• jonathanhyland

    As fascinating as this is, how were engagement and disengagement operationally defined in the study?

  • Nkstoec

    This leaves me wondering how an organization should approach trying to shift the disengaged to a degree of engagement.  If it’s all on the employee, then what?

  • Retail_education_advocate

    As this article implies, the Organization must play a role – they need to identify, and put in place, motivators that help drive engagement.   One fabulous driver involves supporting highly structured  education opportunities that show employees how a particular education path will lead to career growth and increased wages.  THEN – providing ample resources (help with tuition and books) to go after the education the company endorses.

  • heart_stone

    What the author states is admirable, and I assume that he is talking about functional organizations that reward and encourage employees to engage. But when one is employed in a disfunctional organization where management cannot make decisions, and then resents engaged employees, employees  slowly become disengaged as there is no reason for engagement that is not acknowledge, rewarded (acknowledgement that the engaged emplyee is a valuable member) or, heaven forbid, compensated. Why must it fall on the employee to be the engaged aspect? Management of a company must have a vision and the drive to focus that vision. With that vision then employees can be engaged. I am tired on articles like this that insist that the employee must make all the strides for a company.

  • http://twitter.com/worksimple WorkSimple

    Great post, Timothy. When employees take the reins in their own careers, their engagement levels will surely improve. However, highly engaged employees don’t become the way they are without the assistance of a manager at one point or another. These sorts of leaders help those who may have engagement issues to see the value of their performance, as well as what these employees need to do on a daily basis to help improve themselves as professionals. With this sort of real-time input and mentorship, employees can understand the impact they can make and act accordingly to advance themselves and their careers. Of course, eventually they’ll be able to do it on their own, but just as young people need direction from teachers and parents, employees need to be instilled with independence and knowledge in order to engage themselves.

  • http://twitter.com/IlioKBAgile Ilio Krumins-Beens

    This article really resonates with me.  What this implies to me is that hiring engaged people is critical to the organization’s success.  
    Any advice on how to suss out whether someone is engaged during the interview process? 

  • Bthayer11

    I couldn’t agree more. Too bad many executives feel threatened by highly engaged employees

  • http://twitter.com/lfbenjamin Leon Benjamin

    Traditional attitude to career path:  Company’s responsibility to provide.
    21st century attitude to career path: Employee’s responsibility to pursue.

    See the Big Picture
    http://www.winningbysharing.net/bp.asp – circa 2005

  • Amanda, sociologist

    I think this reasoning (or lack thereof) is highly misleading: “Highly engaged employees are amazingly agnostic to their organizational environment. We found highly engaged people in all kinds of organizational settings …Their high engagement is portable.” The authors suggest that engagement is a purely individual quality, when in fact it is a relationship between an individual and a setting. The fact that they found engaged people everywhere simply indicates all settings will find at least some engaged employees. It doesn *not* mean that (for example) a person who is highly engaged in a creative/knowledge industry setting will be equally engaged as a retail cashier.

  • Mel Kleiman

    It all boils down to one thing. Does the person take responsibility to get the job done no matter what the circumstances are. That means if we want an engage workforce we need to be hiring for one major attitude not personality but an attitude of being responsible

  • David Price

    Since ‘engaged’ workers make up less than 13% of the global workforce, then the ‘highly engaged’ must be in a tiny minority. I don’t think these low numbers can be explained simply by a lack of responsibility for being engaged. In my book OPEN: How We’ll Work, Live and Learn In The Future, I argue that many workers have become disengaged through the removal of autonomy and trust. Since employers were largely responsible for this, they surely have some responsibility for changing engagement. My own solution is to create cultures of innovation (without fear of failure) and learning. companies like WD-40 have done this and enjoy 93% engagement rates!