employee engagement: leveraging the science to inspire great … · title: employee engagement:...

Employee Engagement.Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance

REPORT JULy 2016

Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance Todd Armstrong and Ruth Wright

preface

The benefits of an engaged workforce are clear: increased productivity, decreased turnover, and improved business results. However, employee engagement has remained stubbornly low and relatively unchanged over the last five years. To optimize investments in scarce resources, it is important to understand engagement as a concept and the workplace factors that drive it.

Drawing on data from a survey of 400 Canadian employees and a 10-year longitudinal database of engagement surveys, this report establishes The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model—a set of seven workplace factors that most influence employee engagement. Organizations can use the findings and best practices drawn from case studies of organizations with highly engaged workforces to evaluate their own measurement instruments, interpret the results, and make decisions on investments in good workplace practices.

To cite this report: Armstrong, Todd, and Ruth Wright. Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance. ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2016.

©2016 The Conference Board of Canada* published in Canada | All rights reserved | Agreement no. 40063028 | *Incorporated as AERIC Inc.

An accessible version of this document for the visually impaired is available upon request. Accessibility officer, The Conference Board of Canada Tel.: 613-526-3280 or 1-866-711-2262 E-mail: [email protected]

®The Conference Board of Canada and the torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board, Inc. Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. This information is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice. The findings and conclusions of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the external reviewers, advisors, or investors. Any errors or omissions in fact or interpretation remain the sole responsibility of The Conference Board of Canada.

For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.

CONTENTS

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter 1 1 Introduction 3 Purpose 3 Methodology

Chapter 2 5 What Is Employee Engagement? 6 Eighty Years of Employee Research 9 Job Satisfaction Is Not Engagement 10 From Concept to Measurement 12 The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model 13 Factors Have Different Strengths and Influence Engagement in Different Ways 16 Employee Engagement Surveys 17 Direct Measures of Employee Engagement 19 Key Findings

Chapter 3 23 Confidence in senior Leadership 25 Trust in Senior Leadership 28 Clear Communication 29 Setting and Achieving Goals 32 Following Through on Commitments 34 A Clear Vision 35 Impact of Confidence in Senior Leadership 40 Management Practices That Build Confidence in Senior Leadership

Chapter 4 43 Relationship With manager 45 Providing Constructive Feedback 46 Valuing Employees’ Opinions and Ideas 48 Including Employees in Decision-Making 49 Following Through on Commitments 52 Impact of Strong Manager Relationships 54 Management Practices That Engage Direct Reports

Chapter 5 57 Interesting and Challenging Work 59 Interesting Work 61 Variety 62 Challenging Work 64 Meaningful Work 66 Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work 69 Management Practices That Create Interesting and Challenging Work

© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.

www.cboc.ca/ip

Chapter 6 72 professional and personal Growth 74 Clear Career Path 76 Career Goals 77 Opportunity to Learn and Grow 79 Impact of Opportunities for Professional Growth 81 Management Practices That Nurture Professional and Personal Growth

Chapter 7 85 Acknowledgement and Recognition 87 Taken for Granted 88 Recognizing Contributions 89 Accomplishments Are Acknowledged 91 A Feeling of Appreciation 92 Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition 95 Management Practices for Fostering a Culture of Recognition

Chapter 8 97 Relationships With Co-workers 99 Teamwork 100 Information Sharing 102 Where Personal Relationships With Co-workers Impact Engagement 104 Management Practices to Encourage Personal Relationships With Co-workers

Chapter 9 107 Autonomy 109 Controlling How Work Gets Done 110 Input in Setting Performance Objectives 112 Impact of Autonomy on Engagement 114 Management Practices to Encourage an Autonomous Working Environment

Chapter 10 116 Conclusion

Appendix A 120 Bibliography

Appendix B 127 detailed methodology 127 Employee Questionnaire 128 Sampling 128 Direct Measures of Engagement 128 Factor Modelling 129 Qualitative Interviews

Appendix C 130 survey Respondent profile

Appendix D 135 Talentmap Benchmark Respondent profile

Appendix E 138 detailed Employee Engagement model


AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank their Conference Board colleagues Lynn Stoudt, Vice-President, and Colin Hall, Senior Research Associate, Leadership and Human Resources Research, for their review and advice.

We would also like to thank those who participated in the research:

• Kathy Labrecque, Vice-President, Human Resources, MD Financial Management• Shad Smereka, Director, Human Resources, Fountain Tire• Cathy Jordan, Executive Director, Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre• Sandra Channell, Vice-President, Human Resources, Northleaf Capital Partners• Angela Finlay, Director, Human Resources, Geosoft• Kathleen McNair, Executive Vice-President, Human Resources & Corporate

Communications, Corus Entertainment

We are grateful to our external reviewers for their feedback and insights:

• Dr. Alan Saks, Professor, Organizational Behaviour and HR Management, University of Toronto

• Karla Thorpe, Former Director, Leadership and Human Resources Research, The Conference Board of Canada

Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to Sean Fitzpatrick, President and CEO of TalentMap, for sharing that organization’s benchmark of employee engagement survey respondents.


www.cboc.ca/ip

Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance

At a Glance

• despite growing awareness of the value of a highly engaged workforce, employee engagement scores for most organizations remain low.

• Employee engagement can be separated into seven distinct workplace factors. Top employers leverage practices that “nudge” these critical drivers.

• Confidence in senior leadership has the greatest influence on employee engagement.

• organizations need to better understand the underlying factors that drive engagement and how this affects employees in different occupations and industry sectors and with different tenure.


www.cboc.ca/ip

EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance

Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. ii

For 15 years, employee engagement has been a growing priority for both human resources and organizations overall. Emerging evidence of engagement’s impact on key business outcomes has fuelled an abundance of new research along with a multi-million dollar industry. Despite growing interest and investment in employee engagement, however, corporate scores have plateaued and in many cases are declining. For every organization that has achieved top employer status, there are many struggling to move the needle.

The challenging business environment is a factor. Engagement does

tend to rise in good times. But even in a tough business environment,

there are organizations that are thriving and vital with high engagement.

For the rest of us, it is important to better understand what engagement

is, why it is important in our business context, and what strategies and

practices we can put in place to “nudge” it higher.

The purpose of this research is to help organizations better understand

how engagement can flourish in different workplace contexts. We

statistically deconstruct a model of engagement and factors that drive

it. We complement these data with good practices extracted from case

studies of six high-performing organizations. These organizations were

identified by mining a 10-year longitudinal database of engagement

surveys that was shared by boutique vendor Talentmap.

The Current State of Employee Engagement

our research shows that engagement is relatively low. only 27 per

cent of employees are highly engaged, and the level of engagement

has remained stagnant since 2010. not all segments of the working

population are equally engaged, however. Executives, those with


Executive summary | The Conference Board of Canada

Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. iii

a tenure of less than one year, and people working in not-for-profit

organizations are among the most engaged. Employees with a longer

tenure, who work for mid-sized organizations, and who work in the

technical/skilled trades or federal government have among the lowest

levels of engagement.

A New Model for Employee Engagement

seven distinct workplace factors compose The Conference Board of

Canada’s employee engagement model. Areas that influence these

factors are explored in depth in the report, along with workforce

strategies and practices that have the potential to enhance engagement.

The seven workplace factors are:

1. confidence in senior leadership

2. relationship with manager

3. interesting and challenging work

4. professional and personal growth

5. acknowledgement and recognition

6. relationships with co-workers

7. autonomy

Combined, these seven factors represent 78 per cent of what

influences engagement. Employers need to develop an understanding

of how each of these factors can affect the engagement of different

employee segments, and how they can address them through

organizational strategy.

The Growing Influence of Senior Leaders

senior leaders have become the biggest factor influencing employee

engagement. It has been generally accepted that, among levels of

leadership, immediate managers hold the greatest influence over

engagement. our data indicate that this is not necessarily true. senior

leaders have more impact both within our model and as drivers of pride

in and willingness to recommend the organization. While there is no

senior leaders have become the biggest factor influencing employee engagement.


www.cboc.ca/ip

EmployEE EngagEmEntleveraging the Science to Inspire great performance

Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. iv

doubt that managers hold a profound influence over engagement, the

perception and actions of senior leaders should be a growing area of

focus for organizations.

Different Drivers Affect Different Measures of Engagement

the data also revealed that different facets of engagement have

different workplace drivers. For example, employees’ confidence in

their senior leaders is the strongest driver of their sense of pride in

their organizations. However, opportunities for professional growth and

development have the greatest influence on attrition. organizations need

a clear understanding of what areas of engagement they are looking to

influence before deciding on which drivers should be areas of focus.

Demographics Matter

the factors within our model have a different degree of impact for

different demographic groups, industry sectors, and occupational

clusters. For example, having interesting and challenging work tends

to have a more positive impact on engagement for employees in not-

for-profit organizations, and provincial government departments and

agencies. an employee’s relationship with his or her immediate manager,

on the other hand, has a far more positive impact for newer employees

(those with tenures of less than three years) and longer-tenured

employees (those with 25 years and longer service). Confidence

in senior leaders resonates most with employees within the Crown

corporation sector (50 per cent indicating a positive impact on their

engagement from their senior leadership). Having an understanding of

organizational and people demographics will help organizations focus

strategic responses on what is most likely to impact engagement for a

specific workforce segment.

opportunities for professional growth have the greatest influence on attrition.



CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Chapter summary

• despite organizations investing millions of dollars in measuring and boosting employee engagement, scores remain stubbornly low.

• The purpose of this report is to help organizations better understand the factors that drive engagement and how an engaging culture can flourish in different business contexts.

• A model was developed featuring seven key factors that influence engagement, although effects vary for different demographic groups.

• Case studies share good practices that top employers use to nurture engaging work environments.

• The research draws on an extensive literature review, 10 years of employee engagement survey data, a representative sample of Canadian employees, and interviews with six organizations that have highly engaged employees.


www.cboc.ca/ip


Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 2

Organizations are pouring resources into ensuring their employees are engaged—and for good reason. Research shows that organizations with engaged employees outperform their competitors in key areas, including productivity,1 financial performance,2 and employee retention.3 A 2012 estimate pegged annual spending on outsourced and internally developed engagement initiatives in the United States at $720 million. The same study suggested that the market size could be as high as $1.5 billion.4 The question is whether the investments by organizations both in measuring engagement and in related initiatives to enhance it are yielding a proportionate return on investment.

For every organization that the media showcases as a top organization

to work for, there are many more that struggle to boost their engagement

scores. Results of our own model and measurement instrument

developed for this report suggest that overall engagement is quite low.

Based on a prototype survey developed for this report, 27 per cent of

the Canadian workforce is highly engaged. It behooves us as employers,

therefore, to better understand the complex concept of engagement,

what causes it, and what exactly the instruments we are using to

measure it are telling us. only then can we make astute decisions

about how best to invest scarce resources in improving the way

employees experience their work, workplace culture, and daily

interactions with colleagues and leaders.

1 Harter and others, The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, 22.

2 Rayton, dodge, and d’Analeze, Employee Engagement, 11–12.

3 Royal and yoon, “Engagement and Enablement,” 17.

4 Kowske, Employee Engagement.


Chapter 1 | The Conference Board of Canada


Purpose

The purpose of this report is to help bring clarity to the theory and

practice of employee engagement. It serves as a practical guide that

organizations can use to think about and devise practices around

engagement. We identify key factors that influence how employees

experience their work, their work environments, and key individuals

with whom they interact. some trends in engagement over time are

highlighted. We also examine how different drivers or influencers of

engagement vary for key employee segments.

our goal is to provide a deeper understanding of what drives employee

engagement so that organizations can better:

• understand the main factors influencing employee engagement;

• align investments in employee engagement practices;

• respond to employee concerns;

• create a better overall employee experience and work environment;

• support managers and leaders;

• evaluate employee engagement assessment instruments—both the

questions asked and the employees’ responses.

Methodology

We leveraged several sources of data for the report:

• A review of literature on employee research tracked the evolution of

the concept of engagement and reviewed common definitions. The

literature review also acted as a key tool in establishing the validity

of our employee questionnaire.

• Analysis of a 10-year sample of raw employee engagement surveys from

boutique employee engagement specialist Talentmap identified trends

over time and preferences of key employee segments, including job

families, tenure, and organizational size.


www.cboc.ca/ip



• We developed a prototype questionnaire by leveraging the Talentmap

instrument, the literature, and other employee engagement measurement

instruments. We used the prototype questionnaire to survey a sample

of 400 individuals for the purpose of developing a statistical model. We

then conducted a factor analysis on responses to arrive at a model of

employee engagement featuring seven key factors.

• The Talentmap database allowed us to identify top employers: four

organizations with sustained high engagement scores and two that

had significantly improved engagement over the past several years.

We conducted in-depth interviews with leaders from the organizations

to clarify specific practices that drove positive employee experiences

and responses.



CHAPTER 2

What Is Employee Engagement?

Chapter summary

• The study of employee engagement evolved from other areas of employee research such as job satisfaction and motivation.

• Employee engagement and job satisfaction are not the same.

• Academics and consultants tend to take different approaches to defining employee engagement.

• The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model identifies seven distinct workplace factors that influence engagement.

• Four direct measures of engagement assess the overall emotional, rational, and behavioural components of employee engagement.

• Taking a segmented approach to identifying which engagement factors are most important to different groups of employees will help organizations focus their engagement efforts.

• It is important to understand how surveys measure engagement.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Employee engagement is essentially a state of mind that is influenced by the myriad ways that an individual experiences his work and interacts with leaders, peers, and other aspects of the work environment. To understand how the concept emerged, we looked at the last 80 years of employee research on satisfaction, motivation, and engagement. What matters from an employer’s perspective are the outcomes of engagement—especially such desired behaviours as discretionary effort, positive attitude, and high employee retention. To understand how engagement can be measured and improved, researchers focus on identifying a range of key factors that collectively influence it. In this chapter, we review the literature to break down the complex concept of engagement, to trace how it has evolved, and how it is currently defined and measured.

Eighty Years of Employee Research

Early employee research did not focus on engagement at all, but rather

on job satisfaction. Exhibit 1 shows a timeline of people and publications

involved at key points in the evolution of employee research from job

satisfaction, to motivation, to employee engagement. one of the early

attempts to define and measure job satisfaction was in 1935.1 This

research examined employees’ level of satisfaction with their jobs,

along with their willingness to leave their employers. over the next three

decades, the research evolved to include elements of human motivation.

some of the most prominent work was done by Frederick Herzberg,

1 Hoppock, Job Satisfaction.




who developed the famous motivation-hygiene theory. In 1968,

Herzberg suggested that motivational (i.e., achievement, recognition,

and responsibility) and hygienic (i.e., compensation, supervision, and

work conditions) factors influenced job performance.2 He stated that the

presence of “motivators” contributed to job satisfaction and the absence

of “hygienic” features engendered dissatisfaction.

Kahn changed the conversation significantly in 1990 with his introduction

of the concept of “personal engagement.” He defined the term as

“the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles.”

In engagement, he states, “people employ and express themselves

physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.”3

shortly thereafter, the business world—largely management

consultants—caught on to the potential of measuring a more robust,

predictive, and meaningful measurement of employees’ affinity to

their work: employee engagement. In 1998, Gallup, Inc. was the first

organization to conduct engagement research on a large scale. The

company analyzed 25 years of data from over 80,000 managers in more

than 400 organizations.4 Hundreds of questions and millions of interviews

were distilled into the ground-breaking Q¹²—12 questions that could

2 Herzberg, “one more Time,” 56–58.

3 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement,” 694.

4 Buckingham and Coffman, First, Break All the Rules.

Exhibit 1Key Developments in the Evolution of Employee Research

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975

1935, Hoppock.Job Satisfaction

1968, Herzberg.Motivation-Hygiene Theory

1990, Kahn. PersonalEngagement Theory

2014, Saks & Gruman.Integrative Theory

of Engagement

1999, Gallup. Q¹²

1985 1995 2005 2015


www.cboc.ca/ip



simply measure employee engagement. more specifically, this research

was the first to draw attention to the critical workplace factors influencing

employee engagement—most notably the role of the manager and other

peer relationships. The Q¹² also identified factors such as recognition,

professional development, and organizational vision. It was the largest

non-academic study to test the concept of employee engagement and

make it available to business and consultants. The research also helped

popularize the use of surveys to gauge employee opinion.

