Contenu connexe
Similaire à Incremental Wins Exponential Impact
Similaire à Incremental Wins Exponential Impact (20)
Incremental Wins Exponential Impact
- 1. Incremental Wins – Exponential Impact
How Employee Progress Drives Employee Engagement
Executive Summary
In a Harvard Business Review article, “The Power of Small Wins,” Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer
(2011) highlight how important it is for workers to feel as though they are making ‘progress’ on a
frequent basis, noting that progress in meaningful work is a key driver of organizational performance 1.
Using Amabile’s and Kramer’s work as a foundation, HumanR sought to explore two questions:
1. What is the link between employee progress and employee engagement?
2. How should managers target their efforts to promote employee progress?
In 2011, HumanR conducted an engagement survey of sixteen organizations to better understand
employee engagement. In addition to asking typical engagement questions on compensation,
supervision, and recognition, we asked questions both on how often the employee makes progress and
how often the employee encounters obstacles to better understand the link between engagement and
progress.
Based on the data from 6000 respondents, we found a strong link between employee perceptions of
their daily progress at work and their level of engagement. The data also revealed key drivers of
workplace progress as well as barriers inhibiting employees from making greater progress.
Finally, the data also provided clear insights on actions that managers can take to better facilitate
employee progress and ultimately improve engagement and performance.
Introduction
The impact of employee engagement on an organization is both well documented and striking. From
less unplanned leave to greater profitability2, a highly-engaged cadre of employees delivers quantifiably
better results to organizations of all types. Conversely, a disengaged workforce yields the opposite
results.
While compensation, buy-in to the organization’s mission, and other organization-level drivers are often
the result of high-level organization-wide actions, the individual manager is pivotal to the level of
engagement of his or her employees.
As a result of their research, Amabile and Kramer (2011) were able to ferret out the difference between
a “good day” and a “bad day” at work. “Good days” are days in which people “feel happy, are
1
Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer, “The Power of Small Wins,” Harvard Business Review May 2011: 71-80.
2
“Motivating Employees to Go the Extra Mile: The Manager’s Role in Engagement,” Tom Davenport and Steven
Harding, Towers Watson, 2010.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 1
- 2. intrinsically motivated by the work itself, and have positive perceptions of their colleagues and the
organization.” “Bad days” are those days when they experience “frustration, fear, and sadness.” Not
surprisingly, Amabile and Kramer found that people are more likely to be creative and productive on
“good days” than “bad days.”
Amabile and Kramer also found the single largest predictor of a “good day” is whether or not employees
made progress in their work – that is, they took steps forward in either their own work or in their team’s
work. In fact, in 76% of days in which workers report leaving work in a good mood, they report that
progress was made. However, on 67% of bad days, employees reported experiencing setbacks or
obstacles. They further argue that “knowing what serves to catalyze and nourish progress – and what
does the opposite – turns out to be the key to effectively managing people and their work.”
In our research we found a strong link between the employee’s perceived level of progress and the
employee’s level of engagement. Additionally, we identified key drivers and barriers to employee
progress. Based on our findings, we make suggestions for managers to facilitate an engaging
environment by enabling and supporting employee progress.
Methodology
As a part of HumanR’s ongoing engagement research, we surveyed sixteen organizations with over
6,000 respondents to further understand factors that influence employees’ engagement levels.
HumanR asked employees to respond to items in several categories, including My Job, My Immediate
Supervisor, Organization-Wide Leadership and Direction, Compensation and Benefits, etc. To examine
how the contribution ‘progress’ plays in employee engagement, the survey asked employees to respond
to items on barriers to productivity, and two questions related to progress and obstacles. Those
questions were:
In a typical two-week period, I leave work feeling I have made progress on the following number
of days (Employees could select any number from 0 through 10).
In a typical two-week period, I encounter obstacles to making progress on the following number
of days (Employees could select any number from 0 through 10).
The HumanR Engagement Index
HumanR has studied employee engagement throughout the last decade, resulting in a proprietary
Employee Engagement Index. The index yields an engagement score for each survey participant and
allows us to group respondents as Highly Engaged, Engaged, or Disengaged:
Highly Engaged - Employees demonstrate an emotional commitment to the organization - they
tend to be self-starters, to take on work that is not necessarily a part of their job, and to be
loyal.
