Description
Employee engagement is the connection people feel to their work that results in higher levels of performance, commitment and loyalty. Given these positive results, there is a lot of interest in current levels of employee engagement, and ways in which engagement can be increased.
PAGE 1 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Psychometrics Canada Ltd. 1-800-661-5158 www.psychometrics.com
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Control, Opportunity & Leadership
A Study of Employee Engagement in the Canadian Workplace
PAGE 2 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Contents
Introduction.....................................................................
The Research...................................................................
Executive Summary..........................................................
Section 1: The Engagement Problem..............................
Section 2: Increasing Engagement..................................
Who is Responsible?..................................................
Section 3: Organizational Focus on Engagement............
Section 4: Personal Ratings of Engagement....................
Section 5: Age and Engagement....................................
Highest Rated In?uences on Engagement..................
Lowest Rated In?uences on Engagement...................
Section 6: Who Are the Disengaged?.............................
Section 7: Business Sector and Engagement...................
Engagement Ratings for Survey Respondents
from Each Sector........................................................
Organizational Investment in Engagement.................
Section 8: Impact of Engagement Training......................
Section 9: Gender and Engagement...............................
Conclusions.....................................................................
3
3
4
6
11
12
14
16
18
19
19
20
22
23
23
25
27
29
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 3 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Introduction
Employee engagement is the connection people feel to their work that results in higher levels
of performance, commitment and loyalty. Given these positive results, there is a lot of interest in
current levels of employee engagement, and ways in which engagement can be increased.
At Psychometrics Canada, our motivation to study workforce engagement was multifaceted. We
were curious to know the answers to these questions:
• Is engagement a problem in Canadian organizations?
• What are the results of engagement?
• What happens when people are disengaged?
• Who is responsible for employee engagement?
• What can organizations do to improve engagement?
• What do organizations do that builds disengagement?
The results of this engagement study surprised us at times. The indication that engaged and
disengaged employees desire the same things from their work was not what we expected. The
positive impact and value of as little as one engagement-focused training event was startling.
Other ?ndings simply reiterated things we commonly talk about. Repeatedly we hear that
increasing communication and giving people control over their work builds engagement. We
heard that again in this research.
For human resources (HR) professionals, the results of this survey have two main uses. First, they
can help HR professionals make the argument for why training that focuses on engagement
makes sense. Second, the results show who and what should be targeted by the training.
The Research
In December 2010 we surveyed 368 Canadian HR professionals working in business,
government, consulting, education and not-for-pro?t organizations. As professionals with a great
deal of familiarity with employees’ experiences at work, they provided a valuable perspective on
workplace engagement.
PAGE 4 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Executive Summary
Employee engagement is best described by its results. Engaged employees demonstrate higher
levels of performance, commitment and loyalty. Disengaged employees do not. Given most or-
ganizations’ strong focus on performance, employee engagement has become a popular topic.
Our survey of Canadian HR professionals indicates that, along with its popularity, engagement
is problematic and very important.
The majority (69%) indicated that engagement is a problem in their organizations. Eighty-two
per cent said that it is very important that their organizations address employee engagement.
In fact, less than half of one per cent felt that engagement was not an important issue for their
organization.
The bene?ts of engaged employees are found in a number of organizational measures. HR
professionals responded that some of the most common results are a willingness to do more
than expected (39%), higher productivity (27%), better working relationships (13%) and more
satis?ed customers (10%). The advantage of engagement goes beyond better communication;
it directly affects the production and ef?ciency of an organization.
Disengaged employees also affect the output of their organizations. Survey respondents indi-
cated that the most common results of disengagement were dysfunctional work relationships
(29%), lower productivity (25%) and an unwillingness to go beyond the job description (17%).
A startling ?nding was that disengaged employees do not quit in droves or fail to show up for
work. Turnover (8%) and absences (7%) were among the lower rated results of disengage-
ment. It appears that the disengaged do not leave their organizations; instead they stay and
damage both productivity and relationships.
To increase engagement, HR professionals rated the following as the most effective: control
over how a person does their work, opportunities to use their skills, and good relationships
with management and leadership. Because engagement is driven by the work environment
and processes, it can only be affected by those with in?uence over them. These people are an
organization’s leaders. The vast majority of our survey respondents (84%) indicated that senior
leaders and managers are primarily responsible for employee engagement. Fair or not, it ap-
pears that it is not up to employees to engage themselves, but up to organizations to engage
their employees.
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 5 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
When asked what leaders could do more of to improve engagement, respondents endorsed
these actions:
• Communicate clear expectations
• Listen to employees’ opinions
• Give recognition
Driving engagement requires adjusting work environments and processes. This is the realm and
responsibility of leadership, and it is leaders who bear the initial burden. From initially matching
a person’s skills to the job requirements, to communicating clear expectations and recognizing
a job well done, leadership begins and sustains employee engagement.
There are also signi?cant bene?ts to be gained from training that focuses on engagement. In
organizations that provide engagement training, the percentage of engaged employees rises
by more than 10%, and the proportion that see engagement as a problem drops by 20%.
E XE CUTI VE S UMMARY
71%
62%
52%
PAGE 6 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 1: The Engagement Problem
If you type “employee engagement” into Google you will receive more than 2 million results.
In 2010, there were more than 3,000 news articles about engagement. Given the vast amount
that has been written, one could assume that employee engagement—or the lack thereof—is
a terrible problem. One of the primary goals of this study was to test the hypothesis that a
lack of engagement is real, and has real consequences. HR professionals are in a position in
organizations that provides them with a good view into the activity of employees. This view
gives them insight into whether or not engagement is a problem, and how important it is for
organizations to address.
Is employee engagement a problem in your organization?
Almost seven out of 10 professionals indicated that engagement is a problem in their orga-
nizations. Given the diverse work sectors of the survey respondents, this is a striking number.
It overwhelmingly indicates that engagement, and the lack thereof, is seen as a signi?cant
concern.
“
I am at the point in my
career where I am tired of
trying to push ahead and
have become complacent
and if it wasn’t for the
pension I would be looking
for other work.
”
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
69%
No
31%
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 7 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
There are some differences between work environments. Those working in government and
business sectors were most likely to identify engagement as a problem; people in education
and not-for-pro?t organizations saw it as less so. Our survey was not able to identify why these
differences exist between different work sectors, but it does indicate that those working in
government and business have a greater problem on their hands. It may be that larger orga-
nizations have environments that are not as conducive to engagement, or that not-for-pro?ts
provide some unique bene?ts that boost engagement. That is not to say, however, that those
in the consulting, education and not-for-pro?t sectors have a free ride. The majority of people
in all organizations identify engagement as a problematic issue.
Percentage of Respondents From Each Business Sector Who Identi?ed
Engagement as a Problem
• Government
• Business
• Consulting
• Education
• Not for Pro?t
How important is it for organizations to address
employee engagement?
0 20 40 60 80 100
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
82.3%
13.8%
2.9%
0.5%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
80.3%
74.4%
66.3%
64.2%
54.2%
PAGE 8 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
A large number of professionals see engagement as a problem—a problem that is very impor-
tant for organizations to address. More than 96% of respondents rated addressing employee
engagement as important or very important. Less than half of one per cent saw engagement
as an issue of no importance. These results leave no doubt that HR professionals view em-
ployee engagement as a key issue.
In the survey, participants were asked, “Considering the people you work with on a daily basis,
what percentage would you say are engaged?”
Distribution of worker engagement
The chart above shows the percentage of employee engagement chosen by respondents.
For example, 1.9% of the respondents indicated that 20% of people they interact with are
engaged, while 22.3% of the respondents said that 80% of the people they work with are
engaged.
Most survey respondents indicated that the majority of people they work with are engaged.
A weighted average (calculated by dividing the sum of all the ratings by the total number
of responses) places the average rate of engaged employees at 65%. It also indicates that
a signi?cant portion of the working population is not engaged. Those answering the survey
indicated that this disengaged group is 35% of the workforce, almost four out of 10 people.
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
i
i
i
i
i
t
t
t
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.8%
1.9%
6.5% 6.5%
13.1%
13.6%
21.3%
22.3%
10.9%
3%
% of Respondents
“
Management gives
“lip service” and says it
listens, but it does not.
Do as you are told is
business as usual which
contributes to higher levels
of turnoverand overall
job dissatisfaction.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 9 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Willingness to do more than expected
Higher productivity
Better working relationships
These results show that many HR professionals see engagement as a problem. They also
indicate that engagement is very important to address. Finally, HR professionals also identify
signi?cant levels of disengagement in the people with whom they work.
To clarify the importance of workforce engagement, we wanted to identify the bene?ts that
arise from engaged employees. The most common outcomes are a willingness of engaged
employees to do more than expected, and higher productivity. With productivity being a key
indicator of work performance, survey respondents indicated that engagement has a profound
impact on organizational performance.
What is the most common result on engaged employees?
More satis?ed customers
Greater loyalty to the organization
Improved communication
Less turnover
Fewer absences
38.8%
26.6%
12.7%
9.5%
7.6%
2.1%
1.3%
1%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
“
I really enjoy my job.