The popular “head, heart and hands”5,6 model provides additional insight

into employee engagement. The “head” aspect of the model assesses

the rational connection people have with their jobs. This includes the

perceived fit between skills and responsibilities and whether or not

people have the tools to do their jobs. The “heart” aspect of the model

assesses the emotional connection that employees have with their jobs.

pride in and affinity to the organization’s mission and vision are among

these emotional factors. Finally, the “hands” element of the model looks

at behavioural outcomes of engagement, which include discretionary

effort, a willingness to recommend the organization to a friend, and the

likelihood of leaving the organization. Together, these three facets add

a dimensional understanding to employee engagement.

other researchers have looked at various aspects of the workplace

and work life. dr. Alan saks, professor of organizational Behaviour

and HR management with the Centre for Industrial Relations and

Human Resources at the University of Toronto, along with his colleague

Alan Gruman, has suggested four main attachments or relationships:

engagement with the task, with the work, with the group/team, and with

the organization.7 This new line of thinking suggests that people can be

engaged with some areas of their workplace but not others.

5 Ashforth and Humphrey, “Emotion in the Workplace,” 119.

6 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 9–10.

7 saks and Gruman, “What do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?” 173.

The Q¹² was the largest non-academic study to test the concept of employee engagement.




Job Satisfaction Is Not Engagement

more recently, researchers have looked at deconstructing and analyzing

engagement itself—especially how it differs from job satisfaction.

some researchers state that job satisfaction is a necessary precursor

to engagement.8 others suggest that job satisfaction is an outcome of

engagement.9 While the exact causes and effects of, and correlations

between, job satisfaction and employee engagement are not completely

understood, the key difference between the two concepts lies in

behavioural and attitudinal outcomes.

Job satisfaction is largely focused on employees’ contentedness

with their workplace experiences. Edwin Locke’s definition of job

satisfaction is one of the more enduring: “a pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job

experiences.”10 Conceptually, job satisfaction includes, among other

areas, job security, organizational financial stability, compensation/pay,

benefits, and safety.11 These elements are provided by the employer to

the employee. If employees feel they are getting what they need from

these elements, they are likely to be satisfied.

Employee engagement, by contrast, is less concerned with how satisfied

employees are and more focused on what employees are willing to

give back to the organization. The degree to which employees feel

connected with the work itself, have the opportunity to use their skills,

contribute to the organization’s business goals, and perceive the job to

be meaningful12 are all examples of how and why employees would give

back to the organization through discretionary effort and loyalty. Another

way of assessing engagement is through Kahn’s model of psychological

8 Abraham, “Job satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement.”

9 orgambidez-Ramos, Borrego-Alés, and mendoza-sierra, “Role stress and Work Engagement.”

10 Locke, “The nature and Causes of Job satisfaction,” 1300.

11 society for Human Resource management, 2012 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement.

12 Ibid.

Employee engagement is focused on what employees are willing to give back to the organization.


www.cboc.ca/ip



attachment. Engaged employees are more likely to invest their entire

selves into their roles, whereas the disengaged experience a state of

psychological distance and withdrawal.13 This notion is related to the

concept of flow—a state of intense focus and concentration.14 Employees

who are engaged are said to be “in the moment.” At peak performance,

they are “in flow.”

It is often argued that employee engagement is a better measure than

job satisfaction. The reality is that both can be accurately measured

and used for different reasons. Employee engagement has become a

more popular measure because it more accurately addresses important

employee characteristics related to favourable business outcomes—

namely, effort, attitude, job performance, and retention.

depending on the business context, organizations may want to focus

more on devising tools to measure engagement directly as well as the

characteristics of the workplace that affect it. Understanding what factors

drive engagement and how employees perceive or experience those

factors provides the organization with crucial evidence. This evidence,

in turn, informs decisions about potential organizational responses.

From Concept to Measurement

In their drive to differentiate themselves from a business and product

perspective, management consultants have created myriad definitions of

employee engagement.15 While there are great similarities among these

definitions and the related questionnaires, the differences complicate

the task of arriving at standardized factors and related questions

for measuring engagement. (see “defining Employee Engagement:

Two separate Worlds.”)


14 nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow Theory and Research.”

15 Ibid.

Both employee engagement and job satisfaction can be accurately measured.




Defining Employee Engagement: Two Separate Worlds

The multitude of employee engagement definitions have implications for how

the concept is measured. Academics and research arms of major consulting

organizations diverge on how employee engagement should be defined.

Within the academic domain, employee engagement has been defined from

a psychological perspective. definitions vary widely as researchers have

attempted to capture the essence of a broad set of drivers and outcomes:

• “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,

dedication, and absorption.”16

• “The simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred

self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full

role performances.”17

• “A holistic investment of the entire self in terms of cognitive, emotional, and

physical energies.”18

management consultants, in contrast, have focused their definitions on a few

main, structural components of engagement along with a greater emphasis

on outcomes:

• “A measurement of an employee’s emotional commitment to an organization;

it takes into account the amount of discretionary effort an employee expends

on behalf of the organization.”19

• “Rational—How well employees understand their roles and responsibilities.

Emotional—How much passion they bring to their work and their organization.

motivational—How willing they are to invest discretionary effort to perform their

roles well.”20

16 schaufeli and others, “The measurement of Engagement and Burnout,” 74.


18 Christian, Garza, and slaughter, “Work Engagement,” 97.

19 Adp Research Institute, Employee Satisfaction vs. Employee Engagement, 3.

20 Towers Watson, Turbocharging Employee Engagement.


www.cboc.ca/ip



• “say: speak positively about the organization to co-workers, potential employees

and customers. stay: Have an intense sense of belonging and desire to be a

part of the organization. strive: Are motivated and exert effort toward success in

their job and for the company.”21

The consultant definitions tend to be more applied (i.e., “effort”) when compared

to academics’ (i.e., “preferred self”). The key take-away from looking at these

groups is the distance between the two and the challenge it brings to finding

standardized measurement tools. Consultants have largely proceeded with their

own applications and measurements of engagement, which can create problems

for establishing a valid and reliable measure for employee engagement.

Finding an accurate definition of employee engagement can be difficult

enough. Having to test these definitions through valid and reliable

research tools, such as surveys, only adds to this challenge. But it is

through collecting and analyzing employee data that the true value of

employee engagement is realized.

The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model

With this research, The Conference Board of Canada set out to

determine the key workplace characteristics that compose employee

engagement. As a first step, we conducted a literature review focusing

on primary research that established a clear relationship between

workplace characteristics and engagement. We operationalized

each workplace characteristic found to influence engagement

into survey questions using keywords from literature and the

Talentmap questionnaire.

To collect the data, we used a representative sample of Canadian

employees drawn from an online panel. We then used an analytical

technique called factor analysis to create The Conference Board of

Canada’s Employee Engagement model. Through this technique,

21 Aon Hewitt, 2013 Trends in Global Employee Engagement, 3.




survey questions that highly intercorrelate are grouped together. Factor

analysis was used to construct Gallup’s Q¹² questionnaire.22 For a more

detailed description of the methodology, see Appendix B.

After factoring all questions within the survey, we identified

seven distinct factors based on 25 questions included in the factor

model. (see Exhibit 2.) Any survey questions excluded from the model

were removed due to either high cross-correlation with multiple factors23

or little correlation with any factor. This meant that these particular

questions could not be assigned to any one factor alone and, if included,

would hinder the strength of the overall model. (see Appendix E for

factors with survey questions.)

Combined, the seven workplace factors represent 78 per cent of

what influences employee engagement. put another way, 22 per cent

of employee engagement is represented by other elements of the

workplace that our model did not capture—an acceptable number

considering the standards of social science research.24

Factors Have Different Strengths and Influence Engagement in Different Ways

While each of the seven workplace factors influence engagement,

not all have the same degree of influence. (see Chart 1.) our analysis

shows that no one workplace factor has a disproportionately high or

low influence on the model: All are within a range of about 10 to 20 per

cent. However, a factor’s influence is determined in part by the number

of questions grouped within it. For example, the “relationships with

22 Buckingham and Coffman, First, Break all the Rules, 253.

23 A note on cross-correlation: Variables exhibiting a high degree of correlation with several or all other variables are considered to be cross-correlated. In some cases, such as employee engagement, some topics covered by certain questions tend to correlate highly with many questions within a survey instrument. A common strategy or technique for dealing with cross-correlation is simply to remove each question from the analysis exhibiting cross-correlation and conduct diagnostic testing to determine the effect of the question’s removal from the resulting model.

24 pett, Lackey, and sullivan, Making Sense of Factor Analysis, 116–18.


www.cboc.ca/ip



co-workers” and “autonomy” factors have the lowest influence within

the model, but they both contain only two questions. This is because

these two factors do not have the breadth of impact that comes with a

factor like “confidence in senior leadership.” senior leaders simply have

more attributes that influence engagement (i.e., confidence, ambition,

communication, and trust) compared to other factors.

The relative influence of each factor varies among different demographic

segments. In other words, each individual, depending at least somewhat

on the demographic group to which they belong, is influenced to a

Exhibit 2The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model


Confidence insenior leadership

EmployeeEngagement

Autonomy

Relationshipswith co-workers

Acknowledgement& recognition

Professional& personal growth

Relationshipwith manager

Interesting& challenging work




greater or lesser degree by each factor. For example, autonomy is an

important factor influencing engagement for those working in education.

At the same time, an autonomous work environment is less influential

for employees in the information technology and retail trade sectors. All

of these factors influence engagement. Taking a segmented approach

to identifying which factors are most important to different groups

of employees (for example, looking at engagement by age, level of

responsibility, tenure, or sector) will help organizations focus their

engagement efforts.

Analysis for much of this report will focus largely on significant

differences between these demographic groups. Those with the highest

significant differences between groups are detailed throughout the

report. In other words, each of the 25 areas within the model will be

examined through the lens of influential demographics while taking

into account statistical significance.

Chart 1Influence of Engagement Factors Within the Model(percentage influence within model)


0

5

10

15

20

2519.9

17.0 16.313.3 13.2

10.8 9.5

Confidence in senior

leadership

Relationship with manager

Interesting & challenging

work

Professional & personal

growth

Acknowledgement & recognition

Relationships with

co-workers

Autonomy


www.cboc.ca/ip



Employee Engagement Surveys

The majority of medium-sized and large employers in Canada measure

employee engagement. A Conference Board of Canada survey indicated

that the figure is as high as 75 per cent.25 Today, a handful of large

consulting firms have developed employee engagement research and

survey offerings. These survey tools are substantially similar, but they

also have important differences. It is, therefore, important to understand

how these surveys measure engagement. They can typically be broken

down into two components:

1. Workplace characteristics that influence engagement. These

workplace characteristics are broken down into rating questions that

are similar to those related to each of the factors included in our model.

2. Direct measures of engagement itself. These questions try to capture

engagement at a high level and usually refer to elements of employees’

rational, emotional, and behavioural connection with their jobs.

After data have been collected, workplace questions from factors

that influence engagement (the first component) are correlated or

regressed against overall engagement (the second component) to

determine which workplace measurements have the greatest impact on

engagement within the organization. With this information, organizations

can devise strategy and practices around workplace areas that most

influence engagement.

The analysis presented in this report takes a different approach.

While we address both of these component areas, the focus is on

the first—modelling the workplace factors that influence engagement.

The group of overall engagement questions—hereafter referred to as

“direct measures”—is used only to demonstrate the strength of the

model and to identify factors that share a strong relationship with

these direct measures.

25 martin, Wright, and Cowan, Human Resources Trends and Metrics, 86.

The focus of this report is on modelling the workplace factors that influence engagement.




Direct Measures of Employee Engagement

one of the main ways that organizations measure engagement is

through targeted survey questions that probe the core of employees’

rational, emotional, and behavioural affinity to their work and

organizations. For our survey, we identified and developed these

questions in much the same way as those included in the employee

engagement model. We compiled primary research showing the

validity of various questions26,27 in order to identify the most prominent

measures. These were selected with the head, heart, and hands model

of employee engagement in mind.28 We analyzed questionnaires, where

available, for the inclusion of these questions and we used Talentmap’s

engagement survey to help guide question structure.

Based on this literature review and questionnaire analysis, we

used the following four survey questions as direct measures of

employee engagement:

1. I would recommend my organization to a friend as a great place to work.

2. I derive a sense of accomplishment from my work.

3. I am proud to work for my organization.

4. At the moment, I do not plan on leaving my organization.

These measures can be analyzed in conjunction with our employee

engagement model to examine the relationship between known direct

measures of engagement and the specific factors that influence

engagement in our model. Chart 2 shows this relationship.

In this chart, the bars represent the relative influence each factor has

within the model. (data are similar to those shown in Chart 1.) The

three different lines represent employees that fall into low, moderate,

and high levels of engagement based on the four direct measures. These

data reinforce the validity of our model by linking it to the four external,

26 Gibbons and schutt, A Global Barometer for Measuring Employee Engagement.

27 Thomas, A New Measurement Scale for Employee Engagement.


organizations measure engagement through targeted survey questions.


www.cboc.ca/ip



direct measures of engagement. For example, the factor having the most

influence in our model, “confidence in senior leadership,” also shows the

greatest separation between levels of engagement based on the direct

measures. Likewise, the “autonomy” factor has the lowest influence

within our model and also shows the lowest separation between levels

of overall engagement. In other words, the factors that are the most

influential within our model are also the most influential in determining

low, moderate, and high levels of overall engagement.

This report focuses on the influence of each individual factor separately,

summarizing the contribution and influence of each one within our model.

only where each of the four direct measures has a relatively strong

relationship with particular workplace factors are they discussed.

Chart 2Relationship Between Factors and Direct Measures(average factor influence)


0

10

20

30

40

Overall Low Moderate High


leadership



work


growth


Relationships with

co-workers

Autonomy




Key Findings

The following are some of the key findings from our research.

• Employee engagement is relatively low. Based on the 25 questions

included in our model, 27 per cent of respondents are highly engaged.

• Engagement has plateaued over the last five years. Immediately

following the shocks of the 2008 financial crisis, employee engagement

decreased. since 2010, engagement scores have remained relatively

unchanged. (see “Examining Engagement over Time.”)

Examining Engagement Over Time

overall engagement of Canada’s workforce has varied over the past decade.

Talentmap’s benchmark database was mined to glean insights on why this has

occurred. Greater volatility was characteristic of engagement scores between

2005 and 2010, followed by a period of stability. (see Chart 3.)

Chart 3Overall Employee Engagement, 2005–14(percentage engaged)

Source: TalentMap.

4750

53 5451

56 55 5553 53

2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

40

45

50

55

60


www.cboc.ca/ip



The recessionary period of 2008 and 2009 showed a marked decrease in

engagement. This mirrors other research that shows engagement is linked

to economic conditions.29 From 2010 to 2014, employee engagement scores

have more or less plateaued, with only a slight downward trajectory. This gives

the impression that organizations are “stuck” when it comes to engagement.

The economy improved moderately between 2010 and 2015, but employee

engagement did not. most employers would benefit from a better understanding

of what influences engagement and the practices that improve related

characteristics in the workplace.

• Employees in different demographic groups are not equally

engaged. Those in more senior roles30 tend to be more engaged, while

those in general service, production, skilled trades, and administrative

roles are among the least engaged. Engagement also varies by tenure.

(see Chart 4.)

• Leadership at all levels of the organization has the greatest

influence on engagement. Areas related to leadership are the two most

influential areas of the model: “confidence in senior leadership” (20 per

cent) and “relationship with manager” (17 per cent). When compared

to all areas of the model, the former has the greatest relationship with

employees’ sense of pride in their organizations and willingness to

recommend their organizations to others as great places to work.

• Different facets of overall engagement have different drivers. The

multi-dimensional nature of engagement requires a multi-dimensional

approach to analysis and strategy. What influences a sense of pride in

working for an organization (senior leadership) is not necessarily what

causes employees to stay with their current employers (opportunities

for professional growth and development). What drives an employee

to recommend their organization as a great place to work (senior

leadership) is not necessarily what provides them with a sense of

accomplishment in their work (interesting and challenging work).


30 “senior executive” refers to all executives reporting directly to the CEo. “Executive” refers to all other executives.




• Different segments of the population are engaged by different

factors. While “confidence in senior leadership” is the most influential

factor overall, it may not necessarily be the most influential for all

employee segments. Rather than indiscriminately applying the model

to all employees, addressing what engages individuals on a segmented

basis is more likely to increase engagement.

