Workforce engagement is one of the most crucial issues in culture development today.  No other attribute of culture has a greater impact on achieving results and performance in the workplace.  Countless books and articles have been written on the subject, and consultants everywhere are touting the importance of engaging one’s people.  All of this is great except for one small detail – “engagement” is a nebulous concept.  Obviously, it’s difficult – if not impossible – to work toward improving something when what you’re attempting to improve is not clearly defined.

As the founders of Culturology, a consulting firm specializing in building healthy, collaborative, engaged work cultures, my colleague and I have had long discussions about this very issue.  After much debate, we finally settled on a definition of engagement that we believe captures the essence of the concept concisely:

“Engagement: The extent to which a person chooses to apply their talent, energy and care toward any effort.”

What’s particularly noticeable about this definition is the word “chooses.”  Indeed, engagement is a choice.  Of course, when we are involved in an activity that brings us pleasure, we might naturally be more engaged than we’d be during an activity we find mundane or dull.  But that’s not necessarily always true.  Depending on my mood or state of mind, for example, I might be utterly uninterested in an activity that normally excites me.  Similarly, I might give 100% effort to an activity I would typically find dreary.  In the end, the effort we give always remains a choice. 

In the workplace, engagement can further be clarified by examining the idea of discretionary effort.  Discretionary effort is the difference between the minimum amount of care and effort required to avoid being terminated and the maximum amount of care and effort one can apply to one’s job.  It stands to reason that the more engaged an employee is, the more discretionary effort he or she will produce.  In today’s ultra-competitive business landscape, that translates to a significant competitive advantage for organizations.

So here’s the question: what can managers do, if anything, to elevate engagement and boost discretionary effort at work?  A lot, actually.  The breakthrough research of engagement and creativity by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile and psychologist Steven Kramer, published in the 2011 book The Progress Principle, sheds some light on the issue.  Through an exhaustive diary study, Amabile and Kramer explored the crucial relationship between leaders and their people, and the impact leaders have on engagement.  Specifically, the authors found that the most significant factor influencing high engagement is a leader’s help in facilitating progress toward accomplishing meaningful work.  We call the critical relationship between a leader and their immediate team the “Direct Leader Link.”  How a leader influences through the Direct Leader Link makes a significant difference in the quality of performance and level of engagement.

In subsequent posts, I’ll be exploring these and other concepts related to engagement in greater detail.  I’d love to hear your thoughts.