of regulatory activity, regulatory explanation and interpretation, policies and procedures, and best practices and guidelines that are intended to educate and inform you with regard to EHSQ topics of general interest. Opinions are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Intelex. The material is intended solely as guidance and you are responsible for any determination of whether the material meets your needs. Furthermore, you are responsible for complying with all relevant and applicable regulations. We are not responsible for any damage or loss, direct or indirect, arising out of or resulting from your selection or use of the materials.