Engaged - Employees demonstrate a rational approach to the value of their job, continuing to
commit for so long as it appears to be in their best interest.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 2
- 3. Disengaged - Employees are neither happy nor productive – but find it harder to leave their job
than to stay – they tend to be cynical and to be harmful to morale.
This survey sample resulted in the following engagement distribution, which fit within our existing
normative data3:
45 percent (n=2,758) were Highly Engaged,
39 percent (n=2,375) were Engaged, and
17 percent (n=1,022) were Disengaged.
Findings
Linking Progress and Engagement
As expected, the results indicate a strong relationship between engagement level and progress. The
more days out of ten an individual reports making progress, the more likely he or she is to be highly
engaged. Conversely, the more days out of ten an individual reports encountering obstacles, the more
likely s/he is to score lower on engagement.
We also combined progress and obstacles into a single measure, referred to hereafter as “Net Progress.”
Net Progress is the difference between the number of days the survey respondent reports making
progress and the number of days the survey respondent reports encountering obstacles. Figure 1
demonstrates the relationship between net progress and level of engagement.
Figure 1
Net Progress and Engagement Level
1800
1600
1400
# of Respondents
1200
1000
800 Disengaged
600 Engaged
400
200 Highly Engaged
0
-5 and Less -4 to +4 +5 and Greater
(n=246) (n=2909) (n=2774)
Net Progress Range
3
HumanR’s historical normative ranges for engagement levels are: Disengaged: 6%-22%; Engaged: 32%-53%;
Highly Engaged: 32%-61%.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 3
- 4. At the high end of Net Progress, i.e. +5 days or more, the number of employees who are highly engaged
overtakes and passes the number of employees who are engaged. Managers, therefore, may wish to
consider +5 Net Progress as a target.
Approximately half of the survey population reports +5 Net Progress or greater, which indicates that in
addition to being quantifiable and meaningful, this target is also attainable.
Driving Net Progress
As seen above, a relationship between net progress and engagement clearly exists. Delving deeper into
the survey data, we found relationships between individual items and net progress. The five items most
highly correlated to net progress are listed below:
1. At work my ideas and views seem to count.
2. The organization does a good job of setting customer expectations at the outset of an
assignment.
3. I am able to maintain an effective balance between my personal life and my work life.
4. I am satisfied with the level of teamwork provided by others in the organization outside of my
immediate workgroup/department.
5. Within the scope of my job I have the appropriate level of freedom to use my own judgment and
take action.
To better understand how these items might positively affect progress, consider these responses from
five separate survey respondents who rated these items high. Note their verbatim responses and how
they positively might affect one’s perception of progress.
Table 1: Key Drivers and Representative Positive Comments
Item Item Rating Net Progress Verbatim Comment: What can be done to
(1 to 5) (-10 to 10) make the organization an even better
place to work?
At work my ideas Willingness to listen to new ideas and a culture
Individual A and views seem to 5 6 that promotes innovation in processes 'working
count. smarter, not harder.’
The work is challenging and enjoyable. My
The organization supervisor is excellent to work for and ensures I
does a good job of have the tools I need to succeed. My customer
setting customer has placed a high priority on getting the job
Individual B 5 9 done, but is reasonable in their expectations. At
expectations at the
outset of an this point, I am enjoying my job tremendously
assignment. and don't expect anything to change in terms of
my feelings with regard to this situation.
I had a work-life balance issue emerge this year
I am able to that required me to adjust my schedule and
maintain an responsibilities and I have been fully supported
in this. I have never had a hint of worry that if I
effective balance
Individual C 5 6 ask for more flexibility I would put my
between my employment in jeopardy. This has motivated me
personal life and my to make sure I work extra hard so that the
work life. company knows that this decision to support me
was a good one.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 4
- 5. Item Item Rating Net Progress Verbatim Comment: What can be done to
(1 to 5) (-10 to 10) make the organization an even better
place to work?
I am satisfied with
the level of
teamwork provided I enjoy the collaboration between the project
managers, instructional designers, artists,
by others in the
Individual D 5 6 programmers, and QA specialists. I also like the
organization outside relaxed work environment and how we pitch in
of my immediate when other artists are swamped with work.
workgroup/
department.