I have autonomy, receive
challenging projects, have
a great team and good
working relationships
with others in the
organization.
”
PAGE 10 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Dysfunctional work relationships
Lower productivity
Unwillingness to go beyond job description
Higher turnover
More absences
Frustrated customers
Poor communication
Disloyalty
17.3%
25%
29%
7.8%
6.7%
6.2%
4%
3.5%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
The highest rated result of disengaged employees was dysfunctional work relationships, with
29% of professionals identifying this as the most common result of disengagement. This was
closely followed by lower productivity (25%) and an unwillingness to go beyond their job de-
scription (17%). Seventy-one per cent of the effects of disengaged employees are covered by
these three results: poor relationships, poor productivity, and poor attitudes.
Turnover and absences followed in a distant fourth and ?fth position. What is startling is that
disengaged employees generally show up for work and stick with the job. The striking problem
is that while on the job they are less productive, poison relationships and have little interest in
working beyond their speci?ed responsibilities. The challenge for organizations is that disen-
gaged employees do not have higher turnover rates or absences; instead, they stay with the
organization and disrupt the work environment. Like a rotten apple in a barrel, the disengaged
spoil the good things around them.
What is the most common result of disengaged employees?
“
I could go on but why
bother, I’m out of here in
8 months and although I
like my job and the people I
work with I am disillusioned
with the corporation.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 11 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Positive work relationships
Good ?t between person’s skills and job requirements
Regular feedback on employee performance
Opportunities to learn new skills
Giving employees greater control over their work
Celebrating progress
Communicating the direction/strategy of the organization
Access to a role model/mentor
Bonuses and ?nancial awards
Salary and bene?ts
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3
2.5
2.5
4%
1 = Not Effective
2 = Somewhat Effective
3 = Effective
4 = Very Effective
0 1 2 3 4
Section 2: Increasing Engagement
With engagement seen as a signi?cant problem, we wanted to know what type of activities
best increase employee engagement. We asked HR professionals to rate the effectiveness of 10
work-related issues at helping engage people. The top rated were having a work environment
that builds positive relationships and ensuring a good ?t between a person’s skills and his or
her job requirements. Having a good work atmosphere where people are able to do what they
do best was ranked as very effective in terms of increasing engagement.
The lowest rated areas were salary and bene?ts, and bonuses and ?nancial awards. These were
rated as somewhat effective to effective at increasing engagement. It is important to note that,
although these are the lowest rated, HR professionals do see these direct ?nancial incentives
playing a role. What is interesting is that they are not seen as the most effective. Salary and
?nancial rewards can be put in place to increase engagement, but they are certainly not the
only requirement for an engaged workforce. Instead, work relationships, opportunities to
use skills and learn new ones, feedback and communication play a stronger role in increasing
engagement.
How effective are the following at increasing
employee engagement?
“
Engagement happens
when staff feel in control
of their situation and can
make decisions about
the way in which work
is completed.
• Lead with integrity.
• Cheer for your employees.
• Expect a lot from them.
• Hire the right person into
the right position.
• Pay close attention to
human dynamics in the
workplace.
• Guard against negativity.
”
PAGE 12 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Managers
50%
Employees
15.9%
Senior Leaders
34.1%
Who is Resposible?
When asked who shares the most responsibility for engagement, half of the HR professionals
selected management, and a third identi?ed senior leadership. Only a minority of 15.9% indicated
that employees are primarily responsible for their own engagement. Fair or not, the great majority
of respondents indicated that engaging employees is the responsibility of those who can in?uence
the organization’s work environment and processes. It is a question of organizations engaging em-
ployees, not employees engaging themselves.
Who is primarily responsible for engagement?
SECTI ON 2: I NCRE AS I NG E NGAGE ME NT
“
Work with middle
management. They have
the daily interactions with
the greatest number of
employees. They need to
be chosen very wisely.
”
“
I have a new manager
that is over bearing and
never wrong. I have gone
from very engaged to
somewhat because of her
attitude.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 13 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Given this identi?ed responsibility, there are things that leaders can do more of to improve employee
engagement. The two highest rated recommendations for leaders were to listen to their employees’
opinions (70.4%), and communicate clear expectations (67.6%). Much further down the list
were helping ?nd solutions (38.9%) and defending their direct reports (15.0%). It does not seem
surprising that increasing engagement will require leaders to listen to their employees’ ideas and
clearly communicate what is expected of them. Yet the vast majority of respondents indicated
that these are things leaders need to do more of. This information contains both good and bad
news. The good news is that better communication is not particularly costly, yet goes a long way in
engaging employees. The bad news is that this is something we have known for a long time, yet
leaders still struggle with it.
These recommendations for leaders hold true across all work sectors. In business, government,
consulting, education and not-for-pro?t organizations, respondents rated communicating clear
expectations and listening to employees’ opinions as the top things leaders can do to improve
engagement.
SECTI ON 2: I NCRE AS I NG E NGAGE ME NT
What could leaders do more of to improve
employee engagement?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Listen to employees’ opinions
Communicate clear expectations
Give recognition and praise
Provide learning and development opportunities
Help ?nd solutions to problems
Defend direct reports
70.4%
67.6%
58.0%
56.4%
38.9%
15.0%
“
Communicate to people
about the changes that
are happening and listen
to their perspectives and
opinions about integrating
the changes.
”
“
It is unfortunate that
most senior leaders and
managers don’t get the
connection between
increased employee
engagement and increased
productivity. They are too
focused on the bottom line
and getting work done
that they don’t invest in
employee engagement on
a regular basis.
”
PAGE 14 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 3: Organizational Focus on Engagement
With the costs of disengagement, and the frequent recognition about the bene?ts of engaged
employees, we wanted to know how organizations focused on the topic and worked to make
improvements. Survey respondents indicated that the majority of organizations (55.8%) do not
measure engagement. However, a signi?cantly minority (44.2%) do assess the engagement level
of their employees.
Does your organization measure employee engagement?
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
44.2%
No
55.8%
“
What is not measured
cannot be increased!
And you cannot manage
and improve what is not
measured. So Measuring
Engagement and Taking
Action is key!
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 15 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
41%
No
59%
Never 28.2%
Sometimes 24.4%
(2 to 4 times a year)
Rarely 42.5%
(Once a year)
Often 4.9%
(More than 5 times a year)
SECTI ON 3: ORGANI ZATI ONAL F OCUS ON E NGAGE ME NT
In a similar breakdown, the percentage of organizations that directly address employee
engagement is also in the mid-40% range. These ?ndings indicate that 60% of organizations
do not focus on engagement directly, but they may implement other changes and training
that affect engagement.
Does your organization address employee engagement directly?
How often does training on how to engage employees take place
in your organization?
The amount of training taking place in organizations is quite varied. Twenty-eight per cent
of organizations conduct no training on how to improve engagement, and 42.5% provide
training once a year at the most. Given the overwhelming response that engagement is a
problem, it is somewhat surprising that less than 30% of organizations provide engagement
training more than once a year.
“
We didn’t think about
it until one of our team
failed to follow through
in a big way over several
months, and refused to
take responsibility for it.
While this employee was
not performing and the
administration was not
acting, the job went from
wonderful to stressful.
”
PAGE 16 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Engaged
57.5%
Not Engaged
4.7%
Somewhat Engaged
37.3%
Actively Disengaged
1.1%
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Dissatis?ed
1%
Very Satis?ed
44%
Dissatis?ed
12%
Section 4: Personal Ratings of Engagement
As part of our research we were interested in the engagement level of survey respondents. We
also wanted to know what HR professionals rated as having the greatest impact on their work
engagement.
How would you rank your level of work engagement?
The vast majority of respondents indicated that they were somewhat or very engaged in
their work. Only slightly more than 5% of people noted that they were not engaged or were
actively disengaged.
How satis?ed are you with your current role?
Not surprisingly, the majority of respondents rated themselves as satis?ed or very satis?ed
with their current role. Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between work
engagement and work satisfaction.
Satis?ed
43%
“
My engagement is
slipping quickly due to
being under-utilized, and
with no scope to enhance
the work I am delivering.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 17 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Control over how you do your work
Opportunities to use your skills
Good relationships with management/leadership
Mentally stimulating work
Good relationships with co-workers
Opportunities to develop new skills
Potential for career advancement
Salary & bene?ts
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.3
2.8
2.4
1 = Not In?uential
2 = Somewhat In?uential
3 = In?uential
4 = Very In?uential
In what is a very engaged and satis?ed group of respondents, it is interesting to know what
in?uences their engagement the most. Highest ranked was control over how to do their work
and opportunities to use their skills. This was closely followed by good relationships with man-
agement and leaders of the organization as well as mentally stimulating work. The things rated
lowest in terms of their in?uence on engagement were salary and bene?ts, and the potential
for career advancement. For survey respondents, ?nancial rewards and advancement are not as
engaging.
Rate the in?uence the following have on your
work engagement.
SECTI ON 4: PE RS ONAL RATI NGS OF E NGAGE ME NT
0 1 2 3 4
“
Although I am new
to my organization (7
months), I have already
been able to contribute my
expertise and skills beyond
my job description.