• Organizations that are successful with engagement take a

multi-dimensional approach. Those finding success understand the

importance of the factors included in our model, and take them all

into account when devising engagement strategies. Leadership, work

environment, and people management, among other areas, are all

woven into a greater human resources (HR) strategic plan. Leaders

are formally held accountable for employee engagement within

their organizations.

Chart 4Groups Reporting High Levels of Engagement(percentage highly engaged)


Technical and skilled trades

500−1,499 employees

Clerical and support

Tenure 20 years to less than 25 years

Federal government department/agency

50−99 employees

Not−for−profit organization

Tenure less than 1 year

Executives

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

52.0

50.0

41.0

40.7

17.5

17.2

16.3

14.8

14.8

Group Overall


www.cboc.ca/ip



The research and practice of employee engagement has advanced

significantly in a relatively short period of time. Workplace factors that

influence engagement have been identified and refined as the domain

matures. Researchers and consultants have developed tools that are

as valid and reliable as possible. However, the issue lies with the fact

that engagement has been, and to a great degree still is, a concept with

varied definitions and a multitude of influences. As engagement matures

further, it behooves employers to gain clarity around the concept’s true

meaning, valid measurement, and best practice so they can invest

resources in areas that can truly help increase employee engagement.

The remainder of this report focuses on the factors included in our

employee engagement model, along with the results of our survey.

Each workplace area within each factor is analyzed individually and in

relation to various demographics. The order of presentation within each

chapter is based on a combination of each area’s contribution to each

factor, relationship with direct measures of engagement, and logical flow.

Good practices and case studies provide direction on how leaders can

increase employee engagement.

Engagement is a concept with varied definitions and a multitude of influences.



CHAPTER 3

Confidence in Senior Leadership

Chapter summary

• “Confidence in senior leadership” has the strongest influence among the seven factors identified in the model.

• Workplace areas related to confidence in senior leadership have surpassed those related to “relationship with manager” as strong drivers of engagement.

• Trust is an important area within the confidence in senior leadership factor.

• Confidence in senior leadership is most influenced by an organization’s size and sector and the tenure of employees.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Employees’ perceptions of senior leadership is the strongest factor influencing employee engagement—accounting for nearly 20 per cent of our model. This factor encompasses several characteristics affecting how senior leaders are perceived by employees. These include employees’ confidence in leaders’ abilities to achieve goals, the presence of a compelling vision for the organization, clear communication, trust, and follow-through on commitments. (See Exhibit 3.)

In this chapter, we explore these key leadership characteristics and how

they relate to engagement. The workplace factor we call “confidence in

senior leadership” is analyzed by various workforce segments, and we

discuss key practices. Each of the six key leadership characteristics is

examined to establish a more foundational understanding of all that the

confidence in senior leadership factor encompasses.

Exhibit 3The Confidence in Senior Leadership Factor


Senior leadershave put fortha compellingvision for our organization.

Senior leadersset ambitiousbut realistic

goals.

Senior leadersclearly

communicate theobjectives for

our organization.

I trust oursenior leaders.

Confidence inSenior Leadership

Senior leadersfollow through

with theircommitments.

I haveconfidence that

our seniorleaders can

achieve our goals.




Trust in Senior Leadership

Trust in senior leaders is a key component of the confidence in senior

leadership factor. It is also among the strongest drivers of overall

engagement.1 (see “What Is a ‘driver’ of Engagement?”)

What Is a “Driver” of Engagement?

In the context of employee engagement, a driver is any workplace characteristic

that influences overall engagement. All of the questions included in our model

are drivers, as they all impact engagement. However, not all drivers have the

same degree of impact. The relative strength of each driver is measured through

statistical correlations. In this report, we use driver analyses to identify individual

workplace questions that have a strong relationship with any of the four overall

engagement questions referred to in Chapter 2.

A meta-analysis conducted by The Conference Board Inc. showed

that trust and integrity were among senior leadership’s most engaging

characteristics.2 Indeed, our data also show that trust in senior leaders

has the strongest relationship with two of the four direct measures of

engagement: pride in and willingness to recommend your employer.

(see “drivers of pride.”)

Drivers of Pride in and Willingness to Recommend the Organization

In Chapter 2, we identified four direct measures of employee engagement. Trust

in senior leadership is the strongest driver of engagement for two of these four

direct measures: pride in and willingness to recommend the organization as a

great place to work. (see Table 1.)

1 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust.

2 Gibbons, Employee Engagement, 6.


www.cboc.ca/ip



While trust is the single strongest driver, a look at the top three drivers for these

two direct measures shows that all three come from the confidence in senior

leadership factor. The characteristics of senior leaders, then, not only have a

strong influence within the employee engagement model but also have a strong

relationship with these direct measures.

senior leadership’s strong influence on employee engagement has been

attributed to their involvement in other areas within our employee engagement

model. For example, employees may attribute policies related to professional

development, acknowledgement and recognition, and flexible workplace

practices to senior leaders’ decisions. Aon Hewitt refers to this concept as the

“multiplier effect.”3 In a practical sense, organizations cannot address workplace

factors related to engagement without considering how senior leaders are

influencing these factors.

The strong relationship between trust and engagement is reason enough

to focus on trust in senior leadership. The fact that only 39 per cent

of employees trust their senior leaders—the third-lowest survey score

3 Aon Hewitt, The Multiplier Effect, 4.

Table 1Drivers of Pride in and Willingness to Recommend the Organization

I am proud to work for my organization.

I would recommend my organization to a friend as a great place to work.

driver #1 I trust our senior leaders. I trust our senior leaders.

driver #2 senior leaders follow through with their commitments.

I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.

driver #3 I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.

senior leaders follow through with their commitments.

Note: These are the top three drivers among all 25 areas in the model for these direct measures of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.




across the entire model—adds a sense of urgency to the matter. not all

employees have the same level of trust in their leaders, however. one of

the greatest differences lies with an organization’s size. (see Chart 5.4)

As Chart 5 shows, employees’ trust in their senior leaders changes

based on the size of the organization. It is not employees in the largest

organizations who least approve of their senior leaders, but those in

medium-sized companies. In fact, employees in the largest organizations

(more than 5,000 employees) have comparable levels of trust to those

in organizations of 100 to 199 employees. Trust is highest among

organizations with 50 to 99 employees, suggesting that senior leaders

of smaller organizations are more effectively able to build trust and

confidence with employees. While all organizations can stand to improve

the level of trust between leaders and employees, those in medium-sized

organizations have a particular need to develop strategies for improving

this dynamic.

4 data represent the proportion of respondents that answered either “agree” or “strongly agree” (i.e., top-box or “% favourable” score).

Chart 5Trust in Senior Leadership, by Number of Employees(percentage favourable; n = 389)


1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

50.7

63.0

36.0 39.2

24.1

32.8 38.8

Number of employees Overall sample (39.0)


www.cboc.ca/ip



Clear Communication

As stewards for the organization, senior leaders are expected to

communicate regularly with employees. Genuine and continuous

communication from senior leaders acts as an enabler for many of

the other factors related to engagement, including “relationships with

co-workers” and “acknowledgement and recognition.” organizational

communication research has found that inconsistency in messaging

and a lack of transparency contributes toward an erosion of trust in the

workplace.5 Without healthy internal communication, perceptions of

senior leaders can begin to deteriorate—and engagement along with it.

perceptions of clear communication were relatively low. overall, 43 per

cent of respondents felt that senior leaders clearly communicated

organizational objectives. These results present an interesting picture

when broken down by sector. (see Chart 6.)

Governmental organizations—regardless of size—have the lowest

senior leader communication scores. In fact, there is a greater than

10 per cent gap between the provincial government score (highest

among the three levels of government) and that of the next highest

sector—universities, hospitals, and school boards. Federal government

employees have the poorest perception of leader communication, at

only 25 per cent favourable. Crown corporations, on the other hand, are

one of the two groups to score over 50 per cent. While there are clear

differences in how government departments and Crown corporations

function, the difference between these two groups is, nonetheless,

significant given that both are publicly administered.

5 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust, 8.

Without healthy internal communication, perceptions of senior leaders can begin to deteriorate.




Setting and Achieving Goals

Having collective goals helps people stay focused and motivated.6

Likewise, organizational goals help the workforce focus. Leadership

characteristics influencing engagement include the extent to which

those goals are perceived as realistic and the degree of confidence

that employees have in leaders’ ability to achieve them. Two questions

within the confidence in senior leadership factor are related to goals:

1. senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.

2. I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.

The results of our survey show that employers have some work to do

around changing employee perceptions of these two areas. overall,

only 38 per cent of respondents feel that senior leaders set ambitious but

realistic goals—the lowest favourable rating of any question in our model.

6 Latham, “The motivational Benefits of Goal-setting.”

Chart 6Perception of Senior Leader Communication, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)


0

20

40

60

80

100

57.151.3 49.4

44.9

32.7 29.625

Sector Overall sample (43.0)

organizationNot-for-profitCrown

corporationUniversity/hospital/

school board

Municipalgovernment

Privatesector

corporation

Provincialgovernmentdepartment/

agency

Federalgovernmentdepartment/

agency


www.cboc.ca/ip



At 41 per cent, not many more have confidence that senior leaders can

achieve the goals they set. While this certainly presents challenges at a

high level, not all employees are unanimous in their perceptions of goal

setting—particularly when it comes to tenure. (see Chart 7.)

Those with a shorter tenure have a more favourable perception of

leaders’ ability to set and achieve organizational goals. This perception

generally weakens as tenure lengthens, with compounding implications

over time. The longer an employee stays with an organization, the more

the organization has invested in the employee. It is critical for leaders

to obtain employee buy-in for their goals in order to enhance and

sustain engagement.

Chart 7Perceptions of Senior Leaders’ Ability to Set and Attain Goals, by Tenure(percentage favourable; n = 400)


< 1 year 1 year to< 3 years

3 years to< 5 years

5 years to< 10 years




25 years orlonger

0

20

40

60

80

100

54.2

75.0

49.0 44.934.1

45.5

32.139.3 43.6 44.9

39.534.9

27.620.7

26.5 28.6

Senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.

I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.




From Middle Management to Senior Leadership: The Big Shift

The idea that senior leaders and managers influence engagement is not new.

What is new, however, is the relative degree of influence each has. There

was a time when managers were accepted as being the strongest driver of

engagement. While managers are certainly a key player in the engagement

equation (they are the second most influential factor in our model), the focus

on and influence of senior leaders has been growing.7,8

7 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Report 2011, 17.

8 Hackbarth, Harris, and Wright, 2015 Employee Engagement Trends Report.

Table 2Employees’ Willingness to Recommend the Organization Is More Influenced by Senior Leaders Than by Managers

Overall ranked importance Driver

1 I trust our senior leaders.

2 I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.

3 senior leaders follow through with their commitments.

6 senior leaders have put forth a compelling vision for our organization.

10 senior leaders clearly communicate the objectives for our organization.

11 senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.

15 my manager values my opinions and ideas.

19 my manager includes me in decisions that affect my work.

20 my manager provides me with constructive feedback.

21 my manager follows through with his/her commitments.

Note: The rank is based on the correlation with all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.


www.cboc.ca/ip



our data support this theory. Looking at the confidence in senior leadership

and relationship with manager factors alone, Table 2 shows how each of

the questions compare as drivers for employees’ willingness to recommend

the organization to a friend—one of the key direct measures of engagement

introduced in Chapter 2.

Comparing the two factors, all senior leadership questions show a stronger

correlation with employees’ willingness to recommend their organizations

compared to questions related to immediate management. This correlation

is similar to that of other direct measures of engagement, and should cause

organizations to reconsider the true importance of senior leaders vis-à-vis

other workplace factors in their employee engagement strategies.

Following Through on Commitments

Committing to and following through on promises is another driver with

a strong influence on engagement. The notion of following through with

commitments is important for two reasons. First, senior leaders who

follow through with commitments engender trust. As we saw earlier, a

sense of trust between leaders and employees is one of the strongest

drivers of engagement. second, following through on commitments is

related to a sense of progression. Employees are engaged when they

see their organizations moving forward and achieving goals. Failure to

follow through with commitments limits both the level of trust and sense

of achievement.

overall, only 40 per cent of respondents feel that their senior leaders

follow through on their commitments. This is among the lowest ratings of

all questions included in the model. The issues surrounding leadership

follow-through become clear when looked at by level of responsibility.

(see Chart 8.)

Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, as an employee’s

level of responsibility decreases, so too does their perception of

leaders following through with their commitments. not surprisingly, it

is the executives themselves that have the most favourable perception




of following through with their commitments. professionals and other

workers hold the least favourable opinions on the subject of executive

follow-through. These results can negatively affect overall engagement,

as those who make up the largest portion of organizations have the least

favourable view of leadership execution.

second, this chart highlights a clear gap between executive and

professional perceptions. At 72 per cent, leaders’ self-evaluation is much

higher than those of professionals, which is around 40 per cent. While

senior leaders may feel they are following through on commitments, in

the eyes of employees, where it has the greatest effect on engagement,

senior leaders are falling short. Closing this gap requires clearer

articulation of goals, honest dialogue, clear communication around

follow-up action, and the capacity to do what has been committed.

Chart 8Perception of Senior Leader Follow-Through, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)


Executive Management Professional—non-technical

Professional—technical

Trades, clerical, support, service, and production

0

20

40

60

80

100

72.0

52.342.0 40.3

19.8

Level of responsibility Overall sample (39.5)


www.cboc.ca/ip



A Clear Vision

A strong organizational vision is one of the more important areas within

the confidence in senior leadership factor. Engagement is heightened

when employees have a clear sense of where their organizations are

heading. While vision can be influenced by more than just senior leaders,

they are generally seen as the main drivers of overall direction.

Clarity around organizational vision was the second-lowest-scoring area

within our employee engagement model. other research has shown

that employees’ perception of organizational vision is relatively weak.9

overall, only 38 per cent of respondents feel that their senior leaders

put forth a compelling vision for their organizations. These results

varied significantly when analyzed by sector. (see Chart 9.)

9 Ipsos Loyalty, Build a Better Workplace, 5.

Chart 9Senior Leaders Have Put Forth a Compelling Vision, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)


organizationNot-for-profit Crown

corporationUniversity/hospital/

school board

Municipalgovernment

Privatesector

corporation


agency


agency

0

20

40

60

80

100

51.3 50.044.9 40.7 40.3

24.517.5





The main finding that can be drawn from this chart is that the larger

levels of government—provincial and federal—have the lowest scores

around organizational vision. only 25 per cent of provincial employees

feel their leaders put forth a compelling organizational vision, and this

figure is only 18 per cent for federal employees. In addition to sector,

these low scores may be due in part to the size of the organizations.

Communication is a key component for communicating vision, and

it is more difficult to effectively communicate the vision within larger

organizations. Larger government organizations should ensure that

there is clear, consistent, well-communicated messaging that cascades

from senior to middle management.

Impact of Confidence in Senior Leadership

senior leadership plays an influential role in engaging employees across

organizational demographic groups, and awareness of these differences

can facilitate effective strategies for enhancing employee engagement.

Using the model as a tool for analysis, we are able to determine which

demographic segments are positively or negatively impacted by specific

engagement factors. The more positive the impact, the greater the

influence the factor has on engaging employees. The data for each

factor in the model were clustered10 into four levels—negative, somewhat

negative, somewhat positive, and positive—each corresponding to a

range of impact on employee engagement from negative to positive.

(see “Understanding ‘Impact’ of Workplace Factors of Engagement.”)

A negative impact level corresponds to employees indicating that

their engagement is negatively influenced by a particular workplace

factor. positive impact results, however, indicate that engagement

for employees is greatly influenced (or driven) by a workplace factor.

10 Cluster analysis: This technique is most commonly used in the social sciences and market research, primarily to subdivide a survey sample into two or more groups (or clusters). This is done in such a way that the members belonging to a single cluster are very similar to each other and very different from members contained in other clusters. In the case of the questions on employee engagement, the technique was employed to exploit the similarities and differences among respondents at different levels of impact, based on their assessment of each factor.

The larger levels of government have the lowest scores around organizational vision.


www.cboc.ca/ip



In other words, they gave survey items associated with that factor a high

approval rating. Charts 10 and 11 summarize the four levels of impact

on engagement reported by respondents across all demographic

groups for the confidence in senior leadership factor.