The autonomy to do my job and the support I
Within the scope of receive to provide excellent service to our client
my job I have the units. I feel my supervisor's beliefs are in line
with mine in regards to providing assistance
appropriate level of
Individual E 5 9 beyond our sample data collection mission. For
freedom to use my instance, I am free and encouraged to provide
own judgment and expertise to clients that not only makes our
take action. services more valuable but also improves the
unit.
Now, consider the negative effect these items can have on progress. Note how these individuals’
negative responses related to these items might negatively affect their perception of their progress.
Table 2: Key Drivers and Representative Negative Comments
Item Item Rating Net Progress Verbatim Comment: What can be done to
(1 to 5) (-10 to 10) make the organization an even better
place to work?
Address concerns and desires that are identified
At work my ideas by the employee . . . overall, this organization
Individual V and views seem to 2 -4 has become the single most dissatisfying,
count. disheartening, and demotivating workplace that
I have ever experienced.
The organization In my experience the management of my
does a good job of organization promises many things to the client
and then does not provide the resources or
setting customer
Individual W 2 -2 managerial support to get them done, which
expectations at the means that we are always behind schedule and
outset of an under budget and cutting corners. This leads to
assignment. a high stress work environment.
I am able to People do not take ownership of their
maintain an responsibilities, thus making others take on
more than they should. Some people get to go
effective balance
Individual X 2 -6 home on time, the rest struggle to keep the boat
between my afloat for the good of all. Management's role in
personal life and my trying to get everything done well at once
work life. results in nothing done well.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 5
- 6. Item Item Rating Net Progress Verbatim Comment: What can be done to
(1 to 5) (-10 to 10) make the organization an even better
place to work?
This year . . . has brought disrespect to our
I am satisfied with business unit as well as outright inflammatory
the level of language and frustration/defensiveness on
teamwork provided collective conference calls etc. Corporate
by others in the finance office has lack of knowledge of their
Individual Y 1 -9
organization outside accounting software and doesn't take advice
of my immediate from my 8 years of experience. Customer
workgroup/ requests are being ignored, showing lack of
responsiveness as well as outright disrespect for
department.
deadlines.
Within the scope of The bureaucracy is a constant obstacle to
my job I have the meeting customer needs - the workers are made
appropriate level of to support the bureaucrats rather than the other
Individual Z 1 -8
freedom to use my way around. Among other things, this results in
own judgment and us having a ridiculously high overhead
take action. multiplier, which makes us cost-uncompetitive.
Barriers to Making Progress
We noted earlier the importance of +5 days of net progress, the point at which high engagement
becomes most prevalent among the engagement levels. We asked respondents to select five barriers
from a list of 25 that have the largest impact on their productivity. We then compared the results of
individuals with less than 5 days of net progress with individuals with greater than 5 days of net
progress. The following table shows those barriers that present the largest gap between each set of
individuals.
Table 3: Key Barriers Preventing +5 Net Progress
% of Respondents Mentioning Barrier as an Issue
Net Progress = +5 Days or More Net Progress = Less Than +5 Days Gap
(n=2778) (n=3161)
Responding to crises 9.5% 20.2% 10.7%
Lack of clear priorities/goals 5.9% 16.5% 10.6%
Miscommunication among
9.2% 18.1% 8.9%
work groups/departments
Continual need to seek
decisions or approval from 6.3% 15.0% 8.7%
higher authority
Lack of information 11.7% 20.3% 8.6%
Consider the impact that these barriers impose on employees as they attempt to make progress in their
work and the high frequency in which they occur for individuals in our survey who make less than +5
days of Net Progress. To move employees into a net progress range where they are most likely to be
highly engaged, managers can focus on these barriers which impede desired levels of progress.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 6
- 7. The Disengaged
As stated previously, disengaged employees are difficult to motivate and can be harmful to morale. An
additional item of interest from the data shows the effect of increased perception of progress on the
disengaged population. Our findings show that regardless of their level of progress, the disengaged
population remains disengaged.
Figure 2
Disengaged Population
250
Number of Employees
200
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Net Progress
As seen in the chart above, no clear link exists between progress and disengagement. We actually see
more disengaged employees at +9 days of net progress than at -9 days of net progress. Disengaged
employees report dissatisfaction across a variety of factors, and our research has shown that this is
often due to poor person/job fit. Because progress likely has little effect on disengaged employees,
managers should instead focus on facilitating the progress of individuals who are already engaged.