”
PAGE 18 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 5: Age and Engagement
A key part of the study was to examine whether there were age differences in level of en-
gagement and work satisfaction. Although there was some variation in engagement levels,
respondents in each of the different age groups were quite similar. The vast majority described
themselves as engaged, and only a small proportion said they were not engaged or were
actively disengaged.
Age Group
Somewhat to
Very Engaged
Not Engaged
18–29 93.3% 6.7%
30–39 91.7% 8.3%
40–49 92.7% 7.3%
50–59 96.4% 3.6%
60+ 94.1% 5.9%
Satisfaction levels showed a greater variation between age groups, with those aged 30 to 39
reporting the highest levels of satisfaction with their current roles. People whose age fell be-
tween 40 and 49 years reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with their current activities.
In fact, people aged 40 to 49 were three times as likely to be dissatis?ed as those aged 30 to
39. If we were to ignore the group of people in the 18- to 29-year-old range because of their
small number, it appears that dissatisfaction peaks at age 40 to 49 and then decreases. This is
not a longitudinal study, so we cannot know whether those currently aged 40 to 49 will ?nd
their work satisfaction increasing as they get older. However, this age group does report higher
levels of dissatisfaction than any other. This could be due to generational differences or the
typical work situation of those in this age range.
Age Group
Satis?ed to
Very Satis?ed
Dissatis?ed
18–29 86.7% 13.3%
30–39 93.8% 6.2%
40–49 82.0% 18.0%
50–59 85.5% 14.5%
60+ 90.4% 9.6%
“
Supervisor doesn’t
listen to my suggestions
or appears intimidated by
good ideas from others. As
a result, I don’t even bother
giving my suggestions
anymore because they
don’t get considered.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 19 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 5: AGE AND E NGAGE ME NT
We also examined whether age had any impact on what people rated as most in?uential to
their work engagement. Results from each age group were quite similar, with the largest differ-
ences coming from those aged 18 to 29. For this group, the opportunity to develop new skills
was very in?uential, as were relationships with both co-workers and management. This is not
surprising, given that people starting in their careers would ?nd the opportunities to learn and
develop more rewarding than those further down their career paths.
Highest Rated In?uences on Engagement
Age Group
18–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+
Relationships with
co-workers
Control over work Control over work Control over work Opportunities to
use skills
Relationships with
management
Relationships with
management
Opportunities to
use skills
Opportunities to
use skills
Control over work
Opportunities to
use skills
Stimulating work Relationships with
co-workers
Stimulating work Stimulating work
Opportunities to
develop new skills
Opportunities to
use skills
Stimulating work Relationships with
management
Relationships with
management
The lowest rated in?uence on engagement for all age groups was salary and bene?ts. This
does not mean that these ?nancial incentives are not in?uential, but simply that people from
each age group identi?ed them as the least in?uential of the things listed. Whereas the areas
listed in the table above were all rated as in?uential to very in?uential, salary and bene?ts were
ranked by each age group as only somewhat in?uential. The second area, career advancement,
was also given the same rank by everyone except those in the youngest age group. Career
advancement had less in?uence on engagement for older workers, whereas control over work
was rated as less in?uential by younger employees. This may simply re?ect recognition of their
current work status; when beginning a career, expecting to have control over much of your
work is unrealistic. People in the older age groups listed control over their work as one of the
most in?uential things for their engagement.
Lowest Rated In?uences on Engagement
Age Group
18–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+
Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts
Control over work Career
advancement
Career
advancement
Career
advancement
Career
advancement
So what can be made of the lower rating of salary and bene?ts? They undoubtedly play a
role in keeping employees engaged. However, there are things beyond ?nancial rewards that
organizations can focus on to improve engagement. Positive relationships with management,
and giving people greater control over their work, are both highly rated and do not come with
the same costs as increasing salaries. Indeed, study after study has shown that people rate
micromanaging as one of the things they dislike most.
“
I get disengaged
when my manager omits
information, leaves me
in the dark, is wrong and
doesn’t admit it or re-does
work rather than giving me
feedback.
”
PAGE 20 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 1 2 3 4
Section 6: Who Are the Disengaged?
A portion of our respondents rated themselves as not engaged or actively disengaged. These
people did not see themselves as proactive participants in their organizations. We wanted to
know what interventions would best in?uence their engagement, and what they would look
for from their organization’s leaders.
Rate the in?uence the following have on your
work engagement.
The three highest rated in?uences for the disengaged were control over their work, opportuni-
ties to use their skills, and positive relationships with the management and leadership of their
organization. In essence, this provides the road map for re-engaging employees who have
pulled back from the organization. Giving employees greater freedom over how they conduct
their work and allowing them to use the skills they have developed are seen as very in?uential in
building engagement. Managers and leaders also need to foster good relationships within the
organization, as this too plays a signi?cant role in building engagement and reaping its bene?ts.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Control over how you do your work
Opportunities to use your skills
Good relationships with management/leadership
Mentally stimulating work
Good relationships with co-workers
Opportunities to develop new skills
Potential for career advancement
Salary & bene?ts
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.52
3.43
3.43
2.19
3.33
1 = Not In?uential
2 = Somewhat In?uential
3 = In?uential
4 = Very In?uential
“
The disengaged
people around me are
the ones who’ve been
personally hurt, discip-
lined, overlooked for
awards, or unappreciated.
Engagement seems to be
largely a function of feeling
in control and feeling
appreciated.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 21 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
The key ?nding from this analysis is that disengaged and engaged people rated the same things
as in?uential. The disengaged are not looking for anything above and beyond what engaged
people look for. This means that engaging those employees who have fallen by the wayside
does not require any different types of interventions. Instead, organizations can focus on the
same types of activities and positively in?uence both disengaged and engaged employees.
So what are these things that leaders can do? By far the two biggest things for the disengaged
are clear communication and listening. These just so happen to be what engaged people rate
as the highest as well.
Disengaged employees are no different in their needs or desires from those who are engaged
at work. The disengaged do not require a different type of motivation, or a different relation-
ship with the organization’s leadership. Instead, they want the same four things that engaged
people say they want:
1. Control over their work
2. Opportunity to use their skills
3. Clear expectations
4. Opportunity to share their ideas and opinions
SECTI ON 6: WHO ARE THE DI S E NGAGE D?
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
What could leaders do more of to improve
employee engagement?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Communicate clear expectations
Listen to employees’ opinions
Give recognition and praise
Help ?nd solutions to problems
Defend direct reports
71.4%
61.9%
42.9%
52.4%
42.9%
28.6% 15%
Provide learning and development opportunities
“
Strong, clear and truthful
communication from senior
management. Don’t just
tell employees what you
think we want to hear. Tell
them the truth. Things are
tough. Decisions are tough.
Money is tight. Trust them
to stand together to help.
”
“
Make better hires and
ensure that there is a great
deal of ?t between the
employee and the job.
”
“
I believe that people
want to work and want to
do good work. Leaders who
understand this and create
an environment that allows
people to do their best
work will have the most
engaged employees.
”
PAGE 22 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 7: Business Sector and Engagement
Respondents to our survey work in ?ve sectors: business, government, consulting, education,
and not for pro?t. Given the diverse work activities, values and goals of these different sectors,
we were interested to see whether any aspects of engagement differed between them. These
aspects included the engagement level of people, the things that best in?uence engagement,
the levels of investment, and the requirements of leaders in each sector.
What percentage of people that you work with are engaged?
The proportion of engaged people was relatively similar across work sectors. Yet people
working in not-for-pro?t organizations said the highest majority of their colleagues were
engaged (72%), whereas those in government reported the lowest rate of engagement among
their colleagues (61%). A 10% difference may not seem that large; however, considering the
number of people in the workforce, the proportion of employees who are disengaged is startling.
When asked about the effectiveness of different ways to increase engagement, professionals
across all work sectors ranked positive work relationships the highest, and bonuses and ?nan-
cial awards the lowest. When asked what had the strongest impact on their own engagement,
respondents from every sector except consulting listed having control over how they do their
work (Consulting-sector employees rated opportunities to use their skills as the highest). Of the
choices in the survey, respondents from all sectors indicated that salary and bene?ts had the
least in?uence.
What percentage of people that you work with are engaged?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Not for Pro?t
Education
Consulting
Government
71.5%
67.1%
63.4%
66.1%
61.3%
Business
*The percentage is a weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings
by the number of total responses.
“
Allow the staff to have
full reign within a structure.
Give them the opportu-
nity to make the decisions,
whether correct or not, and
walk with them through
the process of learning.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 23 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 7: BUS I NE S S S E CTOR AND E NGAGE ME NT
Engagement Ratings for Survey Respondents From Each Sector
Work Sector
People Who Are Somewhat
to Very Engaged
Business 91.5%
Government 93.0%
Consulting 97.4%
Education 93.8%
Not for Pro?t 95.7%
Organizational Investment in Engagement
Along with differences in employee engagement across work environments come varied
amounts of investment in work engagement. Business and government organizations are the
most active in measuring employee engagement. More than half of business and government
employee respondents indicated that their organizations evaluate the engagement levels of
employees, whereas only a third of those working in education or not-for-pro?t organizations
could say the same.