Chart 10Level of Impact on Confidence in Senior Leadership, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees

University/hospital/school board

Municipal government

Crown corporation

Not-for-profit organization

Provincial government department/agency


Private sector corporation

Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.3 26.8 35.3 25.8

10.2 21.0 38.6 30.1

12.5 42.5 27.5 17.5

20.4 36.7 30.6 12.2

10.3 33.3 30.8 25.6

21.4 7.1 21.4 50.0

7.4 22.2 48.1 22.2

12.2 24.5 38.8 24.5

9.6 30.1 26.0 34.2

11.1 14.8 37.0 37.0

16.0 40.0 40.0 4.0

7.8 21.6 49.0 21.6

16.7 27.8 37.0 18.5

14.8 18.0 39.3 27.9

9.2 31.6 31.6 27.6

Negative impact

Somewhat negative impact

Somewhat positive impact

Positive impact




overall, 61 per cent of respondents indicated that confidence in

senior leadership somewhat positively or positively impacts their level

of engagement, while 39 per cent reported a somewhat negative or

negative impact on this workplace factor. Within the industry sector, the

greatest proportion of respondents (50 per cent) indicating a positive

Chart 11Level of Impact on Confidence in Senior Leadership, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer

20 years to < 25 years



5 years to <10 years


1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure


Professional−non-technical

Professional−technical

Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12.3 26.8 35.3 25.8

24.0 40.0 36.0

14.0 22.1 30.2 33.7

13.9 25.0 37.5 23.6

12.0 31.0 36.0 21.0

13.5 25.2 37.8 23.4

4.2 4.2 45.8 45.8

10.2 18.4 42.9 28.6

9.1 25.0 36.4 29.5

21.4 21.4 33.3 23.8

6.4 33.3 33.3 26.9

7.0 32.6 39.5 20.9

24.1 27.6 37.9 10.3

12.2 40.8 22.4 24.5

14.7 17.3 44.0 24.0

9.3 29.9 32.7 28.0

12.0 29.6 36.0 22.4

14.0 26.9 30.1 29.0

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



impact from confidence in senior leadership came from those working

in Crown corporations. Respondents from private sector organizations

appear to be more positively impacted by the confidence in senior

leadership factor than those from public sector organizations. At the

employee level, executives had the highest positive impact score (at

36 per cent) and no executives provided a negative score.

perception of senior leadership positively impacts the engagement of

employees with less than one year of service (46 per cent), whereas

employees with longer tenures were more negative—especially those

with 20 to 25 years of service. Employees from smaller organizations

(fewer than 100 employees) reported considerably higher positive

impact scores than those working in organizations with 100 or more

employees. Chart 12 shows the varying levels of impact the confidence

in senior leadership factor has on employees from a range of

demographic and sector segments.

Understanding “Impact” of Workplace Factors of Engagement

Impact, for the purposes of our engagement model, can be thought of as a

performance outcome. That is, respondents that indicated a positive impact

on a particular workplace engagement factor provided higher approval ratings

for each item associated with or composing that factor. For example, within the

confidence in senior leadership factor, respondents reporting a positive impact

provided assessment ratings of their senior organizational leaders that were

marginally better than those indicating a somewhat positive level of impact,

and significantly better than those indicating levels of somewhat negative or

negative impact. (see Chart 12.)

Comparing the percentage difference in mean ratings of positive respondents

with those with less positive levels of impact (somewhat positive, somewhat

negative, and negative), it becomes clear why impact may be used to describe

these four distinct perceptions. (see Chart 13.) Respondents with a positive

impact level rated their confidence in senior leadership about 170 per cent higher




Chart 12Organizations at Varying Levels of Confidence in Senior Leadership(mean scores; n = 400)


0

1

2

3

4

5

1.5

2.3

3.4

4.3

1.5

2.3

3.3

4.3

1.6

2.3

3.3

4.1

1.7

2.5

3.5

4.1

1.4

2.3

3.4

4.1

1.7

2.4

3.3

4.1

Negative impact Somewhat negative Somewhat positive Positive impact Sample mean

I have confidencethat senior leaders

can achieve our goals

Senior leaders putforth a compelling

vision for organization

Senior leaders setambitious butrealistic goals

Senior leaders clearlycommunicate objectives

for organization

I trust oursenior leaders

Senior leadersfollow through with

commitments

Chart 13Comparison of Percentage Gap Between Positive and Negative Impact on Employee Confidence in Senior Leadership (per cent; n = 400)


202423282328

69737687

7989

144147

166

183187193

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Positive impact vs. somewhat positive impact

Positive impact vs. somewhat negative impact

Positive impact vs. negative impact

I have confidencethat senior leaders

can achieve our goals

Senior leaders putforth a compelling

vision for organization

Senior leaders setambitious butrealistic goals

Senior leaders clearlycommunicate objectives

for organization

I trust oursenior leaders

Senior leadersfollow through with

commitments


www.cboc.ca/ip



(on average) than those at a negative impact level, 24 per cent higher than those

at a somewhat positive impact level, and 79 per cent higher than somewhat

negative impact respondents.

A key finding from analyzing this factor is the considerable gap between

employees whose ratings are categorized as positive and those who rated

it as negative. While there may be some variation in the ratings of individual

items within the factor, the results indicate that above all else, organizational

leaders with overall positive employee ratings have succeeded in capturing

the confidence, trust, and commitment of their workforce. organizations with

a high proportion of employees that provided a negative rating will likely have

low engagement.

Management Practices That Build Confidence in Senior Leadership

The following are strategies that organizations can use to boost

engagement by focusing on senior leaders:

Build trust among employees by following through on

commitments. The survey data indicate that trust in senior leaders

is the item with the strongest influence on engagement. Keeping

communications in line with goals and actions will improve employees’

perceived trust in leaders.

Carefully select which strategies and objectives to communicate.

Transparent and honest communications, regardless of the medium,

are linked to a strong sense of trust in leaders among employees.11

Ensure that only those strategies and objectives for which there is

a relatively high confidence of action are communicated broadly.

Customize communications for longer-serving employees.

Employees with a longer tenure generally have a more negative

perception of their senior leaders. With an aging population, this

11 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust, 8–9.




segment of employees is already large and will remain so for the

foreseeable future. Conducting focus groups to identify experiences

that underlie low engagement will highlight actionable strategies.

As these employees begin to exit the workforce, their goodwill in terms

of transferring knowledge and helping to develop younger cohorts will

influence productivity.

Make senior leaders accessible. Employees are more engaged with

their organizations when they have opportunities to interact with their

leaders. At Geosoft, the senior leadership team visits global offices

regularly to get feedback and ideas from global teams. (see “Case

study: Geosoft Inc.”)

Case Study: Geosoft Inc.

Geosoft Inc. is an earth sciences exploration services and technology company.

The company has existed for 30 years and serves clients in mining, energy,

marine, and government organizations.

At Geosoft, all employees are responsible for employee engagement. senior

leaders ensure the right programs are in place; managers engage employees

by building personal and professional relationships; and employees are expected

to bring solutions—not just challenges—to the table.

Through the use of HR analytics, employee engagement surveys, and exit

interviews, Geosoft has identified key drivers of engagement for its organization.

The strongest driver is employee perception of senior leadership.

Accessibility is the key word from an engagement perspective. senior leaders

visit global offices regularly. Here, they meet face to face with employees to

gather ideas and feedback about the organization.

Geosoft’s approach to professional growth is another contributing factor to its

high level of employee engagement. Geosoft is a smaller company and, as

such, has relatively few opportunities for upward mobility compared to larger

organizations. To address this, Geosoft has adopted the philosophy that career

progression need not be defined as upward advancement. The company created

three different paths through its professional path program: the geo path,

Employees are more engaged when they have opportunities to interact with their leaders.


www.cboc.ca/ip



focusing on core business development; the technology path, which maps

out opportunities in software development; and the other path, which looks at

supporting areas of the business such as HR and marketing. All paths could

lead to the C-suite, but the program is structured to lead people into roles where

they can add the most value and be the most engaged—regardless of the level

of responsibility.

many of the key business benefits of an engaged workforce have been realized

at Geosoft. The company has had 30 years of consistent growth, the turnover

rate has seldom been higher than 5 per cent, and average absenteeism has

been less than three days per year. The combination of an accessible senior

leadership and a genuine commitment to professional development have made

Geosoft a model organization for employee engagement.

Provide opportunities for employees to interact with senior leaders

professionally. For those to whom senior leadership is important, 19 per

cent mentioned “teamwork” as a source of pride—more than any other

single aspect of the workplace. open door policies, input on strategy,

and special projects that include interaction with senior leaders can help

engage employees with leaders and the organization.

Engage senior leaders. Employees tend to be more engaged when

their senior leadership is engaged. This is known as the “cascade

effect.”12 Target engagement research to senior leaders. Ensure that the

organization is addressing the right drivers to keep leaders engaged in

order for them to have a positive influence throughout the organization.

(The Conference Board of Canada will be releasing a companion report

on management engagement.)


Employees tend to be more engaged when their senior leadership is engaged.



CHAPTER 4

Relationship With Manager

Chapter summary

• The “relationship with manager” factor comprises four managerial characteristics: providing constructive feedback; valuing employees’ opinions and ideas; involving employees in decision-making; and following through on commitments.

• The higher the employee’s level of responsibility, the more influential this factor is.

• Employees’ relationship with their managers heavily impacts engagement in the information technology and retail trade and health care industries.

• Highly engaged organizations are investing in management training and are making the ability to engage employees a required skill.


www.cboc.ca/ip



It is often said that people don’t leave their employers; they leave their managers. This snippet of conventional wisdom may not be completely true (there are six other factors within our model), but findings from the literature1,2 and our model leave little doubt as to the importance of managers in employee engagement.

“Relationship with manager” is the second-strongest factor, accounting

for 17 per cent of the overall engagement model. Following through

on commitments, valuing employees’ opinions and ideas, providing

constructive feedback, and including employees in decisions that affect

their work are managerial characteristics that affect this important

workplace relationship. (see Exhibit 4.)

In this chapter, we examine each of these four areas individually.


2 saks, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement,” 610.

Exhibit 4The Relationship With Manager Factor


My managerfollows through

with his/hercommitments.

My managervalues my

opinions andideas.

My managerprovides me

with constructivefeedback.

My managerincludes me indecisions that

affect my work.

RelationshipWith Manager




Providing Constructive Feedback

Employees want to know how they are performing. Knowing where they

are doing well, and what they can improve, gives employees a sense of

security in their roles and a clear indication of what needs to improve.

When giving feedback, managers should be mindful of employee

perception of how feedback is received. “Constructive” or

“developmental” feedback is meant to help employees develop their

knowledge and skills to improve their performance. Giving feedback that

is perceived as inaccurate, however, can lead to negative perceptions

of the process.3 Giving constructive feedback has less to do with

having it be positive or negative and more to do with its ability to help

employees improve. Receiving negative feedback from a manager can

actually serve to increase engagement—as long as the feedback clearly

identifies issues and is accompanied by a clear plan of action.

Close to half of respondents (48 per cent) indicated that their manager

provides them with constructive feedback. This represents the lowest

score of the four questions included in the factor. The perception that

respondents receive constructive feedback is one of the few areas in the

model that showed a noticeable difference by gender. (see Chart 14.)

our data support other research that recommends managers take into

account gender and cultural preferences when delivering feedback to

employees. What is perceived as constructive by one group may not be

perceived in the same way by another. Just over half (52 per cent) of

females in our sample felt they received constructive feedback from their

managers. While this is only slightly over half, it is still only 7 per cent

higher than males (45 per cent). one study on learning styles showed

that women preferred more positive, affirming feedback and men wanted

more factual and/or theoretical-based feedback.4 Going beyond gender,

3 Brett and Atwater, “360° Feedback,” 938.

4 miller, ogilvie, and Branch, “sport psychology Consultation,” 284.

Giving constructive feedback has more to do with its ability to help employees improve.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Conference Board of Canada research found that younger workers

(also known as “millennials”) preferred positive reinforcement as a

means of feedback.5

Valuing Employees’ Opinions and Ideas

Valuing employees’ opinions and ideas has to do with the extent to

which individuals perceive they can make a difference. people are

more likely to be engaged if they feel they are having a genuine effect

on organizational outcomes.6 one of the best ways managers can

promote this perception among employees is by asking for and, where

possible, acting on employee input on matters that affect their roles.7

By considering employees’ opinions and ideas, managers are sending

a clear message that employees can have an impact on company

direction and strategy.

5 Hawkins, Vellone, and Wright, Workplace Preferences of Millennials and Gen X, 25.

6 Wellins, Bernthal, and phelps, Employee Engagement, 13.

7 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Report 2011, 37.

Chart 14Manager Provides Constructive Feedback, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)


Male Female

0

20

40

60

80

100

26.5 2944.5

27 21

52

Unfavourable Neutral Favourable




This was among one of the most favourably rated questions by our

sample. However, the responses did vary significantly by level of

responsibility. (see Chart 15.)

As level of responsibility decreases, so too does the perception that

opinions and ideas are valued. From an operational perspective, this

result makes sense. By virtue of their influential position, the opinions

and ideas of senior leaders, for example, typically have more influence

on organizational decision-making. Therefore, the perception of having

impact is higher. While this may be the case, it does little to boost

engagement throughout the rest of the organization. Employees at all

levels should be made to feel their opinions and ideas are valued by

their leaders and managers.

Chart 15Sense That Opinions and Ideas Are Valued, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)


0

20

40

60

80

100

8074.4 72

66.7

50.5






www.cboc.ca/ip



Including Employees in Decision-Making

Employees like to be involved in decisions that affect them.8 many factors

related to engagement, such as professional development opportunities

and degree of autonomy in how work is done, are filtered through

managers. organizations can encourage engagement by providing

employees with opportunities for more involvement in decisions.

overall, slightly over half of respondents (53 per cent) feel their

managers include them in decisions that affect their work. The industry

sector was one of the greatest demographic influences on this survey

question. (see Chart 16.)

8 Robinson, perryman, and Hayday, The Drivers of Employee Engagement, 21.

Chart 16Employee Perception of Inclusion in Decisions That Affect Their Work, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)


Crowncorporation


agency

Municipalgovernment

Privatesector

corporation


agency

0

20

40

60

80

100

76.9

61.2 57.1 53.1 48.1 47.7 45


organizationNot-for-profit University/

hospital/school board




managers in the not-for-profit sector appear to be doing the best job

in this area. At 77 per cent, this figure is almost 25 percentage points

higher than the overall score. private sector corporations have one of the

lowest scores (48 per cent). There is little difference between the various

levels of government, with only 8 percentage points separating the

highest (provincial, 53 per cent) from the lowest (federal, 45 per cent).

Following Through on Commitments

Following through on commitments establishes a degree of trust

between employees and their managers. The belief that leaders and

managers follow through on these commitments is a key way that

trust can be fostered. over half of respondents (56 per cent) feel their

managers follow through on their commitments. The most significant

difference in perception is by level of responsibility. (see Chart 17.)

Chart 17Managers Follow Through With Their Commitments, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)


0

20

40

60

80

100

64 65.1 68

55.6

39.6






www.cboc.ca/ip



Two key insights can be drawn from Chart 17. First, there is little

difference between executives, managers, and non-technical

professionals regarding their perception of manager follow-through.

In a model that typically sees engagement increase with level of

responsibility, those who usually have no direct reports—non-technical

professionals—actually have the most favourable perception of their

managers’ follow-through. However, this result may be due more to

the type of work that non-technical professionals do than to their level

of responsibility.

second, there is a sizable difference between technical and non-

technical professionals regarding their perception of manager follow-

through. The difference between these two groups of employees that

have essentially the same level of responsibility can be found throughout

our model. (see “Technical and non-Technical professionals.”) non-

technical professionals have scores that are more than 12 per cent

higher than technical professionals in terms of their perception of

manager follow-through. managers should work to have a clear

understanding of what is achievable before making commitments

to employees. Failure to do so can negatively impact trust and, by

extension, engagement.

Technical and Non-Technical Professionals: The Same But Different

The differences between technical and non-technical employees extends

far beyond the relationship with their managers. Technical professionals

(i.e., analysts, engineers, IT specialists, scientists, and software developers)

differ greatly from non-technical professionals (i.e., accountants, business

administration professionals, police officers, and lawyers) across almost

all of the factors in our model. (see Chart 18.9)

9 seven different cluster solutions were calculated based on the variables included in each factor. data should, therefore, only be compared within, not across, each factor.

managers should have a clear understanding of what is achievable before making commitments to employees.