Implications for Managers
Amabile and Kramer state that a positive inner work life drives performance, that performance is
dependent on making progress in meaningful work, which in turn, yields a positive inner work life. They
refer to this as the progress loop. According to Amabile and Kramer, one of the goals of managers in
creating a high performance work environment is to facilitate the progress loop.
Implications From Our Research
Our findings lead to some practical implications for managers to help them facilitate progress.
Ask employees about progress and obstacles. But, as Amabile and Kramer note, check “in” on
them, do not check “up” on them. Be seen as a facilitator of success, not a micromanager.
Manage customer expectations. As noted in the findings, setting customer expectations
correlates with net progress. A poorly written set of requirements, an underwhelming service
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 7
- 8. level agreement, or an inability to hold customers to what was agreed to at the outset of a
project can result in rework, overwork, and a seemingly infinite cycle of frustration.
Make work meaningful and rewarding to the employee. Work to match employee career and
role expectations to work they are performing. Most people accept job offers based on their
expectations of what the job will entail. When people find themselves in roles other than they
expect, they may find the work less meaningful than that which they originally intended to
pursue. This disconnect between expectations and roles can lead employees toward the
perception that they are not making meaningful progress.
Maximize autonomy whenever possible. Ensure employees feel they can make decisions that
allow them to move forward without a burdensome approval process. Amabile and Kramer
note that their model manager “checks in with,” and does not “check up on” his or her team.
Our survey findings reveal, in both barriers and item ratings, the importance of empowerment
as it relates to progress. From an employee perceiving that he or she must waste time while
awaiting approval to an employee feeling demotivated by a perceived lack of responsibility, a
lack of employee empowerment can stall progress.
Promote teamwork among departments. Particularly in large, complex projects, teamwork
among departments is crucial for moving forward effectively. Missed deadlines, overburdened
team members, and a perception of inequitable workload are consequences of poor teamwork.
Managers should advocate for their team and work with other departments’ management to
ensure accountability and an equitable distribution of workload.
Focus on what has been achieved. Engaging managers focus on positive outcomes rather than
negatives. Focus on what has been done more than what has not been done to create an
atmosphere conducive to rewarding progress.
Set short term goals that are achievable. Think in terms of ten day increments. Long term
projects can seem interminable, and progress can seem nonexistent. Ensure employees can
identify when they have made progress by setting frequent, reachable targets.
Ensure adequate resources to achieve goals. It is the manager’s responsibility to ensure that
the time, money, equipment, and social and political capital are appropriately managed in a way
that facilitates progress.
Remember that some people will remain unsatisfied, regardless of progress. The disengaged
will generally remain disengaged, regardless of a manager’s efforts to facilitate progress.
Instead of spending resources to facilitate their progress, concentrate on those individuals who
are already engaged.
Conclusion
HumanR’s research establishes a strong link between progress and engagement. To improve employee
engagement, managers should focus on creating an environment where each employee has the
opportunity to make progress in the work he or she finds meaningful. The goal is to build a progress-
oriented environment which results in higher levels of engagement, and ultimately, higher levels of
performance.
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 8
- 9. About HumanR
Founded in 1975, HumanR is a management consulting firm with a focus on organizational
development. Our goal is to help organizational leaders connect their people to their results – to
connect the dots between data and people, and between people and organizational performance.
Since 1996 we have had a presence on the web, performing employee engagement surveys and
providing customized 360s for leadership development. Over this period we have enhanced our services
by developing a variety of unique value adds, including our proprietary engagement index, our
normative databases, and our extensive selection of leadership and management trainings.
In 2009 HumanR was named the Woman Owned Small Business of the Year by the USDA’s Food and
Nutrition Service for our work in conducting 360 feedback and coaching.
If you have any questions about this white paper, please contact either:
Burgess Levin Mike McDermott, PhD Matt Evans
Senior Executive Consultant Managing Principal, Talent Development Senior Consultant
Blevin@humanr.com mmcdermott@humanr.com mevans@humanr.com
(703) 435-5911 x102 (703)435-5911 x118 (703) 435-5911 x114
© 2012, HumanR 1031 Sterling Road, STE 203, Herndon, VA 20170 Page 9