Organizational Investment in Engagement
Percentage of organizations that measure employee engagement
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Business
Government
Consulting
Education
58.4%
50.7%
33.3%
44.1%
31.1%
Not for Pro?t
PAGE 24 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Of course, measuring the engagement of employees does not mean much if nothing is
done with that information. We wanted to know what percentage of organizations not
only measured engagement, but also actively directed efforts to improve it. When it comes
to addressing engagement, business organizations are the most active. Fifty-?ve per cent of
business respondents indicated that their organization focuses directly on improving worker
engagement. The numbers fall to the 44% to 45% level for consulting and government
organizations, to 34% for not-for-pro?t groups, and to 23% for educational institutions.
Percentage or organizations that address
employee engagement directly
A recurring theme was that business and government groups tend to invest more resources
into measuring engagement and focusing on it directly. However, the engagement levels of
their employees are actually rated as slightly worse than those of people working in consulting,
education and not-for-pro?t organizations.
This brings up a number of questions:
• Why do business and government spend more time and effort on workforce engagement
and yet have lower levels of engagement?
• Would their results be worse if they removed all engagement interventions?
• Do their engagement efforts actually have little impact on employees’ connection to
their work?
SECTI ON 7: BUS I NE S S S E CTOR AND E NGAGE ME NT
Percentage of organizations that address employee
engagement directly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Business
Consulting
Government
Education
55.1%
45%
34%
43.9%
23%
Not for Pro?t
“
I have been responsible
for running our Engage-
ment Surveys for the
past few years and I’m
astounded at what is
learned versus what is
discussed openly with our
employees. Employees
aren’t stupid, they know
that when they never hear
back about their feedback
or actions to be taken, that
the company “doesn’t really
care about them”.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 25 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 8: Impact of Engagement Training
Engagement is de?nitely seen by the vast majority of our survey respondents as a problem that
needs to be addressed. Many organizations have invested time and resources into measuring
engagement, conducting engagement interventions and training their staff on how to engage
others. The key question is, does this investment make any difference?
To shed some light on this issue, we split our respondent group into four categories based on the
amount of engagement training provided by their organizations. We then looked at their levels
of engagement and satisfaction.
Percentage of respondents who said engagement is a problem in organizations that
• never have training: 74%
• have training once a year: 75%
• have training two to four times a year: 55%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 61%
In organizations that provide training two to four times a year, the percentage of people who see
engagement as a problem drops by 20%.
Percentage of engaged employees in organizations that
• never have training: 60%
• have training once a year: 65%
• have training two to four times a year: 71%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 69%
In organizations that provide more frequent engagement training, the percentage of engaged
employees rises by more than 10%.
Percentage of respondents who rated themselves as very engaged in organizations that
• never have training: 48%
• have training once a year: 60%
• have training two to four times a year: 61%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 61%
In organizations that have some engagement training during the year, 12% more people
describe themselves as very engaged than the percentage in organizations that never have
engagement-focused training.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
“
If you say that you value
and want to hear employee
suggestions and ideas, then
give employees feedback
on ?nal decisions. They
need to know what was
considered and why some-
thing is feasible or not.
”
PAGE 26 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 8: I MPACT OF E NGAGE ME NT TRAI NI NG
Percentage of respondents who rated themselves as very satis?ed in organizations that
• never have training: 32%
• have training once a year: 45%
• have training two to four times a year: 49%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 56%
Differences in satisfaction ratings are even more dramatic. As the amount of training opportuni-
ties increases in an organization, the reported levels of employees who are very satis?ed steadily
increases. Even with only one engagement training intervention a year, the percentage of people
who rate themselves as very satis?ed increases from 32% to 45%.
Training focused on how to engage employees in organizations has a positive effect. Levels of
workforce engagement and satisfaction are reportedly higher in those organizations that provide
training. The proportion of people who are very engaged in their work increases dramatically,
and the amount of engagement problems decreases by a signi?cant amount.
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 27 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 9: Gender and Engagement
The interaction between gender and engagement is something that we also wanted to
examine. We wanted to see whether there were differences in engagement and satisfaction
levels, and also whether recommendations for how to increase engagement varied by gender.
How would you rank your level of work engagement?
In terms of engagement rankings, male and female respondents to the survey were remarkably
similar. As shown in the ?gure above, males and females had a nearly identical distribution of
their rating of engagement.
Very Engaged
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
d
a
s
d
d
a
s
d
f
s
d
f
N
o
,
n
e
v
e
r
Y
e
s
,
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
y
Y
e
s
,
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
Somewhat Engaged Not Engaged Actively Disengaged
Males Females
58.5%
37.2%
3.2%
0%
1.5%
5.2%
36.8%
55.8%
“
Sometimes, the
employee who voiced
the idea is not given
credit nor are they
invited to participate
on implementing
their suggestion, and
they are not provided
with feedback on the
feasibility/timelines of
suggestions.
”
PAGE 28 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
How satis?ed are you with your current role?
Levels of satisfaction were also quite similar between gender groups. In fact, when looking at
those who reported being very satis?ed or satis?ed, the difference between males at 84.1%
and females at 86.6% is negligible.
When it comes to things that leaders can do to improve engagement, the top two for both
genders were listening to employees’ opinions and communicating clear expectations. Females
did place a somewhat higher value than males on providing recognition and praise. However,
when ranking leadership engagement activities, males and females identi?ed the same key
variables as important and not important. For all respondents, communication and listening
were rated as important, whereas helping ?nd solutions and defending direct reports were
considered much less important.
Finally, when it comes to what most in?uences people’s engagement, both males and females
rated having control over how they do their work, and opportunities to use their skills, as the
most in?uential. In terms of what has the least in?uence, members of each gender identi?ed
career advancement and salary and bene?ts.
Very Satis?ed
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
d
a
s
d
d
a
s
d
f
s
d
f
N
o
,
n
e
v
e
r
Y
e
s
,
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
y
Y
e
s
,
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
Satis?ed Dissatis?ed Very Dissatis?ed
Males Females
44.7%
39.4%
16%
0%
1.9%
11.2%
45%
41.6%
SECTI ON 9: GE NDE R AND E NGAGE ME NT
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 29 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Conclusions
Employee engagement is problematic. The results from the survey show this beyond any
doubt. When employees are engaged, they demonstrate higher levels of performance and
commitment, and improved work relationships. When they are disengaged, productivity
suffers and relationships between employees can become dysfunctional. Whether engaged
or disengaged, employees generally stay with their organizations, having either a positive or
negative impact.
Increasing engagement is a multifaceted challenge, but there are a number of common
themes. One, provide people with greater control over how they do their work. Two, give
employees opportunities to use their skills. Three, build better communication and relationships
between management and staff. These themes remain constant; they are identi?ed by
engaged and disengaged employees, males and females, and all generations.
Driving engagement requires adjusting our work environments and processes. This is the
realm and responsibility of leadership, and it is leaders who bear the initial burden. More
than eight out of 10 respondents indicate that senior leaders and managers are the ones to
increase engagement. From initially matching a person’s skills to the job requirements, to
communicating clear expectations, to recognizing a job well done, leadership begins and
sustains employee engagement.
Yet there is also reason for hope in these results. With increased communication, less
micromanaging, and greater responsibilities for employees, employee engagement makes
leaps forward. Organizations with training on how to increase engagement show much
improvement compared with those with no training, even when that training is infrequent. It
does not have to take much to get started and realize some bene?ts of increased engagement.
Top Tips for Driving Engagement
1. Build positive work relationships.
2. Ensure a good ?t between people’s skills and their job requirements.
3. Provide regular feedback on performance.
4. Give opportunities to learn new skills.
5. Give employees greater control over their work: stop micromanaging.
6. Celebrate progress and recognize employees’ accomplishments.
7. Share information: communicate the direction and strategy of the organization.
8. Give employees the opportunity to share their ideas.
PAGE 30 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Psychometrics Canada
Psychometrics Canada has been providing assessment tools and consulting services for the devel-
opment and selection of people in business, government and education for over 30 years. Our
expertise is in applying business psychology in the areas of personal and leadership development,
team building, con?ict resolution, employee selection and skills and performance assessment.
Our client list of more than 5000 organizations includes 84 of the top 100 companies in Canada.
These clients use our assessment products and services to identify the strengths and potential of
people - better enabling these individuals to work together, complete projects, plan their careers
and lead others.
Psychometrics Canada Ltd. 1-800-661-5158 www.psychometrics.com
For more information on this study contact Shawn Bakker:
1-800-661-5158 ext. 238 or [email protected]
© 2011 Psychometrics Canada Ltd.
MBTI and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The MBTI Certi?cation
Program is of?cially recognized by CPP as a qualifying program to administer and interpret the MBTI instrument. Strong Interest Inventory
®
,
FIRO-B
®
, CPI 260
™
, CPI
™
434 are registered trademarks of CPP, Inc.
doc_143155555.pdf
Employee engagement is the connection people feel to their work that results in higher levels of performance, commitment and loyalty. Given these positive results, there is a lot of interest in current levels of employee engagement, and ways in which engagement can be increased.