The greatest difference (28 percentage points) is with the “interesting and

challenging work” factor. Based on some of the characteristics that make work

interesting and challenging, such as variety, task identity, and task significance,10

non-technical professionals may perceive their work to align better with these

traits. managers need to realize that these differences exist, and organizations

should develop management strategies based on the differences between

these two types of employees.

With the exception of the confidence in senior leadership factor, technical

professionals score lower than non-technical professionals across the entire

model. The difference between the groups of professionals suggests there

are inherent characteristics for each of the two groups that require a unique

approach to engagement. It is important to note that both groups are often at the

same job grade and can work on the same teams. Clear challenges emerge for

organizations looking to engage these two very different types of employees.

10 Hackman and oldham, “motivation Through the design of Work.”

Chart 18Perception of Workplace Factors, by Type of Professional(percentage favourable)


0

20

40

60

80

100

33.3 31

48.657

48.6

77

5.616

40.351 52.8

67

55.6

69

Technical professional (n = 72) Non-technical professional (n = 100)


leadership



work


growth


Relationships with

co-workers

Autonomy


www.cboc.ca/ip



Impact of Strong Manager Relationships

The immediate manager’s influence on engagement is higher for some

industry sectors and employee groups than for others. High positive

and somewhat positive ratings by employees in not-for-profit (74 per

cent) and federal and provincial government organizations (70 per cent

and 64 per cent respectively), for instance, reflect strong relationships

with managers relative to other industry sectors. municipal government

organizations have the highest proportion of combined negative and

somewhat negative ratings at 45 per cent. (see Chart 19.)

Chart 19Impact of Relationship With Managers, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9.4 28.9 38.8 22.8

8.5 33.5 36.9 21.0

5.0 25.0 50.0 20.0

8.2 28.6 32.7 30.6

5.1 20.5 46.2 28.2

28.6 7.1 42.9 21.4

14.8 29.6 37.0 18.5

12.2 28.6 36.7 22.4

8.2 24.7 45.2 21.9

3.7 25.9 40.7 29.6

12.0 24.0 44.0 20.0

3.9 35.3 39.2 21.6

9.3 33.3 33.3 24.1

16.4 26.2 39.3 18.0

10.2 29.6 35.7 24.5

Negative impact



Positive impact




At the employee level, managers themselves expressed the highest

combined positive and somewhat positive impact ratings for their

immediate managers at 71 per cent. Trades, clerical support, service,

and production employees had the lowest combined negative and

somewhat negative impact ratings at 52 per cent. (see Chart 20.)

Chart 20Impact of Relationship With Managers, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer


15 years to < 20




1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9.4 28.9 38.8 22.8

32.0 44.0 24.0

9.3 19.8 34.9 36.0

5.6 33.3 38.9 22.2

9.0 22.0 47.0 22.0

14.4 37.8 32.4 15.3

4.2 25.0 45.8 25.0

10.2 20.4 49.0 20.4

11.4 29.5 38.6 20.5

14.3 28.6 27.4 29.8

3.8 28.2 44.9 23.1

7.0 34.9 39.5 18.6

3.4 31.0 48.3 17.2

18.4 32.7 26.5 22.4

5.3 26.7 42.7 25.3

7.5 29.9 38.3 24.3

12.0 28.8 37.6 21.6

12.9 29.0 36.6 21.5

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



In terms of length of service, newer employees (those with less than

three years) had the highest combined somewhat positive and positive

impact ratings, and employees with the longest tenures (those with

25 years or more) reported the least positive ratings.

Management Practices That Engage Direct Reports

organizations with highly engaged workforces understand and actively

nurture the important relationship between employees and their

managers. The following are key practices that organizations in our

report are using to engage employees through immediate management.

Make employee engagement a job requirement for managers.

Highly engaged organizations have an engagement metric included in

managers’ performance assessments. They might, for instance, include

an overall team engagement score. This metric could include only the

four questions within the relationship with manager factor.

Use management performance metrics. Employee feedback,

engagement surveys, 360-degree evaluations, and performance reviews

can help identify low- and high-performing managers. objective, data-

driven evaluations such as these will ensure a standard method of

evaluation and provide a more reliable picture of managers who merit

recognition and those who would benefit from training.

Actively manage underperforming managers. For low performers,

consider an aggressive training regimen designed to develop their

management skills. Reassignment to other value-added roles that don’t

require people management may be an option. Assessing for people-

management skills should also be a criterion for promotion.

Invest in management training. Under-investment in leadership

development can negatively affect engagement results.11 From project

management, to conflict resolution, to workforce planning, there is a

11 Harvard Business Review Analytic services, Frontline Managers, 5.

organizations with highly engaged workforces nurture the relationship between employees and their managers.




broad range of management training available. Investing in training

related specifically to actions that drive engagement, such as providing

constructive feedback and shared decision-making, provides an efficient

and focused approach to improving management effectiveness. (see

“md Financial management Inc.”)

Involve employees in management decisions. Create opportunities

for employees to have input on decisions that may affect their work.

At the very least, proactive communications regarding corporate affairs

will keep employees informed and included.12

MD Financial Management Inc.: The Manager Is the Key

md Financial management Inc. is a financial management and investment

services company for Canadian physicians and their families. products and

services include financial planning, investment counselling services, mutual

fund investments, estate and trust planning, and insurance. The company also

has a banking partnership offered through the national Bank of Canada that

covers credit and lending products.

The company has experienced a significant increase in employee engagement

over a relatively short period of time. overall engagement increased every year

between 2010 and 2015. While major changes in the business throughout this

period affected employee perception of the organization, increased engagement

can also be attributed to the following:

• Understanding value. From md’s perspective, an engaged workforce drives a

better client experience. Everyone in the organization needed to understand the

value of an engaged workforce.

• Managing underperforming managers. Any managers identified as a barrier

to engagement were removed either from their positions or the organization. This

was the first clear message that md was taking employee engagement seriously.

12 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 248.


www.cboc.ca/ip



• Decentralized accountability. Employee engagement has traditionally been

an HR activity. md broke with this tradition and made engagement a divisional

accountability. Executives in finance, operations, marketing, and all other

divisions are responsible for their own levels of engagement, while Human

Resources acts as a business partner.

• Leadership development. In addition to an increase in formal leadership

training, quarterly face-to-face meetings of all leaders were organized to

discuss strategies and experiences related to people management—not

business performance.

• New manager program. md created an onboarding program tailored to

new managers. This program reinforced the importance of managers in

md’s employee engagement strategy by clearly detailing their new roles,

responsibilities, and expectations as people leaders.

• Updated total rewards program. md was using a traditional rewards

program focused heavily on cash compensation. A new program was adopted

that broadened the scope of rewards to include professional development

opportunities and flexible work arrangements.

• Employee-owned professional development. Each year, employees are given

a specified amount of money to spend on professional development as they see

fit. no approval is required from their manager or the business. This increases

employees’ sense of autonomy and encourages their professional growth.

• Abandoning the annual performance review. The company moved away

from branding employees with a performance rating. Instead of annual

performance reviews, employees have a “quarterly performance dialogue”

with their managers.

The catalyst for md came in the form of a fire at its ottawa head office in

January 2013. The fire left the building unfit for employees to do their jobs

on-site and forced them to work remotely for a full year. prior to the fire,

managers may have been reluctant to allow employees so much flexibility.

That same year, md had its best results in terms of assets under management.

While there are other business decisions that helped drive outcomes, key

performance indicators have been achieved by a measure of 150 per cent and

turnover is far below industry average. md attributes much of its success to

making employee engagement a corporate priority. The CEo does not treat

engagement as a temporary strategy, but rather as one that requires persistent

attention and refinement.



CHAPTER 5

Interesting and Challenging Work

Chapter summary

• The “interesting and challenging work” factor is the strongest driver of employees’ sense of personal accomplishment—a direct measure of employee engagement.

• The perception of interesting and challenging work is lowest among employees with a tenure of between three and five years.

• men find significantly less variety and are significantly less interested in their work compared to women.

• Engagement for those in the education, not-for-profit, and health industries is heavily influenced by interesting and challenging work.

• The degree to which employees will find interest and challenge in their work can be predicted with a good assessment process.

• The opportunity to work in different roles and areas helps maintain employees’ sense of interest and challenge in their work.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Areas related to employees’ perception of challenge, meaning, variety, and interest in their work compose the “interesting and challenging work” factor. This factor is the third most influential in our employee engagement model—accounting for 16 per cent. Kahn’s research, discussed in the introduction, explored how an individual’s work fosters a sense of interest, challenge, and meaning, and how this influences employee engagement.1 (See Exhibit 5.)

In this chapter, we explore work characteristics and how they relate

to employee engagement. Examining different perceptions of work

among various demographics enables a better understanding of which

employees are engaged and those who are less engaged. A look at

what organizations are doing to engage employees in their work provides

direction with this important factor of employee engagement.

1 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement.”

Exhibit 5The Interesting and Challenging Work Factor


Interesting andChallenging Work

I find mywork interesting.

Most of mywork is

challenging.

The work I dois meaningful.

There isenough variety

in the workthat I do.




Interesting Work

Three-quarters of respondents to our survey rated their work as

interesting and challenging. Furthermore, each of the four related drivers

are also strong drivers of overall engagement. (see “Interesting and

Challenging Work.”) Having interesting work has a significant impact on

employee engagement.2 When people perceive their work as interesting,

it satisfies their innate curiosity and pleasure in discovery. This touches

on a concept known as intrinsic motivation, which can be defined as

“the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for

some separable consequence.”3 When people experience a feeling

of satisfaction from doing specific tasks, engagement in their work

increases. It helps contribute to the sense of “flow” in work and “being

in the moment.”

Interesting and Challenging Work: A Driver of Overall Employee Engagement

Employees’ sense of accomplishment is one of the four direct measures of

engagement discussed in Chapter 2. While elements of senior leadership are

the strongest drivers of pride in and willingness to recommend the organization,

this measure is more influenced by characteristics of the work itself. (see

Table 3.)

All four of the questions included in the interesting and challenging work factor

are among the top five drivers of this direct measure of engagement. The “sense

of accomplishment” indicator measures employees’ overall engagement with

their work (as opposed to their work teams or the organization). It makes sense,

then, that our model’s factor related to interest and challenge in the work is this

indicator’s strongest driver. To enhance engagement, organizations should find

ways to ensure employees’ work is interesting, meaningful, challenging, and

has variety.

2 Gourlay and others, Locus of Engagement, 18.

3 Ryan and deci, “Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations,” 56.


www.cboc.ca/ip



perceptions of interesting work differ greatly across several demographic

groups, including level of responsibility and industry. Among the more

significant determinants is gender. (see Chart 21.)

Table 3Drivers of a Sense of Accomplishment

I derive a sense of accomplishment from my work.

driver #1 I find my work interesting.

driver #2 The work I do is meaningful.

driver #3 There is enough variety in the work that I do.

driver #4 overall, I feel appreciated for the work that I do.

driver #5 most of my work is challenging.

Note: These are the top five drivers among all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.

Chart 21Perception of Interesting Work, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)


Male Female

0

20

40

60

80

100

12 17

71

4.517

78.5





Women have a higher degree of interest in their work (79 per cent)

compared to men (71 per cent). This difference is reflected on the lower

end of the scale as well, with 12 per cent of men having an unfavourable

score compared to only 5 per cent of women. Based on our survey

data, females are more likely to be employed in fields that have a higher

perceived amount of interesting work (i.e., universities, education, not-

for-profit organizations). However, this does not change the fact that

males appear to be less interested in their work. At the same time, it is

important to keep in mind “interesting work” scored the second highest

within the overall survey results.

Variety

As with interest, having the opportunity to work on different tasks and

projects encourages employees’ engagement with their work.4 people

can lose focus and interest if insufficient variability is built into their tasks

or projects.

A majority (69 per cent) of respondents felt there was enough variety

in their work. This was among the highest-rated questions in our model.

Again, it differed by gender. (see Chart 22.)

Women perceive a higher level of variety in their work (72 per cent)

compared to men (67 per cent). survey findings suggest key differences

between men and women lie mostly with unfavourable scores. There

is a full 10 per cent difference between men (15 per cent) and women

(5 per cent) in terms of their perception of having little or no variety in

their work (unfavourable scores). This result may be due to the types

of occupations that men and women are likely to have. For example,

men are more likely to have more technical and general labour roles.

An understanding of how organizations can increase variety in

employees’ work, and the differences between men and women in

terms of expectations of variety, will help increase engagement for all.

4 Christian, Garza, and slaughter, “Work Engagement,” 119.

Females are more likely to be employed in fields that have a higher perceived amount of interesting work.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Challenging Work

Challenging work has been linked to higher levels of employee

engagement.5 In contrast to routine tasks, challenging work presents

the opportunity for people to enter a state of flow—a state of intense

focus and concentration in the present moment.6 Challenging

work fosters more intrinsic motivation7 along with a higher sense

of accomplishment.

nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 per cent) perceive their work as

challenging. The extent of perceived challenge, however, differs greatly

by tenure. (see Chart 23.)

our research and others’8 show that employees in the upper tenure

ranges (78 per cent of employees with a tenure of 10 to less than

15 years in our sample) are among the most engaged. By this time,

employees have likely taken on more responsibility or expanded the

scope of their roles, leading to more challenge in their work.

5 Towers perrin, Working Today, 10.

6 nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow Theory and Research,” 195.

7 pink, Drive.

8 Hackbarth, Weisser, and Wright, 2014 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 45.

Chart 22Perception of Work Variety, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)


Male Female

0

20

40

60

80

100

15 18.5

66.5

5

23

72





on the lower end, those with a tenure of three to five years are by far

the least engaged (41 per cent). other research has confirmed that

employees in this tenure group are the least engaged.9 At this point,

employees are beyond the challenge that comes with learning a new

role within a new organization. What used to be challenging has become

routine, and many of them would be more engaged with additional/

different tasks or increased responsibility. organizations need to

understand the importance of variability and perceived challenge

in the context of tenure and role progression. Consider ways to help

employees expand or deepen responsibilities as they develop and are

ready to take on more challenge.

9 Hackbarth, Harris, and Wright, 2015 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 44.

Chart 23Perception of Challenging Work, by Tenure(percentage favourable; n = 400)


0

20

40

60

80

100

66.7 59.2

40.9

61.9

78.272.1

55.2 67.3

Tenure Overall sample (64.0)


3 years to< 5 years





25 years orlonger


www.cboc.ca/ip



Meaningful Work

people are more engaged with their work if they perceive it to be

meaningful. In their book The Progress Principle, Theresa Amabile and

steven Kramer state that the single most important stimulant to greater

work life is “making progress in meaningful work.”10 Employees will

consider their work meaningful if the results make a difference in some

measurable way to something that is important to them.

The perception of meaningful work is the highest-rated area within our

employee engagement model, with over three-quarters of respondents

(77 per cent) giving it a favourable score. not all people perceive

meaning equally in their jobs, however, as shown in Chart 24.

10 Amabile and Kramer, The Progress Principle, 74.

Chart 24Perception of Meaningful Work, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)


Municipalgovernment

University/hospital/

school board

Crowncorporation


agency

Privatesector

corporation


agency

0

20

40

60

80

100 96.3 95.9 92.983.7

76.9 68.2 67.5


organizationNot-for-profit




Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is a great

deal of variability among levels of government. Generally, people prefer

to work for public sector organizations because they want to make

a difference in society by serving the public.11 However, municipal

government employees perceive a much higher level of meaning in

their work (96 per cent) compared to both provincial (84 per cent) and

federal (68 per cent) government employees. Working at the local level,

municipal employees may be better able to see their work’s impact

as there is less separation between the employee and the citizen.

This increased line of sight contributes to an enhanced perception

of meaning.

second, people working for private sector corporations perceive the

lowest level of meaning with their work (68 per cent) compared to all

other sectors except federal government department/agency, which

scored the same. While this is a relatively low score, it also shows there

is great potential to increase engagement in the private sector by helping

individuals better understand the importance of what they do. private

sector employees make up a large proportion of the Canadian workforce.

Therefore, organizations should find ways of helping employees find

purpose and understand their contribution to the organization and

beyond if they want to increase engagement. (see “The Growing

Influence of Corporate Brand.”)

