“Our most engaged workgroup is in a remote community in Siberia” said one of my clients at a recent HR executive peer group meeting. This comment made me realize how very relative the concept of engagement really is and the complexity of creating engagement for companies that operate globally. What is engaging in the US may indeed be demoralizing in another part of the world and vice versa. So why is this team in Siberia so engaged: well, for one it’s remoteness has kept it in blissful isolation from the prevailing form of command and control management that is typically found in Russian organizations. A higher level of transparency and sharing, focus on what matters and meaningful work has been allowed to evolve and created uncommon connection between employees and management. Who would have guessed?

Is it true that employee engagement is the new currency of the 21st century and this age of inspiration is vastly different from what we grew up with in the 80s and 90s? My coaching practice in the last 17 years suggests that engagement and inspiration are indeed top of mind for CEOs and HR executives in corporate America today, partially fueled by the changing corporate landscape: globalization, the economic downturn and an evermore competitive environment demanding that you develop that “special edge.” Satisfaction is no longer enough!!! Also, the younger folks that have come and keep coming into the workplace have different expectations and want to make a meaningful difference. One of the interesting discussions my HR executives had revolved around the difference between employee satisfaction – a concept we heard a lot about a few decades ago- and employee engagement. While many definitions were bantered around, the one that stuck with me was:

Employee satisfaction is what the company is doing for the employee

.

Employee engagement is what the employee is doing for the company.

See the difference? This distinction also helped me see clearly that while you can have a very satisfied workforce, that does not necessarily translate into engagement, with engagement revolving around:

Say: consistently speaking positive about the organization to co-workers, potential employees, and customers

Stay: have an intense desire to be a part of the organization

Strive: Exert extra effort and engage in behaviors that contribute to business success

Growing up in organizations in the 20th century indeed was a different scene than what we are facing today. Largely you did what your were told and focused on the what, not the why? There really were not high expectations around understanding business strategy and finding meaning in the fact that you could clearly see how your work was contributing to something greater than yourself. The focus was on task accomplishment and productivity and having satisfied employees, not engaged employees. There was also strong emphasis on total quality management and not making mistakes which created a risk-adverse workforce afraid of failure. The contrast with my younger executive coaching clients today is stark. Recently, when I was discussing “fear of failure” with a former youngish executive client of mine who is now contemplating a start-up, his reaction to the whole concept of failure took me by surprise: “I almost hope this first start-up of mine will fail….it is sort of badge of honor in my community”, and it is the “failing forward” that counts. I love that paradigm shift. AND it has huge consequences for how you engage employees in this segment of your workforce. Concepts that come mind include curiosity, experimentation, innovation, learning, stretching, enabling, agility and so forth. Kind of refreshing, isn’t it?

Do you agree that this change is happening? Is corporate America up to the challenge?