PAGE 1 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Psychometrics Canada Ltd. 1-800-661-5158 www.psychometrics.com
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Control, Opportunity & Leadership
A Study of Employee Engagement in the Canadian Workplace
PAGE 2 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Contents
Introduction.....................................................................
The Research...................................................................
Executive Summary..........................................................
Section 1: The Engagement Problem..............................
Section 2: Increasing Engagement..................................
Who is Responsible?..................................................
Section 3: Organizational Focus on Engagement............
Section 4: Personal Ratings of Engagement....................
Section 5: Age and Engagement....................................
Highest Rated In?uences on Engagement..................
Lowest Rated In?uences on Engagement...................
Section 6: Who Are the Disengaged?.............................
Section 7: Business Sector and Engagement...................
Engagement Ratings for Survey Respondents
from Each Sector........................................................
Organizational Investment in Engagement.................
Section 8: Impact of Engagement Training......................
Section 9: Gender and Engagement...............................
Conclusions.....................................................................
3
3
4
6
11
12
14
16
18
19
19
20
22
23
23
25
27
29
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 3 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Introduction
Employee engagement is the connection people feel to their work that results in higher levels
of performance, commitment and loyalty. Given these positive results, there is a lot of interest in
current levels of employee engagement, and ways in which engagement can be increased.
At Psychometrics Canada, our motivation to study workforce engagement was multifaceted. We
were curious to know the answers to these questions:
• Is engagement a problem in Canadian organizations?
• What are the results of engagement?
• What happens when people are disengaged?
• Who is responsible for employee engagement?
• What can organizations do to improve engagement?
• What do organizations do that builds disengagement?
The results of this engagement study surprised us at times. The indication that engaged and
disengaged employees desire the same things from their work was not what we expected. The
positive impact and value of as little as one engagement-focused training event was startling.
Other ?ndings simply reiterated things we commonly talk about. Repeatedly we hear that
increasing communication and giving people control over their work builds engagement. We
heard that again in this research.
For human resources (HR) professionals, the results of this survey have two main uses. First, they
can help HR professionals make the argument for why training that focuses on engagement
makes sense. Second, the results show who and what should be targeted by the training.
The Research
In December 2010 we surveyed 368 Canadian HR professionals working in business,
government, consulting, education and not-for-pro?t organizations. As professionals with a great
deal of familiarity with employees’ experiences at work, they provided a valuable perspective on
workplace engagement.
PAGE 4 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Executive Summary
Employee engagement is best described by its results. Engaged employees demonstrate higher
levels of performance, commitment and loyalty. Disengaged employees do not. Given most or-
ganizations’ strong focus on performance, employee engagement has become a popular topic.
Our survey of Canadian HR professionals indicates that, along with its popularity, engagement
is problematic and very important.
The majority (69%) indicated that engagement is a problem in their organizations. Eighty-two
per cent said that it is very important that their organizations address employee engagement.
In fact, less than half of one per cent felt that engagement was not an important issue for their
organization.
The bene?ts of engaged employees are found in a number of organizational measures. HR
professionals responded that some of the most common results are a willingness to do more
than expected (39%), higher productivity (27%), better working relationships (13%) and more
satis?ed customers (10%). The advantage of engagement goes beyond better communication;
it directly affects the production and ef?ciency of an organization.
Disengaged employees also affect the output of their organizations. Survey respondents indi-
cated that the most common results of disengagement were dysfunctional work relationships
(29%), lower productivity (25%) and an unwillingness to go beyond the job description (17%).
A startling ?nding was that disengaged employees do not quit in droves or fail to show up for
work. Turnover (8%) and absences (7%) were among the lower rated results of disengage-
ment. It appears that the disengaged do not leave their organizations; instead they stay and
damage both productivity and relationships.
To increase engagement, HR professionals rated the following as the most effective: control
over how a person does their work, opportunities to use their skills, and good relationships
with management and leadership. Because engagement is driven by the work environment
and processes, it can only be affected by those with in?uence over them. These people are an
organization’s leaders. The vast majority of our survey respondents (84%) indicated that senior
leaders and managers are primarily responsible for employee engagement. Fair or not, it ap-
pears that it is not up to employees to engage themselves, but up to organizations to engage
their employees.
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 5 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
When asked what leaders could do more of to improve engagement, respondents endorsed
these actions:
• Communicate clear expectations
• Listen to employees’ opinions
• Give recognition
Driving engagement requires adjusting work environments and processes. This is the realm and
responsibility of leadership, and it is leaders who bear the initial burden. From initially matching
a person’s skills to the job requirements, to communicating clear expectations and recognizing
a job well done, leadership begins and sustains employee engagement.
There are also signi?cant bene?ts to be gained from training that focuses on engagement. In
organizations that provide engagement training, the percentage of engaged employees rises
by more than 10%, and the proportion that see engagement as a problem drops by 20%.
E XE CUTI VE S UMMARY
71%
62%
52%
PAGE 6 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 1: The Engagement Problem
If you type “employee engagement” into Google you will receive more than 2 million results.
In 2010, there were more than 3,000 news articles about engagement. Given the vast amount
that has been written, one could assume that employee engagement—or the lack thereof—is
a terrible problem. One of the primary goals of this study was to test the hypothesis that a
lack of engagement is real, and has real consequences. HR professionals are in a position in
organizations that provides them with a good view into the activity of employees. This view
gives them insight into whether or not engagement is a problem, and how important it is for
organizations to address.
Is employee engagement a problem in your organization?
Almost seven out of 10 professionals indicated that engagement is a problem in their orga-
nizations. Given the diverse work sectors of the survey respondents, this is a striking number.
It overwhelmingly indicates that engagement, and the lack thereof, is seen as a signi?cant
concern.
“
I am at the point in my
career where I am tired of
trying to push ahead and
have become complacent
and if it wasn’t for the
pension I would be looking
for other work.
”
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
69%
No
31%
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 7 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
There are some differences between work environments. Those working in government and
business sectors were most likely to identify engagement as a problem; people in education
and not-for-pro?t organizations saw it as less so. Our survey was not able to identify why these
differences exist between different work sectors, but it does indicate that those working in
government and business have a greater problem on their hands. It may be that larger orga-
nizations have environments that are not as conducive to engagement, or that not-for-pro?ts
provide some unique bene?ts that boost engagement. That is not to say, however, that those
in the consulting, education and not-for-pro?t sectors have a free ride. The majority of people
in all organizations identify engagement as a problematic issue.
Percentage of Respondents From Each Business Sector Who Identi?ed
Engagement as a Problem
• Government
• Business
• Consulting
• Education
• Not for Pro?t
How important is it for organizations to address
employee engagement?
0 20 40 60 80 100
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Important
Important
Somewhat Important
Not Important
82.3%
13.8%
2.9%
0.5%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
80.3%
74.4%
66.3%
64.2%
54.2%
PAGE 8 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
A large number of professionals see engagement as a problem—a problem that is very impor-
tant for organizations to address. More than 96% of respondents rated addressing employee
engagement as important or very important. Less than half of one per cent saw engagement
as an issue of no importance. These results leave no doubt that HR professionals view em-
ployee engagement as a key issue.
In the survey, participants were asked, “Considering the people you work with on a daily basis,
what percentage would you say are engaged?”
Distribution of worker engagement
The chart above shows the percentage of employee engagement chosen by respondents.
For example, 1.9% of the respondents indicated that 20% of people they interact with are
engaged, while 22.3% of the respondents said that 80% of the people they work with are
engaged.
Most survey respondents indicated that the majority of people they work with are engaged.
A weighted average (calculated by dividing the sum of all the ratings by the total number
of responses) places the average rate of engaged employees at 65%. It also indicates that
a signi?cant portion of the working population is not engaged. Those answering the survey
indicated that this disengaged group is 35% of the workforce, almost four out of 10 people.
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
i
i
i
i
i
t
t
t
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0.8%
1.9%
6.5% 6.5%
13.1%
13.6%
21.3%
22.3%
10.9%
3%
% of Respondents
“
Management gives
“lip service” and says it
listens, but it does not.
Do as you are told is
business as usual which
contributes to higher levels
of turnoverand overall
job dissatisfaction.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 9 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Willingness to do more than expected
Higher productivity
Better working relationships
These results show that many HR professionals see engagement as a problem. They also
indicate that engagement is very important to address. Finally, HR professionals also identify
signi?cant levels of disengagement in the people with whom they work.
To clarify the importance of workforce engagement, we wanted to identify the bene?ts that
arise from engaged employees. The most common outcomes are a willingness of engaged
employees to do more than expected, and higher productivity. With productivity being a key
indicator of work performance, survey respondents indicated that engagement has a profound
impact on organizational performance.
What is the most common result on engaged employees?
More satis?ed customers
Greater loyalty to the organization
Improved communication
Less turnover
Fewer absences
38.8%
26.6%
12.7%
9.5%
7.6%
2.1%
1.3%
1%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
“
I really enjoy my job.
I have autonomy, receive
challenging projects, have
a great team and good
working relationships
with others in the
organization.