The Growing Influence of Corporate Brand

The concept of brand has progressed beyond products and services and

entered the realm of corporate social responsibility (CsR). over the last

decade, corporate brand has emerged as an influential driver of engagement,12

particularly among millennials.13,14 people want to work for organizations that

11 Lewis and Frank, “Who Wants to Work for the Government?” 402.

12 Gross, Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement, 2.

13 net Impact, Undergraduate Perspectives, 4.

14 Cone Inc., The Millennial Generation, 17.

There is great potential to increase engagement in the private sector.


www.cboc.ca/ip



reflect their values and demonstrate a contribution toward making the world

a better place. Chart 25 shows the top six sources of pride as mentioned by

respondents in answers to the survey.

Corporate brand and corporate social responsibility ranked fifth and sixth on this

list, suggesting that these areas have the potential to influence engagement.

organizations should work to sustain a healthy public image and, where

possible, become involved with social causes—especially those that are

important to employees.

Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work

Interesting and challenging work is the third most influential factor within

our engagement model. However, this factor has a higher positive impact

on engagement for some industry sectors than others. These groups

include the not-for-profit sector (49 per cent); universities, hospitals, and

school boards (39 per cent); and provincial government departments and

Chart 25Sources of Pride in the Organization(percentage of respondents; n = 400)


Teamwork Recognition Servicesoffered

Job purpose Corporatebrand

Corporatesocial

responsibility

0

5

10

1512.8 12.8

11.39.8

9.07.5




agencies (39 per cent). The results of these sectors are considerably

higher than the overall sample result of 26 per cent. (see Chart 26.)

Long-tenured employees with between 10 and 20 years of service and

employees age 55 or older also have above-average ratings for this

factor. (see Chart 27.)

Chart 26Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.6 28.4 37.3 25.6

10.8 40.9 34.1 14.2

10.0 35.0 32.5 22.5

12.2 18.4 30.6 38.8

10.3 12.8 28.2 48.7

14.3 57.1 28.6

22.2 55.6 22.2

2.0 8.2 51.0 38.8

9.6 38.4 23.3 28.8

7.4 14.8 59.3 18.5

4.0 28.0 48.0 20.0

7.8 33.3 37.3 21.6

9.3 25.9 35.2 29.6

13.1 27.9 37.7 21.3

8.2 25.5 42.9 23.5

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



The most negative ratings come from employees with three to nine years

of service. By industry category, the lowest combined negative and

slightly negative ratings come from employees in the private and federal

Chart 27Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer






1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.6 28.4 37.3 25.6

28.0 40.0 32.0

4.7 32.6 39.5 23.3

12.5 29.2 34.7 23.6

4.0 20.0 38.0 38.0

16.2 32.4 36.0 15.3

8.3 20.8 54.2 16.7

10.2 38.8 30.6 20.4

15.9 36.4 38.6 9.1

14.3 27.4 41.7 16.7

3.8 25.6 30.8 39.7

4.7 20.9 32.6 41.9

10.3 24.1 31.0 34.5

2.0 32.7 42.9 22.4

17.3 36.0 24.0 22.7

9.3 24.3 40.2 26.2

7.2 28.0 41.6 23.1

3.2 29.0 37.6 30.1

Negative impact



Positive impact




government sectors. The key challenge is to help employees in sectors

and roles with low scores on this factor find meaning, variety, and

challenge in what they do.

Management Practices That Create Interesting and Challenging Work

Having interesting and challenging work is key to employees developing

a sense of accomplishment. organizations with high employee

engagement have an array of practices for cultivating a perception of

interesting and challenging work for their employees.

Provide opportunities for employees to experience new roles and

responsibilities. These do not need to be permanent arrangements.

simply providing the opportunity to expand one’s knowledge and

experience on an interim basis can be enough to increase engagement.

special assignments, job rotation, task forces, and volunteer work

are some examples of how people can expand their horizons. (see

“Enhance Interest in Work Through Role Expansion.”)

Enhance Interest in Work Through Role Expansion

organizations with highly engaged workforces often use job expansion as a

way to increase employee engagement. providing opportunities for employees

to experience new roles on a temporary or trial basis allows for interesting

new challenges, without the need for vertical promotion. At the same time, it

allows them to develop breadth and competencies required to formally advance

over time.

md Financial management uses an internal social media platform to source

talent for new projects. project scope, desired skills, expectations, deliverables,

and timelines are all posted, and interested employees can apply.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Through sick leaves, vacations, and emerging opportunities, employees at

the Western ottawa Community Resource Centre can experience new areas

of the organization through a variety of different roles. For example, during a

community open-house event, a part-time employee working in the children

and youth program took on a significant role in event management.

during short-term absences, employees can be seconded to other agencies

or areas of the organization. Geosoft creates trial periods for roles in which

employees may be interested. For example, a director of marketing was given

a trial period as the Vp of marketing. After a year, the employee formally

succeeded to the role.

Assess job candidates for interest in job responsibilities. When

employees perceive a better fit, they tend to be more engaged. At the

interview stage, include questions related to interest in key job content

and responsibilities. Given a candidate’s skills and experience, hiring

managers should consider to what degree they think the person would

find interest and challenge in their new role. (see “Interest and Challenge

starts With Recruitment.”)

Interest and Challenge Starts With Recruitment

The degree to which an employee will be interested in and challenged with their

work may be determined before they even begin.

At Geosoft, HR has a series of specific questions related to candidates’ past

employment experiences that assess their likelihood of being engaged with their

work. Asking potential employees to explain what they liked, what they loved,

and what they didn’t like in previous positions can help determine if they will be

engaged with their new role at Geosoft.

Western ottawa Community Resource Centre hires with its core values of

empowerment, equity, partnership, and innovation in mind. If candidates convey

an orientation toward these core values during hiring and soon after they start,

they almost always become engaged with their work. As the Resource Centre




is an organization with social responsibility built into the fabric of what it does,

many candidates feel drawn to, interested in, and engaged with the work and the

organization—and HR can ensure this is the case by taking employee opinions

and history into account early in the hiring process.

Focus on those with low-middle tenure. Employees with three to

five years of service struggle with challenge and variety in their work

compared to other tenure groups. Actively communicate internal postings

through e-mail or an intranet website. Have employees meet with HR,

managers, and other leaders to determine what they want out of their

jobs and with their future careers. As newer employees master their

new tasks, find ways to deepen or broaden their exposure to other

parts of the organization.


www.cboc.ca/ip


CHAPTER 6

Professional and Personal Growth

Chapter summary

• opportunities for professional and personal growth have the single greatest influence on employees’ likelihood of leaving the organization.

• perception of professional and personal growth opportunities becomes more favourable as employees enter the 10-to-20-years-of-service range.

• non-technical professionals have a significantly higher approval of their growth opportunities compared to technical professionals.

• organizations with high engagement provide opportunities for professional growth and internal promotion.




The “professional and personal growth” factor accounts for 13 per cent of our employee engagement model. (See Exhibit 6.)

This chapter looks at three key areas of our employee engagement

model: opportunities to grow professionally; the perception that career

goals can be achieved; and the sense that a clear career path exists.

The concept goes beyond training to address employee desire for

professional growth, career achievement, and a clear career path

within their organizations. Talent management practices that encourage

professional and personal growth are examined through the lens of our

employee engagement model.

Exhibit 6The Professional and Personal Growth Factor


Professional andPersonal Growth

I have opportunitiesto grow professionally

within this organization.

My career goalscan be achieved


I can see a clearcareer path for me



www.cboc.ca/ip



Clear Career Path

Having a clear career path means that employees can envision

development, growth, and advancement. When employees believe

that they can reach their career goals, they are less likely to leave.1

(see “Lack of opportunity.”) Conversely, an unclear career path can

undermine employee engagement.

Lack of Opportunity Driving Employees Out the Door

our data show that having opportunities for professional growth is the strongest

predictor of intentions to stay with the organization. Three of the top four drivers

of the “intention to stay” survey question—a key overall engagement question—

were correlated to professional growth. (see Table 4.)

Having a clear career path, opportunities for growth, and the perception

that career goals can be achieved are among the four strongest drivers of

employees’ intention to leave an organization. putting these results into context

with other direct measures of engagement, it becomes clear that different direct

1 IBm, The Value of Training, 10.

Table 4 Strongest Workplace Drivers of Employees Thinking of Leaving the Organization

At the moment, I do not plan on leaving my organization.

driver #1 I can see a clear career path for me within this organization.

driver #2 my career goals can be achieved within this organization.

driver #3 I find my work interesting.

driver #4 I have opportunities to grow professionally within this organization.

Note: These are the top four drivers among all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.




measures of engagement have different drivers. pride in and willingness to

recommend the organization, for example, are driven largely by perceptions

of senior leaders. However, it is opportunities for personal and professional

growth that are ultimately the strongest drivers of employees’ intention to leave.

organizations should focus on the group of drivers associated with each direct

measure when looking to influence any one of them.

only 41 per cent of respondents can see a clear career path for

themselves within their organizations—the lowest score of any model

area not related to senior leadership. The degree of clarity perceived by

employees can be influenced by an organization’s size. (see Chart 28.)

Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, the perception

of a clear career path is highest for people in smaller organizations

and gradually decreases with an increase in organizational size. Even

though larger organizations usually have more positions and levels of

management, employees in smaller organizations still perceive a clearer

Chart 28Sense of a Clear Career Path Within the Organization, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)


1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

47.9 51.9 4839.2 33.3 31.1 42.9



www.cboc.ca/ip



career path. This might suggest that employees are not necessarily

perceiving growth in a vertical sense, but instead as opportunities to

expand their knowledge, skills, and value to the organization.

The second finding is that the perception of clear career paths reverses

the pattern of decline in organizations with over 5,000 employees.

This may suggest that employees working in very large organizations

perceive greater opportunity for both vertical and horizontal growth

among different divisions. With larger organizations, more layers of

management provide more prospects for advancement and greater

opportunity to learn about different areas of public service.

Career Goals

The degree to which employees’ goals can be achieved is another area

influencing engagement. Career development has been identified as

one of the stronger drivers of employee engagement.2 The satisfactory

alignment of personal career goals with available opportunity

allows employees to envision their future growth and place within

the organization.

overall, about half of respondents (51 per cent) think their career goals

can be achieved. A look at these data by sector shows differences in

perception. (see Chart 29.)

The data show a sizable difference among levels of government.

It appears that the higher the level of government, the weaker the

perception that career goals can be achieved. seventy per cent of

municipal government respondents feel their career goals can be

achieved within their organization, followed by 57 per cent of provincial

respondents and only 40 per cent of federal respondents.

perceived ability to achieve career goals is relatively low in the private

sector (46 per cent). If high attrition and engagement is a concern,

programs like Career pathways introduced by Loyalty one might help.

2 Hackbarth, Weisser, and Wright, 2014 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 13.

Career development has been identified as one of the stronger drivers of employee engagement.




The program emphasizes advancement through skills development and

lateral moves as well as promotions. It was introduced in response to a

desire to enhance the engagement of millennials.3

Opportunity to Learn and Grow

Employees want the opportunity to learn and grow within their

organizations. These opportunities are important for employees and

are a key area linked with engagement.4,5 What’s essential is the

perception of always moving forward. opportunities to grow flow from the

performance management process. managers should be having regular

discussions with employees about their aspirations for advancement as

well as the skills and experience required to succeed.

3 Hawkins, Vellone, and Wright, Workplace Preferences of Millennials and Gen X, 20.

4 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Research Update, 2.


Chart 29Employee Perception of Goal Achievability Within Their Organization, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)


Municipalgovernment


school board


agency

Crowncorporation

Privatesector

corporation


agency

0

20

40

60

80

100

70.4

59.2 57.1 57.1 56.445.5 40


Not-for-profitorganization


www.cboc.ca/ip



About half of respondents (51 per cent) feel they have opportunities to

learn and grow within their organizations. over time, however, perception

of opportunity changes. (see Chart 30.)

There are two distinct points in the employee life cycle at which

engagement is highest. First, perceived opportunities are highest within

the first year of employment. After the first year, the perception gradually

drops throughout the first decade.

second, perceptions begin to improve at the 10-year mark. Throughout

the second decade of an employee’s tenure (10 to 20 years of service),

the trend is completely reversed. It is during these years that

organizations valuing high potential talent and experience begin to

assess role fit and promote people into roles with greater responsibility.

In addition, the less engaged and weaker performers leave, while

more talented employees are developed. organizations should actively

communicate career opportunities and establish career paths for all

employees—especially those with fewer than 10 years of service.

Chart 30Opportunities for Professional Growth, by Tenure(percentage of respondents; n = 400)



3 years to< 5 years





25 years orlonger

0

20

40

60

80

100

66.7

53.1 47.7 44 53.858.1

48.3 42.9





Impact of Opportunities for Professional Growth

opportunity for professional growth is a well-established factor that

influences employee engagement. However, this factor has a higher

positive impact for certain segments of the workforce than others.

(see Chart 31.) The factor has higher than average positive impact

in provincial and municipal governments, crown corporations, and

employees in the university, hospital, and school board sectors. Its

impact is also higher than average in organizations with 1,500 or

more employees.

Chart 31Impact of Personal and Professional Growth, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10.4 28.9 38.8 21.8

10.8 33.0 36.4 19.9

17.5 27.5 35.0 20.0

10.2 22.4 40.8 26.5

5.1 30.8 46.2 17.9

21.4 21.4 35.7 21.4

3.7 18.5 51.9 25.9

8.2 28.6 36.7 26.5

11.0 35.6 37.0 16.4

7.4 33.3 40.7 18.5

8.0 24.0 44.0 24.0

11.8 21.6 45.1 21.6

11.1 38.9 38.9 11.1

13.1 23.5 38.8 27.6

10.2 23.5 38.8 27.6

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



opportunities to grow tend to have the highest positive impact on

those aged 18 to 34—young employees with significant room to grow.

professional growth also has a high positive impact on non-technical

professionals. (see Chart 32.)

Chart 32Impact of Personal and Professional Growth, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer






1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10.4 28.9 38.8 21.8

4.0 24.0 48.0 24.0

5.8 27.9 39.5 26.7

16.7 34.7 40.3 8.3

10.0 19.0 41.0 30.0

11.7 36.0 32.4 19.8

8.3 29.2 45.8 16.7

4.1 38.8 38.8 18.4

15.9 38.6 25.0 20.5

9.5 31.0 34.5 25.0

7.7 25.6 44.9 21.8

16.3 23.3 37.2 23.3

3.4 27.6 48.3 20.7

18.4 20.4 38.8 22.4

4.0 26.7 33.3 36.0

10.3 32.7 34.6 22.4

12.0 30.4 42.4 15.2

14.0 25.8 41.9 18.3

Negative impact



Positive impact




Employees in the federal government and crown corporations, as well

as professional technical employees and some long-tenured employees,

reported higher than average negative impact on engagement for

this factor.

Management Practices That Nurture Professional and Personal Growth

professional and personal growth is a key factor in our employee

engagement model. In addition, all four areas within the factor are

strong drivers of retention. organizations with high engagement take

internal promotion and advancement seriously—ensuring ample

opportunities are available to their staff. There are several strategies

that organizations can use to engage employees through professional

and personal development.

Create and communicate opportunities for internal growth.

people are increasingly considering external options for career

growth. providing a clear understanding of opportunities for internal

advancement still drives engagement. proactive communication about

how promotions are earned is important. (see “Internal promotion Alive

and Well” and “Case study: Fountain Tire Inc.”)

Enhance the individual aspect of training and development.

organizations have a tendency to tailor their employees’ training and

development activities to the goals of the branch, department, or

company overall. However, a software programmer might like to know

more about human resources. or perhaps a retail associate wishes to

take a course in marketing research. When the organization incorporates

the interests and aspirations of individual employees, employees feel

as though it truly supports and cares about their professional growth,

thereby increasing engagement. (see “professional Growth With a

personal Touch.”)

organizations with high engagement take internal promotion and advancement seriously.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Create a tailored professional development approach for high

performers. High-potential and high-performing employees crave

professional and personal growth opportunities.6 For example, Corus

Entertainment developed a program for identifying, managing, and

developing high-performing and high-potential young talent.

Develop different training and development plans for technical

and non-technical professionals. The data indicate that those in

more technical roles are less satisfied with their opportunities for

professional growth and development compared to non-technical

professionals. people who manage technical employees may not have

a thorough understanding of the needs of each role/employee. people

in technical roles may desire work beyond their narrow technical tasks.

