I saw some results from a survey on workplace engagement levels. Apparently, 29% of employees reported that they were engaged with the work of their organizations. This doesn’t strike me as being terribly high. With the emphasis that’s been given to engagement in recent years, why aren’t more employees engaged?

What a great question! Why, indeed, are more employees not engaged? In my book, Getting Engaged: The New Workplace Loyalty, I cited survey results that indicated that 30% of employees were experiencing feelings of engagement. And that was in 2005! The number really hasn’t budged.

The fish pond mentality

Since employee engagement hit organizational radar screens, much research has ensued. We know what engages people at work, and we know what disengages them. In my consulting, writing, and training I stress that the most important factor in my willingness to engage with my organization’s work is my feeling about my relationship with my boss.

Many consultants trumpet the presence of such things as snack carts and fish ponds as reasons why a company is a great place to work. I have nothing against ponds or snacks, but they don’t lead to engagement. If my manager creates a disengaging environment, I can’t snack my way to engagement.

I think that in the past five years or so engagement levels actually did increase slightly, only to be brought back down by the recession with its layoffs, increasing workloads, and feelings of being stuck or the next to be let go. Managers have sometimes felt that in recessionary times people should be grateful to be employed and just accept whatever the employer dishes out by way of a work environment, including managers whose behaviour is disengaging.

I believe that engagement levels stuck at 30% or less is due largely to the failure of organizations to purge themselves of disengaging supervisors.

The family business

Organizations are in many ways like families. How many of your family members did you choose? For most people the answer is one or none! How many of your fellow employees did you choose? For most people the answer is none. How many employees choose who will be their boss? Again, overwhelmingly the answer is none. Employees are assigned to managers often with nothing but a pious hope that the chemistry will be good, but if it isn’t, that’s just too darned bad, try to make the best of it.

Disengagement 101

One reason why disengaging managers persist in organizations is what we used to refer to as the “turkeys and comers” syndrome. A senior decision maker observes one action on the part of a new supervisor, judges it favourably, and slaps a “comer” label on the individual that no subsequent behaviour, no matter how disengaging, can dislodge. (As you can guess, the “turkey” label results from one behaviour deemed negative.)

Another reason for not dealing with disengaging managers stems from their being connected to powerful people inside or outside the organization. This may produce the feeling (or indeed the reality) that their jobs are never in jeopardy, no matter what they do, while people who lack those or similar connections are always under the threat of termination, again, no matter what they do. All this can lead to certain managers being entrenched, or appearing to be entrenched, blocking their positions while creating incentives for people to leave.

But I suppose the main reason why disengaging supervisors are allowed to roam freely is that taking action is unpleasant and stressful. Senior managers prefer to look the other way. Employees meanwhile are saying to each other: “When are they going to do something about him?” Senior management silence and inaction results in high grapevine activity, disengagement, and voluntary terminations if other opportunities beckon.

When, on the other hand, a disengaging supervisor is removed, employees experience the positive feeling of knowing that somebody cared enough about them to remove an irritant from their work environment. When employees are confident that someone with clout is in their corner, just watch the engagement levels rise.

Meanwhile 30% is about all we can expect. As long as fish ponds are seen as sources of engagement, while disengaging management behaviour goes unaddressed, that’s where it will stay.

To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Tim directly.

Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca or visit www.gettingengaged.ca.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may no longer be accurate.