”
PAGE 10 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Dysfunctional work relationships
Lower productivity
Unwillingness to go beyond job description
Higher turnover
More absences
Frustrated customers
Poor communication
Disloyalty
17.3%
25%
29%
7.8%
6.7%
6.2%
4%
3.5%
SECTI ON 1: THE E NGAGE ME NT PROBL E M
The highest rated result of disengaged employees was dysfunctional work relationships, with
29% of professionals identifying this as the most common result of disengagement. This was
closely followed by lower productivity (25%) and an unwillingness to go beyond their job de-
scription (17%). Seventy-one per cent of the effects of disengaged employees are covered by
these three results: poor relationships, poor productivity, and poor attitudes.
Turnover and absences followed in a distant fourth and ?fth position. What is startling is that
disengaged employees generally show up for work and stick with the job. The striking problem
is that while on the job they are less productive, poison relationships and have little interest in
working beyond their speci?ed responsibilities. The challenge for organizations is that disen-
gaged employees do not have higher turnover rates or absences; instead, they stay with the
organization and disrupt the work environment. Like a rotten apple in a barrel, the disengaged
spoil the good things around them.
What is the most common result of disengaged employees?
“
I could go on but why
bother, I’m out of here in
8 months and although I
like my job and the people I
work with I am disillusioned
with the corporation.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 11 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Positive work relationships
Good ?t between person’s skills and job requirements
Regular feedback on employee performance
Opportunities to learn new skills
Giving employees greater control over their work
Celebrating progress
Communicating the direction/strategy of the organization
Access to a role model/mentor
Bonuses and ?nancial awards
Salary and bene?ts
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3
2.5
2.5
4%
1 = Not Effective
2 = Somewhat Effective
3 = Effective
4 = Very Effective
0 1 2 3 4
Section 2: Increasing Engagement
With engagement seen as a signi?cant problem, we wanted to know what type of activities
best increase employee engagement. We asked HR professionals to rate the effectiveness of 10
work-related issues at helping engage people. The top rated were having a work environment
that builds positive relationships and ensuring a good ?t between a person’s skills and his or
her job requirements. Having a good work atmosphere where people are able to do what they
do best was ranked as very effective in terms of increasing engagement.
The lowest rated areas were salary and bene?ts, and bonuses and ?nancial awards. These were
rated as somewhat effective to effective at increasing engagement. It is important to note that,
although these are the lowest rated, HR professionals do see these direct ?nancial incentives
playing a role. What is interesting is that they are not seen as the most effective. Salary and
?nancial rewards can be put in place to increase engagement, but they are certainly not the
only requirement for an engaged workforce. Instead, work relationships, opportunities to
use skills and learn new ones, feedback and communication play a stronger role in increasing
engagement.
How effective are the following at increasing
employee engagement?
“
Engagement happens
when staff feel in control
of their situation and can
make decisions about
the way in which work
is completed.
• Lead with integrity.
• Cheer for your employees.
• Expect a lot from them.
• Hire the right person into
the right position.
• Pay close attention to
human dynamics in the
workplace.
• Guard against negativity.
”
PAGE 12 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Managers
50%
Employees
15.9%
Senior Leaders
34.1%
Who is Resposible?
When asked who shares the most responsibility for engagement, half of the HR professionals
selected management, and a third identi?ed senior leadership. Only a minority of 15.9% indicated
that employees are primarily responsible for their own engagement. Fair or not, the great majority
of respondents indicated that engaging employees is the responsibility of those who can in?uence
the organization’s work environment and processes. It is a question of organizations engaging em-
ployees, not employees engaging themselves.
Who is primarily responsible for engagement?
SECTI ON 2: I NCRE AS I NG E NGAGE ME NT
“
Work with middle
management. They have
the daily interactions with
the greatest number of
employees. They need to
be chosen very wisely.
”
“
I have a new manager
that is over bearing and
never wrong. I have gone
from very engaged to
somewhat because of her
attitude.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 13 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Given this identi?ed responsibility, there are things that leaders can do more of to improve employee
engagement. The two highest rated recommendations for leaders were to listen to their employees’
opinions (70.4%), and communicate clear expectations (67.6%). Much further down the list
were helping ?nd solutions (38.9%) and defending their direct reports (15.0%). It does not seem
surprising that increasing engagement will require leaders to listen to their employees’ ideas and
clearly communicate what is expected of them. Yet the vast majority of respondents indicated
that these are things leaders need to do more of. This information contains both good and bad
news. The good news is that better communication is not particularly costly, yet goes a long way in
engaging employees. The bad news is that this is something we have known for a long time, yet
leaders still struggle with it.
These recommendations for leaders hold true across all work sectors. In business, government,
consulting, education and not-for-pro?t organizations, respondents rated communicating clear
expectations and listening to employees’ opinions as the top things leaders can do to improve
engagement.
SECTI ON 2: I NCRE AS I NG E NGAGE ME NT
What could leaders do more of to improve
employee engagement?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Listen to employees’ opinions
Communicate clear expectations
Give recognition and praise
Provide learning and development opportunities
Help ?nd solutions to problems
Defend direct reports
70.4%
67.6%
58.0%
56.4%
38.9%
15.0%
“
Communicate to people
about the changes that
are happening and listen
to their perspectives and
opinions about integrating
the changes.
”
“
It is unfortunate that
most senior leaders and
managers don’t get the
connection between
increased employee
engagement and increased
productivity. They are too
focused on the bottom line
and getting work done
that they don’t invest in
employee engagement on
a regular basis.
”
PAGE 14 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 3: Organizational Focus on Engagement
With the costs of disengagement, and the frequent recognition about the bene?ts of engaged
employees, we wanted to know how organizations focused on the topic and worked to make
improvements. Survey respondents indicated that the majority of organizations (55.8%) do not
measure engagement. However, a signi?cantly minority (44.2%) do assess the engagement level
of their employees.
Does your organization measure employee engagement?
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
44.2%
No
55.8%
“
What is not measured
cannot be increased!
And you cannot manage
and improve what is not
measured. So Measuring
Engagement and Taking
Action is key!
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 15 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Yes
41%
No
59%
Never 28.2%
Sometimes 24.4%
(2 to 4 times a year)
Rarely 42.5%
(Once a year)
Often 4.9%
(More than 5 times a year)
SECTI ON 3: ORGANI ZATI ONAL F OCUS ON E NGAGE ME NT
In a similar breakdown, the percentage of organizations that directly address employee
engagement is also in the mid-40% range. These ?ndings indicate that 60% of organizations
do not focus on engagement directly, but they may implement other changes and training
that affect engagement.
Does your organization address employee engagement directly?
How often does training on how to engage employees take place
in your organization?
The amount of training taking place in organizations is quite varied. Twenty-eight per cent
of organizations conduct no training on how to improve engagement, and 42.5% provide
training once a year at the most. Given the overwhelming response that engagement is a
problem, it is somewhat surprising that less than 30% of organizations provide engagement
training more than once a year.
“
We didn’t think about
it until one of our team
failed to follow through
in a big way over several
months, and refused to
take responsibility for it.
While this employee was
not performing and the
administration was not
acting, the job went from
wonderful to stressful.
”
PAGE 16 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Engaged
57.5%
Not Engaged
4.7%
Somewhat Engaged
37.3%
Actively Disengaged
1.1%
Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Very Dissatis?ed
1%
Very Satis?ed
44%
Dissatis?ed
12%
Section 4: Personal Ratings of Engagement
As part of our research we were interested in the engagement level of survey respondents. We
also wanted to know what HR professionals rated as having the greatest impact on their work
engagement.
How would you rank your level of work engagement?
The vast majority of respondents indicated that they were somewhat or very engaged in
their work. Only slightly more than 5% of people noted that they were not engaged or were
actively disengaged.
How satis?ed are you with your current role?
Not surprisingly, the majority of respondents rated themselves as satis?ed or very satis?ed
with their current role. Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between work
engagement and work satisfaction.
Satis?ed
43%
“
My engagement is
slipping quickly due to
being under-utilized, and
with no scope to enhance
the work I am delivering.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 17 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Control over how you do your work
Opportunities to use your skills
Good relationships with management/leadership
Mentally stimulating work
Good relationships with co-workers
Opportunities to develop new skills
Potential for career advancement
Salary & bene?ts
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.3
2.8
2.4
1 = Not In?uential
2 = Somewhat In?uential
3 = In?uential
4 = Very In?uential
In what is a very engaged and satis?ed group of respondents, it is interesting to know what
in?uences their engagement the most. Highest ranked was control over how to do their work
and opportunities to use their skills. This was closely followed by good relationships with man-
agement and leaders of the organization as well as mentally stimulating work. The things rated
lowest in terms of their in?uence on engagement were salary and bene?ts, and the potential
for career advancement. For survey respondents, ?nancial rewards and advancement are not as
engaging.
Rate the in?uence the following have on your
work engagement.
SECTI ON 4: PE RS ONAL RATI NGS OF E NGAGE ME NT
0 1 2 3 4
“
Although I am new
to my organization (7
months), I have already
been able to contribute my
expertise and skills beyond
my job description.
”
PAGE 18 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 5: Age and Engagement
A key part of the study was to examine whether there were age differences in level of en-
gagement and work satisfaction. Although there was some variation in engagement levels,
respondents in each of the different age groups were quite similar. The vast majority described
themselves as engaged, and only a small proportion said they were not engaged or were
actively disengaged.