Broadening their roles could help heighten interest in their work and

increase engagement. Conversely, greater emphasis for this group

could be placed on access to development opportunities that allow

them to keep up to date in their field of expertise.

Internal Promotion Alive and Well in Organizations With Highly Engaged Employees

There was a time when career progression was more commonly achieved within

a single organization. However, people will be expecting to grow their skills and

advance in their careers by successive moves through a variety of organizations

and sectors.7 our research suggests, however, that organizations with highly

engaged employees are adopting a greater emphasis on internal promotion.

At Geosoft, most executives have grown with the company. The staff are given

the opportunity to act in progressive roles. For example, Geosoft allowed a

marketing manager to act as Vp of marketing, which ultimately resulted in the

individual assuming the position permanently.

Corus Entertainment has a program for identifying high-potential employees

who are in the early stages of their careers. The program deliberately focuses

6 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 239.

7 n-gen people performance Inc., Career Expectations, 4.




on identifying younger talent within the organization. This helps employees

envision a career with progressive opportunities, thereby driving engagement

and retention.

Fountain Tire has a similar model of internal development and promotion. It is

a common occurrence for store owners to have started their careers as tire or

automotive technicians. store owners act as models for career advancement

opportunities, which give employees in a franchise operation a path for

future ownership.

Case Study: Fountain Tire Inc.

Fountain Tire is one of Canada’s premier tire and automotive service retail

networks, with 159 stores spanning the country from Vaughan, ontario, to

Victoria, British Columbia. The company is also a leading provider of tires

and tire-related services to commercial truck fleets and off-road vehicles used

in the oil and gas, mining, construction, and agriculture sectors.

Fountain Tire has seen a significant increase in employee engagement over

the last eight years. Along the way, it has used several key strategies to help

transform the organization:

• Establish benchmarks. When Fountain Tire first conducted employee

engagement research, there was no internal benchmark and its external

benchmarks came from a wide variety of industries and sectors. With the

help of an external provider, external benchmarks specific to the company’s

sector were provided along with a year-over-year internal comparison.

• Focus on the manager. The important influence of managers emerged

from mining the organization’s employee engagement surveys. Training and

development programs tailored specifically to managers were developed

and delivered on an ongoing basis. The organization went to great lengths

to communicate to managers their importance in employee engagement.


www.cboc.ca/ip



• Demonstrate the benefits of engagement with data. Fountain Tire’s

engagement strategy ultimately achieved executive and franchise-owner buy-in

when clear relationships were established between engagement and business

outcomes such as sales and client satisfaction. The same approach was used

to convince managers of their important role in engaging employees.

• Decentralize accountability. Fountain Tire’s partnership model features

ownership at the local level. store managers at each location own 50 per cent of

the store and are responsible for day-to-day operations. Individual store owners/

managers were made accountable for their own store’s level of engagement.

• Establish clear career paths. Fountain Tire has a model of internal promotion

wherein it encourages development for all employees. It is common to have

current store owners who were once tire or automotive technicians.

similar to many other organizations, Fountain Tire decided to focus on

employee engagement due to the belief that engaged employees lead to more

satisfied customers. over the last eight years, the company has seen steady

improvement in financial results, manager performance, and customer retention,

satisfaction, and net promoter scores.

Professional Growth With a Personal Touch

Accommodating individual development goals centred on employee aspirations,

rather than exclusively organizational goals, can enhance employee

engagement. Geosoft gives its employees options. By offering three different

career paths—geography, technology, and other (including corporate services

such as finance and HR)—employees are able to choose the internal career

path that most interests them and aligns with their professional goals.

md Financial management has decentralized its approach to professional

development by allowing employees to own their own development budget.

Employees are provided with a fixed amount to spend as they see fit. This

empowering strategy allows employees to invest their money in training related

to professional growth or, if they so desire, personal enrichment.



CHAPTER 7

Acknowledgement and Recognition

Chapter summary

• All employees, whether senior leaders, managers, or fellow colleagues, can influence engagement by recognizing the achievements of others.

• mid-size organizations have the lowest “acknowledgement and recognition” scores.

• Acknowledgement and recognition is a strong driver of engagement for people with less than one year of service and those working in the retail trade industry.

• Internal social media platforms are enhancing the frequency and decreasing the formality involved in recognizing accomplishments.


www.cboc.ca/ip



“Acknowledgement and recognition” is a key factor of employee engagement—representing nearly 13 per cent of our model. This factor measures the degree to which an employee’s efforts and accomplishments are recognized by colleagues,1 managers,2 and leaders.3

several areas compose this factor, including employees’ perception

that their work is not taken for granted; that their work contributions are

recognized; that their accomplishments are acknowledged; and that they

feel appreciated for the work they do. (see Exhibit 7.)

This chapter explores each of these four areas. demographic trends

and good practices will help paint a clearer picture of how employees

perceive acknowledgement and recognition and how organizations are

addressing this important factor of employee engagement.

1 TInypulse, 2013 TINYpulse Employee Engagement Survey.

2 Towers Watson, Turbocharging Employee Engagement.


Exhibit 7The Acknowledgement and Recognition Factor


Acknowledgement& Recognition

The work Ido is not taken

for granted.

My workcontributions tothe organizationare recognized.

Myaccomplishmentsare acknowledged

by leadersand peers.

Overall, I feelappreciated for

the work that I do.




Taken for Granted

Employees can become disengaged when they feel their work is

taken for granted.4 Leaders and managers should not assume that

acknowledgement is not necessary simply because responsibilities

are included in job descriptions. Being proactive by acknowledging

employees helps foster engagement.

only 47 per cent of respondents feel their work is not taken for granted—

the lowest-rated area within the acknowledgement and recognition factor.

This figure varies significantly by an individual’s length of service. (see

Chart 33.)

4 Byrne, Understanding Employee Engagement, 83.

Chart 33Perception That Work Is Not Taken for Granted, by Tenure(percentage of respondents; n = 400)



3 years to< 5 years





25 years orlonger

0

20

40

60

80

100

66.7

53.1 40.9 48.8 47.453.5

44.8

30.6



www.cboc.ca/ip



one of the key findings from these data is the relatively low score of

long-tenured employees. Less than a third (31 per cent) of employees

with a tenure of 25 years or more feel that their work is not taken for

granted. With such a long tenure, people might feel their work is taken

for granted, whether or not this is the case. organizations need to

ensure that they are recognizing the contributions of their long-tenured

employees in order to avoid disengaging this knowledgeable and

experienced segment of the workforce.

Recognizing Contributions

Employees contribute much of their time and effort to their work. As

others have pointed out, cash compensation for this contribution is

not enough.5 Recognizing employee contributions shows a genuine

appreciation for their work and helps boost engagement6—especially

when expressed by managers and senior leaders.7

Half of respondents feel their work contributions are recognized. When

only half of people perceive they are recognized for their work, it can

have a sizable negative impact on engagement. This perception differs

greatly among industry sectors. (see Chart 34.)

These data show that recognition is a greater issue for the public sector,

and this may be driven by larger spans of control. While the levels of

government showed significant differences in other areas of our model,

all three levels of government showed a similar trend here and scored

lowest among all sectors. Governments are often large organizations,

and managerial spans of control can be very large. Employees may

not have opportunities to interact with managers and peers. A focus

on having supervisors recognize individual employee contributions

5 Herzberg, “one more Time.”

6 Wright, Measuring What Matters, 5.

7 Wellins, Bernthal, and phelps, Employee Engagement, 2.

Recognizing employee contributions shows a genuine appreciation for their work.




may be a more realistic approach than having senior leaders take on the

task. The latter, however, can be helpful in recognizing departments or

branches for their work.

Accomplishments Are Acknowledged

There is a difference between recognizing employee contributions

and recognizing accomplishments. Acknowledging accomplishments

means recognizing achievements. While there are definite similarities

between recognizing contributions and accomplishments (both are

included in the acknowledgement and recognition factor, for example),

the former focuses on employee input or effort whereas the latter

focuses on outcomes.

Exactly half of respondents feel their accomplishments are recognized by

leaders and peers. However, this figure differs by level of responsibility.

(see Chart 35.)

Chart 34Employees Feel Their Work Contributions Are Recognized, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)


Crowncorporation

Privatesector

corporation


school board


agency


agency

Municipalgovernment

0

20

40

60

80

100

71.8

57.151.7 51 44.9 40

37


organizationNot-for-profit


www.cboc.ca/ip



Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is little

difference among leaders and non-technical professionals. Executives,

managers, and non-technical professionals all score around the 60 per

cent mark, and non-technical professionals actually score higher than

managers. The accomplishments of senior executives are perceived as

being no more acknowledged than those of individual professionals.

second, there is a significant difference between professional groups

regarding their perceived level of recognition. Technical professionals

(46 per cent) score over 16 per cent lower than non-technical

professionals. In a broad sense, this result may speak to the types

of skills that are valued within organizations. From this we could

conclude that leaders and peers more frequently acknowledge the

accomplishments of non-technical workers, even though they are often

in the same job grade. organizations should assess whether they are

Chart 35Employees Feel Their Accomplishments Are Acknowledged, by Level of Responsibility(percentage of respondents; n = 394)


Executive Management Professional—non−technical


Trades, clerical,support, service,and production

0

20

40

60

80

100

6458.1 62

45.8

33.3





valuing technically skilled employees to the same level as their non-

technical peers—especially given the growing demand for the skills of

technical professionals.8

A Feeling of Appreciation

A feeling of appreciation encompasses elements from the other three

areas within the acknowledgement and recognition factor. Appreciation

is the employee’s perception that the organization genuinely values his

or her work. people who feel appreciated for the work that they do are

more likely to be engaged with their organizations.

nearly 60 per cent (56 per cent) of respondents indicated they feel

appreciated for their work. This is the highest-rated area within the

acknowledgement and recognition factor. However, perception

differed depending on the size of the organization. (see Chart 36.)

8 Vilorio, “sTEm 101.”

Chart 36How Much Employees Feel Appreciated, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)


1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

64.4

77.8

48 51 42.6 52.5 58.2



www.cboc.ca/ip



Employees in smaller organizations feel more appreciated for their

work. This may be due in part to small organizations’ direct line of sight.

Recognition from senior leaders can be more frequent and accessible

within a smaller organization due to fewer degrees of separation between

employees and leaders. Employees are also more likely to perceive

appreciation from customers and other business partners. Employees in

mid-sized organizations feel the least appreciated for their work. These

organizations may be too small to invest in formal recognition programs9

yet too large to rely on the type of ad hoc recognition experienced by

employees in smaller organizations. To improve engagement, carefully

designed recognition programs that accommodate the constraints of

mid-sized organizations are needed.

Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition

The acknowledgment and recognition factor has a greater impact

on some groups of employees than others. Acknowledgment and

recognition has a positive impact on engagement for those with very

short or very long tenures, for older employees, and for those working

for smaller employers. (see charts 37 and 38.)

Higher than average negative impact was reported by federal

government employees and those working in very large organizations.

Feedback has a positive impact and appears to be very important

for new employees (less than one year tenure). Acknowledging

their achievements, and thereby implicitly communicating that

their contributions have made a difference, is highly engaging.

This also appears to be important for those with longer tenure or

within smaller organizations. It may be that line of sight is closer

for employees in small firms. organizations with large workforces

should consider acknowledgement and recognition in their employee

engagement strategy.

9 Garr, The State of Employee Recognition in 2012, 33–34.

The acknowledgement and recognition factor has a greater impact on some groups of employees than others.




Chart 37Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.9 30.2 37.6 23.4

8.5 31.8 36.4 23.3

20.0 22.5 32.5 25.0

8.2 34.7 30.6 26.5

7.7 25.6 43.6 23.1

7.1 28.6 42.9 21.4

7.4 25.9 55.6 11.1

4.1 32.7 36.7 26.5

6.8 24.7 37.0 31.5

3.7 18.5 48.1 29.6

12.0 16.0 52.0 20.0

3.9 35.3 41.2 19.6

9.3 48.1 27.8 14.8

8.2 29.5 42.6 19.7

14.3 26.5 36.7 22.4

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



Chart 38Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer






1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.9 30.2 37.6 23.4

32.0 40.0 28.0

7.0 30.2 41.9 20.9

9.7 23.6 41.7 25.0

9.0 34.0 32.0 25.0

11.7 31.5 36.0 20.7

20.8 45.8 33.3

6.1 24.5 42.9 26.5

9.1 29.5 36.4 25.0

10.7 33.3 28.6 27.4

12.8 32.1 42.3 12.8

9.3 25.6 44.2 20.9

3.4 27.6 37.9 31.0

10.2 36.7 34.7 18.4

9.3 37.3 33.3 20.0

12.1 29.0 36.4 22.4

7.2 30.4 40.0 22.4

7.5 24.7 40.9 26.9

Negative impact



Positive impact




Management Practices for Fostering a Culture of Recognition

Acknowledgement and recognition is a key factor within our employee

engagement model. The process of giving and receiving recognition

has been democratized through the use of social media and newer

management practices, including the following:

Going social. The same technology used for social networking

sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook can be used to foster a

culture of recognition. By using a simple, convenient platform,

all employees, regardless of their level of responsibility, can participate

in acknowledging and recognizing their fellow colleagues.10

Democratizing recognition. Through the use of new technology,

traditional models of recognition can be modified. (see “Recognition

From All, For All.”) Employees with less responsibility can acknowledge

the work of managers or anyone else within the organization.

Embedding organizational values when recognizing employees.

publicly acknowledging the achievements of employees offers an

opportunity to reinforce the organization’s core values. Recognition

from senior leaders should include reference to these values.

Valuing frequency over formality. Rather than saving

acknowledgement for formalized occasions or annual performance

reviews, consider recognizing employees’ work regularly and whenever

it is warranted. High-performing employees crave recognition for their

accomplishments and having them wait for a formal review may hinder

their engagement.

10 pang and Cameron, Technology Overview for Employee Recognition and Rewards Software.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Recognition From All, For All

Traditionally, acknowledgement and recognition was given by a manager

and received by an employee. However, the process of acknowledging

and recognizing employees has become democratized through the use

of enterprise software.

md Financial management has adopted a corporate-wide employee

recognition software to enhance its internal Bravo! program. The software

allows for vertical, peer-to-peer, and team recognition using a social media

platform. Human Resources is able to capture key metrics, including most-

recognized employees, highest participation among managers, and what

employees are getting recognized for. Anyone in the organization can

acknowledge another’s work and be acknowledged themselves.

Geosoft uses a similar software. Employees can log in to a centralized

system and provide feedback to managers regarding the exceptional work

of others. Employees are also encouraged to nominate each other for an

annual outstanding achievement award. Both the organization and the software

empower any employee, not just management, to acknowledge the work of

their colleagues.



CHAPTER 8

Relationships With Co-workers

Chapter summary

• Relationships with co-workers can be both personal and professional.

• Teamwork and information sharing form the basis of good relationships with co-workers.

• Relationships serve as a driver for engagement across several, very different industries and service areas.

• A flatter organizational structure and office space conducive to teamwork are key characteristics of organizations with good internal staff relations that contribute to high overall engagement.


www.cboc.ca/ip



The relationships that employees form with their colleagues is an important aspect of engagement.1 It is similar to, yet distinct from, the relationship that employees have with their immediate managers. “Relationships with co-workers” is among the smaller factors, composing roughly 11 per cent of our employee engagement model. Its importance also varies across different sectors and for different employee categories. (See Exhibit 8.)

Team dynamics can be a powerful driver of engagement—especially

engagement related to attachments to the organization. This chapter

examines the concepts of teamwork and information sharing and their

relationship with employee engagement.

1 Anitha, “determinants of Employee Engagement,” 316.

Exhibit 8The Relationships With Co-workers Factor


RelationshipsWith Co-workers

In my work group,people work like they

are part of a team.

In my work group,people share

information willingly.




Teamwork

The ability to work in teams is crucial for today’s employee. While

teamwork has always been important, the increase in project-based

work2 and technology-enabled communications has made working in

teams an essential skill for workers in all fields.

Like other areas within our model, perception is the key when it comes

to teamwork. To what degree do people perceive a strong sense of

teamwork among their co-workers? A stronger sense of teamwork

has been linked to increased employee engagement,3 and employees

are more willing to exert discretionary effort when they feel others are

working with them to accomplish goals.

nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) of respondents feel that their colleagues

work like they are part of a team. This figure differs greatly when looked

at by organizational size. (see Chart 39.)