Age Group
Somewhat to
Very Engaged
Not Engaged
18–29 93.3% 6.7%
30–39 91.7% 8.3%
40–49 92.7% 7.3%
50–59 96.4% 3.6%
60+ 94.1% 5.9%
Satisfaction levels showed a greater variation between age groups, with those aged 30 to 39
reporting the highest levels of satisfaction with their current roles. People whose age fell be-
tween 40 and 49 years reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with their current activities.
In fact, people aged 40 to 49 were three times as likely to be dissatis?ed as those aged 30 to
39. If we were to ignore the group of people in the 18- to 29-year-old range because of their
small number, it appears that dissatisfaction peaks at age 40 to 49 and then decreases. This is
not a longitudinal study, so we cannot know whether those currently aged 40 to 49 will ?nd
their work satisfaction increasing as they get older. However, this age group does report higher
levels of dissatisfaction than any other. This could be due to generational differences or the
typical work situation of those in this age range.
Age Group
Satis?ed to
Very Satis?ed
Dissatis?ed
18–29 86.7% 13.3%
30–39 93.8% 6.2%
40–49 82.0% 18.0%
50–59 85.5% 14.5%
60+ 90.4% 9.6%
“
Supervisor doesn’t
listen to my suggestions
or appears intimidated by
good ideas from others. As
a result, I don’t even bother
giving my suggestions
anymore because they
don’t get considered.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 19 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 5: AGE AND E NGAGE ME NT
We also examined whether age had any impact on what people rated as most in?uential to
their work engagement. Results from each age group were quite similar, with the largest differ-
ences coming from those aged 18 to 29. For this group, the opportunity to develop new skills
was very in?uential, as were relationships with both co-workers and management. This is not
surprising, given that people starting in their careers would ?nd the opportunities to learn and
develop more rewarding than those further down their career paths.
Highest Rated In?uences on Engagement
Age Group
18–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+
Relationships with
co-workers
Control over work Control over work Control over work Opportunities to
use skills
Relationships with
management
Relationships with
management
Opportunities to
use skills
Opportunities to
use skills
Control over work
Opportunities to
use skills
Stimulating work Relationships with
co-workers
Stimulating work Stimulating work
Opportunities to
develop new skills
Opportunities to
use skills
Stimulating work Relationships with
management
Relationships with
management
The lowest rated in?uence on engagement for all age groups was salary and bene?ts. This
does not mean that these ?nancial incentives are not in?uential, but simply that people from
each age group identi?ed them as the least in?uential of the things listed. Whereas the areas
listed in the table above were all rated as in?uential to very in?uential, salary and bene?ts were
ranked by each age group as only somewhat in?uential. The second area, career advancement,
was also given the same rank by everyone except those in the youngest age group. Career
advancement had less in?uence on engagement for older workers, whereas control over work
was rated as less in?uential by younger employees. This may simply re?ect recognition of their
current work status; when beginning a career, expecting to have control over much of your
work is unrealistic. People in the older age groups listed control over their work as one of the
most in?uential things for their engagement.
Lowest Rated In?uences on Engagement
Age Group
18–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+
Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts Salary & bene?ts
Control over work Career
advancement
Career
advancement
Career
advancement
Career
advancement
So what can be made of the lower rating of salary and bene?ts? They undoubtedly play a
role in keeping employees engaged. However, there are things beyond ?nancial rewards that
organizations can focus on to improve engagement. Positive relationships with management,
and giving people greater control over their work, are both highly rated and do not come with
the same costs as increasing salaries. Indeed, study after study has shown that people rate
micromanaging as one of the things they dislike most.
“
I get disengaged
when my manager omits
information, leaves me
in the dark, is wrong and
doesn’t admit it or re-does
work rather than giving me
feedback.
”
PAGE 20 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
0 1 2 3 4
Section 6: Who Are the Disengaged?
A portion of our respondents rated themselves as not engaged or actively disengaged. These
people did not see themselves as proactive participants in their organizations. We wanted to
know what interventions would best in?uence their engagement, and what they would look
for from their organization’s leaders.
Rate the in?uence the following have on your
work engagement.
The three highest rated in?uences for the disengaged were control over their work, opportuni-
ties to use their skills, and positive relationships with the management and leadership of their
organization. In essence, this provides the road map for re-engaging employees who have
pulled back from the organization. Giving employees greater freedom over how they conduct
their work and allowing them to use the skills they have developed are seen as very in?uential in
building engagement. Managers and leaders also need to foster good relationships within the
organization, as this too plays a signi?cant role in building engagement and reaping its bene?ts.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
Control over how you do your work
Opportunities to use your skills
Good relationships with management/leadership
Mentally stimulating work
Good relationships with co-workers
Opportunities to develop new skills
Potential for career advancement
Salary & bene?ts
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.52
3.43
3.43
2.19
3.33
1 = Not In?uential
2 = Somewhat In?uential
3 = In?uential
4 = Very In?uential
“
The disengaged
people around me are
the ones who’ve been
personally hurt, discip-
lined, overlooked for
awards, or unappreciated.
Engagement seems to be
largely a function of feeling
in control and feeling
appreciated.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 21 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
The key ?nding from this analysis is that disengaged and engaged people rated the same things
as in?uential. The disengaged are not looking for anything above and beyond what engaged
people look for. This means that engaging those employees who have fallen by the wayside
does not require any different types of interventions. Instead, organizations can focus on the
same types of activities and positively in?uence both disengaged and engaged employees.
So what are these things that leaders can do? By far the two biggest things for the disengaged
are clear communication and listening. These just so happen to be what engaged people rate
as the highest as well.
Disengaged employees are no different in their needs or desires from those who are engaged
at work. The disengaged do not require a different type of motivation, or a different relation-
ship with the organization’s leadership. Instead, they want the same four things that engaged
people say they want:
1. Control over their work
2. Opportunity to use their skills
3. Clear expectations
4. Opportunity to share their ideas and opinions
SECTI ON 6: WHO ARE THE DI S E NGAGE D?
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
i i i i i t t t Yes, always
What could leaders do more of to improve
employee engagement?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Communicate clear expectations
Listen to employees’ opinions
Give recognition and praise
Help ?nd solutions to problems
Defend direct reports
71.4%
61.9%
42.9%
52.4%
42.9%
28.6% 15%
Provide learning and development opportunities
“
Strong, clear and truthful
communication from senior
management. Don’t just
tell employees what you
think we want to hear. Tell
them the truth. Things are
tough. Decisions are tough.
Money is tight. Trust them
to stand together to help.
”
“
Make better hires and
ensure that there is a great
deal of ?t between the
employee and the job.
”
“
I believe that people
want to work and want to
do good work. Leaders who
understand this and create
an environment that allows
people to do their best
work will have the most
engaged employees.
”
PAGE 22 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 7: Business Sector and Engagement
Respondents to our survey work in ?ve sectors: business, government, consulting, education,
and not for pro?t. Given the diverse work activities, values and goals of these different sectors,
we were interested to see whether any aspects of engagement differed between them. These
aspects included the engagement level of people, the things that best in?uence engagement,
the levels of investment, and the requirements of leaders in each sector.
What percentage of people that you work with are engaged?
The proportion of engaged people was relatively similar across work sectors. Yet people
working in not-for-pro?t organizations said the highest majority of their colleagues were
engaged (72%), whereas those in government reported the lowest rate of engagement among
their colleagues (61%). A 10% difference may not seem that large; however, considering the
number of people in the workforce, the proportion of employees who are disengaged is startling.
When asked about the effectiveness of different ways to increase engagement, professionals
across all work sectors ranked positive work relationships the highest, and bonuses and ?nan-
cial awards the lowest. When asked what had the strongest impact on their own engagement,
respondents from every sector except consulting listed having control over how they do their
work (Consulting-sector employees rated opportunities to use their skills as the highest). Of the
choices in the survey, respondents from all sectors indicated that salary and bene?ts had the
least in?uence.
What percentage of people that you work with are engaged?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Not for Pro?t
Education
Consulting
Government
71.5%
67.1%
63.4%
66.1%
61.3%
Business
*The percentage is a weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings
by the number of total responses.
“
Allow the staff to have
full reign within a structure.
Give them the opportu-
nity to make the decisions,
whether correct or not, and
walk with them through
the process of learning.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 23 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 7: BUS I NE S S S E CTOR AND E NGAGE ME NT
Engagement Ratings for Survey Respondents From Each Sector
Work Sector
People Who Are Somewhat
to Very Engaged
Business 91.5%
Government 93.0%
Consulting 97.4%
Education 93.8%
Not for Pro?t 95.7%
Organizational Investment in Engagement
Along with differences in employee engagement across work environments come varied
amounts of investment in work engagement. Business and government organizations are the
most active in measuring employee engagement. More than half of business and government
employee respondents indicated that their organizations evaluate the engagement levels of
employees, whereas only a third of those working in education or not-for-pro?t organizations
could say the same.
Organizational Investment in Engagement
Percentage of organizations that measure employee engagement
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Business
Government
Consulting
Education
58.4%
50.7%
33.3%
44.1%
31.1%
Not for Pro?t
PAGE 24 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Of course, measuring the engagement of employees does not mean much if nothing is
done with that information. We wanted to know what percentage of organizations not
only measured engagement, but also actively directed efforts to improve it. When it comes
to addressing engagement, business organizations are the most active. Fifty-?ve per cent of
business respondents indicated that their organization focuses directly on improving worker
engagement. The numbers fall to the 44% to 45% level for consulting and government
organizations, to 34% for not-for-pro?t groups, and to 23% for educational institutions.
Percentage or organizations that address
employee engagement directly
A recurring theme was that business and government groups tend to invest more resources
into measuring engagement and focusing on it directly. However, the engagement levels of
their employees are actually rated as slightly worse than those of people working in consulting,
education and not-for-pro?t organizations.
This brings up a number of questions:
• Why do business and government spend more time and effort on workforce engagement
and yet have lower levels of engagement?
• Would their results be worse if they removed all engagement interventions?
• Do their engagement efforts actually have little impact on employees’ connection to
their work?
SECTI ON 7: BUS I NE S S S E CTOR AND E NGAGE ME NT
Percentage of organizations that address employee
engagement directly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
Business
Consulting
Government
Education
55.1%
45%
34%
43.9%
23%
Not for Pro?t
“
I have been responsible
for running our Engage-
ment Surveys for the
past few years and I’m
astounded at what is
learned versus what is
discussed openly with our
employees. Employees
aren’t stupid, they know
that when they never hear
back about their feedback
or actions to be taken, that
the company “doesn’t really
care about them”.
”
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 25 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 8: Impact of Engagement Training
Engagement is de?nitely seen by the vast majority of our survey respondents as a problem that
needs to be addressed. Many organizations have invested time and resources into measuring
engagement, conducting engagement interventions and training their staff on how to engage
others. The key question is, does this investment make any difference?
To shed some light on this issue, we split our respondent group into four categories based on the
amount of engagement training provided by their organizations. We then looked at their levels
of engagement and satisfaction.
Percentage of respondents who said engagement is a problem in organizations that
• never have training: 74%
• have training once a year: 75%
• have training two to four times a year: 55%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 61%
In organizations that provide training two to four times a year, the percentage of people who see
engagement as a problem drops by 20%.
Percentage of engaged employees in organizations that
• never have training: 60%
• have training once a year: 65%
• have training two to four times a year: 71%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 69%
In organizations that provide more frequent engagement training, the percentage of engaged
employees rises by more than 10%.
Percentage of respondents who rated themselves as very engaged in organizations that
• never have training: 48%
• have training once a year: 60%
• have training two to four times a year: 61%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 61%
In organizations that have some engagement training during the year, 12% more people
describe themselves as very engaged than the percentage in organizations that never have
engagement-focused training.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
dasd dasd fsdf No, never Yes, occasionaly Yes, frequently Yes, always
“
If you say that you value
and want to hear employee
suggestions and ideas, then
give employees feedback
on ?nal decisions. They
need to know what was
considered and why some-
thing is feasible or not.
”
PAGE 26 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
SECTI ON 8: I MPACT OF E NGAGE ME NT TRAI NI NG
Percentage of respondents who rated themselves as very satis?ed in organizations that
• never have training: 32%
• have training once a year: 45%
• have training two to four times a year: 49%
• have training more than ?ve times a year: 56%
Differences in satisfaction ratings are even more dramatic. As the amount of training opportuni-
ties increases in an organization, the reported levels of employees who are very satis?ed steadily
increases. Even with only one engagement training intervention a year, the percentage of people
who rate themselves as very satis?ed increases from 32% to 45%.
Training focused on how to engage employees in organizations has a positive effect. Levels of
workforce engagement and satisfaction are reportedly higher in those organizations that provide
training. The proportion of people who are very engaged in their work increases dramatically,
and the amount of engagement problems decreases by a signi?cant amount.
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 27 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Section 9: Gender and Engagement
The interaction between gender and engagement is something that we also wanted to
examine. We wanted to see whether there were differences in engagement and satisfaction
levels, and also whether recommendations for how to increase engagement varied by gender.
How would you rank your level of work engagement?
In terms of engagement rankings, male and female respondents to the survey were remarkably
similar. As shown in the ?gure above, males and females had a nearly identical distribution of
their rating of engagement.
Very Engaged
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
d
a
s
d
d
a
s
d
f
s
d
f
N
o
,
n
e
v
e
r
Y
e
s
,
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
y
Y
e
s
,
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
Somewhat Engaged Not Engaged Actively Disengaged
Males Females
58.5%
37.2%
3.2%
0%
1.5%
5.2%
36.8%
55.8%
“
Sometimes, the
employee who voiced
the idea is not given
credit nor are they
invited to participate
on implementing
their suggestion, and
they are not provided
with feedback on the
feasibility/timelines of
suggestions.
”
PAGE 28 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY ENGAGEMENT STUDY
How satis?ed are you with your current role?
Levels of satisfaction were also quite similar between gender groups. In fact, when looking at
those who reported being very satis?ed or satis?ed, the difference between males at 84.1%
and females at 86.6% is negligible.
When it comes to things that leaders can do to improve engagement, the top two for both
genders were listening to employees’ opinions and communicating clear expectations. Females
did place a somewhat higher value than males on providing recognition and praise. However,
when ranking leadership engagement activities, males and females identi?ed the same key
variables as important and not important. For all respondents, communication and listening
were rated as important, whereas helping ?nd solutions and defending direct reports were
considered much less important.
Finally, when it comes to what most in?uences people’s engagement, both males and females
rated having control over how they do their work, and opportunities to use their skills, as the
most in?uential. In terms of what has the least in?uence, members of each gender identi?ed
career advancement and salary and bene?ts.
Very Satis?ed
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
d
a
s
d
d
a
s
d
f
s
d
f
N
o
,
n
e
v
e
r
Y
e
s
,
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
y
Y
e
s
,
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
Y
e
s
,
a
l
w
a
y
s
Satis?ed Dissatis?ed Very Dissatis?ed
Males Females
44.7%
39.4%
16%
0%
1.9%
11.2%
45%
41.6%
SECTI ON 9: GE NDE R AND E NGAGE ME NT
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
PAGE 29 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Conclusions
Employee engagement is problematic. The results from the survey show this beyond any
doubt. When employees are engaged, they demonstrate higher levels of performance and
commitment, and improved work relationships. When they are disengaged, productivity
suffers and relationships between employees can become dysfunctional. Whether engaged
or disengaged, employees generally stay with their organizations, having either a positive or
negative impact.
Increasing engagement is a multifaceted challenge, but there are a number of common
themes. One, provide people with greater control over how they do their work. Two, give
employees opportunities to use their skills. Three, build better communication and relationships
between management and staff. These themes remain constant; they are identi?ed by
engaged and disengaged employees, males and females, and all generations.
Driving engagement requires adjusting our work environments and processes. This is the
realm and responsibility of leadership, and it is leaders who bear the initial burden. More
than eight out of 10 respondents indicate that senior leaders and managers are the ones to
increase engagement. From initially matching a person’s skills to the job requirements, to
communicating clear expectations, to recognizing a job well done, leadership begins and
sustains employee engagement.
Yet there is also reason for hope in these results. With increased communication, less
micromanaging, and greater responsibilities for employees, employee engagement makes
leaps forward. Organizations with training on how to increase engagement show much
improvement compared with those with no training, even when that training is infrequent. It
does not have to take much to get started and realize some bene?ts of increased engagement.
Top Tips for Driving Engagement
1. Build positive work relationships.
2. Ensure a good ?t between people’s skills and their job requirements.
3. Provide regular feedback on performance.
4. Give opportunities to learn new skills.
5. Give employees greater control over their work: stop micromanaging.
6. Celebrate progress and recognize employees’ accomplishments.
7. Share information: communicate the direction and strategy of the organization.
8. Give employees the opportunity to share their ideas.
PAGE 30 E NGAGE ME NT S TUDY
ENGAGEMENT STUDY
Psychometrics Canada
Psychometrics Canada has been providing assessment tools and consulting services for the devel-
opment and selection of people in business, government and education for over 30 years. Our
expertise is in applying business psychology in the areas of personal and leadership development,
team building, con?ict resolution, employee selection and skills and performance assessment.
Our client list of more than 5000 organizations includes 84 of the top 100 companies in Canada.
These clients use our assessment products and services to identify the strengths and potential of
people - better enabling these individuals to work together, complete projects, plan their careers
and lead others.
Psychometrics Canada Ltd. 1-800-661-5158 www.psychometrics.com
For more information on this study contact Shawn Bakker:
1-800-661-5158 ext. 238 or [email protected]
© 2011 Psychometrics Canada Ltd.
MBTI and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The MBTI Certi?cation
Program is of?cially recognized by CPP as a qualifying program to administer and interpret the MBTI instrument. Strong Interest Inventory
®
,
FIRO-B
®
, CPI 260
™
, CPI
™
434 are registered trademarks of CPP, Inc.
doc_143155555.pdf