2 project management Institute, Project Management Talent Gap Report.

3 Alfes and others, Creating an Engaged Workforce, 3.

Chart 39Perception of Teamwork, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)


1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

63

88.9

72 58.8 53.7 63.9 68.4



www.cboc.ca/ip



Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, the level of

teamwork is not directly correlated with an organization’s size. These

results show that, in fact, those in the largest organizations (more than

5,000 employees) have a higher approval of their teamwork than those

working for companies of 1 to 49 employees. The many benefits that

come from smaller teams,4 therefore, are not necessarily realized in the

smallest of organizations.

second, there is a significant difference in employees’ perception of

teamwork within the two smaller organizational groups. perception

of teamwork in organizations of 50 to 99 people is nearly 90 per

cent—almost 30 per cent higher than those in organizations of 1 to

49 employees. This result is too significant to occur by chance. It could

be that employees in the very smallest organizations may not have

sizable work groups or teams. Given the proportion of people who

work for smaller organizations, these companies should explore ways

of increasing teamwork that are specific to their organization’s size and

work environment.

Information Sharing

The sharing of information among colleagues is the second key

area within this factor. Information sharing is an important enabler

of communication throughout the organization. Co-workers who

share information willingly are better positioned to build their working

relationships and enhance their personal relationships.

overall, about two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents agree that

people in their work groups share information willingly. This is among

the highest scoring questions within our employee engagement model.

However, not all groups perceive it at the same level. (see Chart 40.)

4 Hoegl, “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork.”

Those in the largest organizations have a higher approval of their teamwork.




Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is not

a great difference between executives, managers, and non-technical

professionals. It is important to note that this does not imply that people

perceive that information is shared willingly between different levels

(i.e., between executives and professionals). That type of communication

is desired more for transparency, whereas the area being evaluated here

is more around teamwork.

second, technical professionals and those working in trades, clerical,

support, service, and production fields perceive a lower level of

information sharing. For those working in the latter groups, in particular,

open-ended comments showed teamwork as the second-strongest

source of pride in the organization (behind only recognition). An active

approach to sharing information within work groups can improve

engagement through enhanced communication and teamwork.

Chart 40People Share Information Willingly, by Level of Responsibility(percentage of respondents; n = 389)




Trades, clerical,support, service,and production

0

20

40

60

80

100

8072.1 76

63.9 55.9



www.cboc.ca/ip



Where Personal Relationships With Co-workers Impact Engagement

The positive impact that personal relationships with co-workers

has on engagement has somewhat less variation by individual and

organizational demographics groups than most other factors. (see

charts 41 and 42.)

Chart 41Impact of Relationship With Co-workers, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Empoyees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10.4 27.2 40.4 22.1

11.9 27.8 36.9 23.3

7.5 22.5 45.0 25.0

12.2 28.6 36.7 22.4

7.7 30.8 35.9 25.6

7.1 35.7 35.7 21.4

7.4 18.5 59.3 14.8

10.2 26.5 46.9 16.3

8.2 28.8 41.1 21.9

40.7 40.7 18.5

12.0 20.0 44.0 24.0

9.8 35.3 41.2 13.7

18.5 27.8 33.3 20.4

13.1 23.0 47.5 16.4

9.2 22.4 39.8 28.6

Negative impact



Positive impact




personal relationships have a higher-than-average “positive” impact

on engagement among people working in very large organizations, as

well as among those with very short and longer tenure. By job category,

it has the highest positive impact for employees in trades, clerical,

support, service, and production.

Chart 42Impact of Relationship With Co-workers, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer






1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10.4 27.2 40.4 22.1

4.0 32.0 40.0 24.0

4.7 33.7 39.5 22.1

15.3 25.0 44.4 15.3

7.0 25.0 46.0 22.0

15.3 27.0 31.5 26.1

8.3 33.3 29.2 29.2

14.3 28.6 44.9 12.2

18.2 15.9 36.4 29.5

10.7 26.2 40.5 22.6

1.3 33.3 51.3 14.1

9.3 30.2 39.5 20.9

17.2 27.6 24.1 31.0

12.2 24.5 34.7 28.6

12.0 22.7 42.7 22.7

7.5 29.0 43.9 19.6

12.0 30.4 31.2 26.4

10.8 25.8 45.2 18.3

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



Management Practices to Encourage Personal Relationships With Co-workers

personal relationships with co-workers is a smaller but significant factor

in our employee engagement model. There are several strategies

organizations can use to encourage these personal relationships for

increased engagement.

Provide opportunities to network. personal networks have always

been important—and they don’t always consider their “colleagues”

as exclusively those they work with at the same organization.

Encourage team-building events, conference attendance, and

mentorship opportunities.

Flatten organizational structures from a teamwork perspective.

Allow employees to approach and work with people from middle and

upper levels of the organization. doing so will encourage information

sharing and a broader sense of teamwork. There is a limit to the

capacity of vertical teamwork within larger organizations, but maximizing

these opportunities will help engage employees through strengthened

relationships with co-workers. (see “open to Teamwork.”)

Open to Teamwork

The structure and internal policy of an organization can go a long way in

promoting the sharing of ideas and collaboration. northleaf Capital’s flat

organizational structure allows the organization to operate as a cohesive team

where the sharing of knowledge and information across all departments is highly

encouraged and respected. A transparent top-down communication and open

door policy from senior management provides and reinforces a one-team culture

that is supportive, challenging, and engaging.

After a period of rapid growth, the company proactively focused on identifying

and bridging knowledge and communication gaps. Cross-training, inclusive work

sessions, and ensuring employees have an understanding of how different roles

(i.e., financial services and operations) contribute to the organization’s success

were positive exercises for all areas of the business.




Design workspace conducive to teamwork. The physical work

environment is key in facilitating collaborative teamwork,5 and new

designs in open concept office space are becoming the norm. (see

“Remodelling Corus Quay.”)

Remodelling Corus Quay

Corus Entertainment is an integrated media and content company with

operations in both radio and television. With a focus on kids and family

programming, Corus owns such recognizable brands as The Cartoon network,

nickelodeon (Canada), TELEToon, yTV, W network, disney Channel, oWn:

The oprah Winfrey network, and ABC spark.

Through a biannual survey, Corus has identified several drivers of employee

engagement. The organization has defined engagement, in part, by pride in

the company and affinity with its key core values. one of the strongest drivers

is teamwork. In an industry that is based heavily on creative work, the ability

to work collaboratively is essential. The construction of a new building has had

the single greatest effect on employee collaboration. In 2010, the company’s

headquarters in Toronto, known as Corus Quay, were completely remodelled.

open concept design, impromptu meeting spaces, and an abundance of

natural light have all had a strong influence on teamwork. To inject a little fun,

Corus constructed a three-storey slide where employees exit into an employee

lounge area.

Another area of focus for the company is professional growth. Using an

extensive curriculum known as Corus U, certain professional development

strategies are segmented by level of responsibility. The first, known as

presidents Council, is a development stream tailored to senior leaders. The

second, the Accelerator program, targets younger emerging leaders with

12 months of training and development geared to leadership development.

The third is the mentorship program, which is designed to help others learn

about jobs they may find of interest through a mentor.

5 Augustin and Brand, Impact of the Physical Environment on Knowledge Worker Performance.


www.cboc.ca/ip



At Corus, a focus on employee engagement is driven by the belief that engaged

employees help deliver superior business results. The organization establishes

accountability among senior lenders for core values and rewards positive

behaviour—encouraging engagement from the top down as well as from the

bottom up.

An organization does not need to completely remodel its interior space

to see results. Flexible workspaces, functional meeting areas, and

an abundance of natural light have helped organizations with high

engagement foster relationships among employees at work. (see

“spatial Factors of Engagement.”)

Spatial Factors of Engagement

In 2011, md Financial management’s head office, located in ottawa, suffered a

devastating fire that rendered the building unfit for employees. The organization

found opportunity in misfortune. The building’s interior was completely renovated

and remodelled. noise-reducing white noise was created throughout the

building; corner offices for executives were abandoned in favour of collaborative

workspaces; and the entire building was designed to create an environment

conducive to teamwork and collaboration.



CHAPTER 9

Autonomy

Chapter summary

• A focus on outcomes and the rise of “intrapreneurship” are driving employees’ desire for greater workplace autonomy.

• “Autonomy” is a key driver of engagement for jobs with a high degree of knowledge work (i.e., education and not-for-profit sectors).

• Flexible/remote work options and a focus on outcomes over process are creating an environment for employees to assume greater autonomy over their work.


www.cboc.ca/ip



The nature of work is changing. Enabled by technology and fuelled by the growing concept of “intrapreneurship,”1 employees’ ability to manage and conduct their own work is becoming an important element of engagement.2,3

“Autonomy” is one of the smaller, but significant, factors in our employee

engagement model. It accounts for 10 per cent of the overall model

and includes two main areas: having control over how work gets done

and having a say in setting performance goals and objectives. (see

Exhibit 9.)

1 Kraus, “The state-of-the-Art of Corporate Entrepreneurship Research.”

2 mathis, “strategies for Employee Engagement,” 36.

3 Towers perrin, Working Today, 14–15.

Exhibit 9The Autonomy Factor


Autonomy

I have controlover how my

work gets done.

I have a say insetting my performancegoals and objectives.




In this chapter, we explore these two critical elements of employee

engagement. How they differ across demographic groups and

sectors and how organizations are encouraging an autonomous work

environment will lead to a clearer understanding of good practices.

Controlling How Work Gets Done

Employees are more engaged with their work when they can control how

it is done. The ability to control one’s environment is one of the reasons

more senior employees have higher engagement. Even though employee

performance outcomes may be set at the managerial or even the

executive level, employees will develop a heightened sense of ownership

if they have input into how the work is carried out. This includes things

like flexible work arrangements4 as well as the freedom to adapt how

work is done, shifting the focus to outcomes from things like face time.

The availability of telework, flex-time, and part-time scheduling options

have been linked to higher employee engagement.5

over 70 per cent (72 per cent) of respondents in our sample said that

they have control over how their work gets done—the higher of the

two areas within the autonomy factor and the third-highest-rated area

within our employee engagement model. The degree of control that

employees have over their work differs most by sector. (see Chart 43.)

people working for universities, hospitals, school boards, and not-for-

profit organizations perceive the greatest control over how their work is

done. Two of these groups are related to education—a field involving

a high degree of knowledge work, independence, and research.

With research comes the freedom to design and conduct projects as

researchers see fit—an ethical necessity in many cases.

Employees working for the federal and municipal governments have

the least control over their work. public service workers have a lesser

degree of freedom due to policy constraints, the political nature of

4 WorldatWork, Survey on Workplace Flexibility 2013, 30.

5 Ibid., 9.

Employees are more engaged with their work when they can control how it is done.


www.cboc.ca/ip



decision-making, and a higher overlay of bureaucracy or internal

processes governing their work. For the public sector, the challenge is

to find a way to allow employees within segments where autonomy is an

important driver to have greater control over how their work is done while

at the same time complying with the internal process.

Input in Setting Performance Objectives

Employees generally want to have a say in setting their performance

objectives and are more engaged when they work with their managers

to set these goals.6 Bestowing performance objectives upon employees

from above without consultation gives the impression that they are

unable to influence their own expectations, thereby reducing the

perception of autonomy. This creates a feeling of powerlessness and

reliance on others.

6 Gallup, State of the American Manager, 20.

Chart 43Sense of Control Over How Work Gets Done, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)



schoolboard

Not-for-profitorganization


agency

Crowncorporation

Privatesector

corporation

Municipalgovernment


agency

0

20

40

60

80

10083.7

76.9 73.5 71.4 70.5 63.0 62.5





overall, 59 per cent of respondents to our survey indicated that

they have a say in setting their performance objectives. Looking at

demographic trends, gender emerges as a key variable. (see Chart 44.)

Women are more likely than men to feel they have a say in setting

their performance goals and objectives. A closer examination of the

data indicates this result may be due to the types of roles that men

and women are likely to assume. According to our data, men are more

likely to work in the skilled trades and private sector. Women, on the

other hand, are more likely to work in the education and not-for-profit

sectors—areas with a greater degree of autonomy. Regardless of

demographics, there is still a significant difference between men and

women, and organizations need to better understand these differences

in order to involve employees in setting goals and objectives to the

extent that it is possible and perceived as meaningful.

Chart 44Perception of Input In Setting Goals and Objectives, by Gender(percentage of respondents; n = 400)


Male Female

0

20

40

60

80

100

26 21

53

18 17.5

64.5



www.cboc.ca/ip



Impact of Autonomy on Engagement

Autonomy has the highest positive impact on engagement for employees

in the not-for-profit and provincial government sectors, followed by the

university, hospital, and school boards category. (see charts 45 and 46.)

These are sectors that employ a high proportion of professionals and

knowledge workers who have high levels of independence and personal

discretion. Autonomy is clearly valued by these employees. Lack of

Chart 45Impact of Employees’ Level of Autonomy in Their Work, by Demographic Group(per cent)


5,000+

1,500 to 5,000

500 to 1,499

200 to 499

100 to 199

50 to 99

1 to 49

Number of Employees



Crown corporation





Industry Sector

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.9 26.6 42.4 22.1

8.5 28.4 43.2 19.9

10.0 32.5 45.0 12.5

12.2 22.4 34.7 30.6

5.1 17.9 46.2 30.8

14.3 21.4 50.0 14.3

11.1 40.7 33.3 14.8

6.1 20.4 44.9 28.6

4.1 27.4 42.6 26.0

3.7 29.6 37.0 29.6

4.0 24.0 44.0 28.0

2.0 33.3 51.0 13.7

7.4 27.8 35.2 29.6

11.5 24.6 42.6 21.3

18.4 21.4 42.9 17.3

Negative impact



Positive impact




autonomy appears to have a more negative or somewhat negative

impact in the municipal sector. patterns in other demographic categories

are not distinct.

Chart 46Impact of Employees’ Level of Autonomy in Their Work, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)


55+

45−54

35−44

18−34

Employee Age

25 years or longer






1 year to < 3 years

< 1 year

Employee Tenure




Management

Executives

Employee Level

Overall sample

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

8.9 26.6 42.4 22.1

20.0 44.0 36.0

8.1 23.3 48.8 19.8

8.3 26.4 38.9 26.4

12.0 23.0 41.0 24.0

9.0 32.4 40.5 18.0

4.2 33.3 29.2 33.3

6.1 32.7 42.9 18.4

11.4 18.2 47.7 22.7

15.5 21.4 35.7 27.4

5.1 33.3 43.6 17.9

9.3 25.6 46.5 18.6

10.3 24.1 58.6 6.9

6.1 22.4 40.8 30.6

9.3 24.0 46.7 20.0

9.3 30.8 36.4 23.4

10.4 24.8 41.6 23.2

6.5 24.7 47.3 21.5

Negative impact



Positive impact


www.cboc.ca/ip



Management Practices to Encourage an Autonomous Working Environment

Autonomy is among the smaller, but significant, factors in our

employee engagement model. There are several ways organizations

can encourage an autonomous working environment, most of which

touch on job design:

Include employees in setting goals and objectives. Employees’

involvement in setting their goals and objectives supports an engaging

work environment. Inclusion is crucial when establishing formal goals

set by the organization, such as those decided upon through the formal

performance management process.

Allow for flexible work arrangements. Technology has evolved to

enable employees in many occupational areas to work off-site—and

employers should do the same. If possible, allow employees to work

from home or on a modified schedule. (see “The new office Is

Anywhere.”) such arrangements have shown many benefits7,8 and

can increase engagement and productivity and encourage a healthy

work-life balance.

The New Office Is Anywhere

Empowering employees to choose where they work has been a growing trend.

organizations are looking to influence engagement by empowering employees

to work when and where they wish. At Geosoft, almost all employees work

from home at least one day a week. The director of HR, for example, usually

works from home four days a week. one employee from Eastern Europe was

able to work from her home country during the summer when her kids were off

from school.

7 Richman, noble, and Johnson, When the Workplace Is Many Places, 16.

8 Bloom and others, “does Working From Home Work?” 207.

Inclusion is crucial when establishing formal goals set by the organization.




After md Financial management’s fire incident, there was an extensive period

when people were forced to work off-site. over the course of a year, the

organization helped employees set up functional home offices. Upon reopening

the head office, both managers and employees were comfortable with work-

at-home and alternative work arrangements—and employee engagement has

never been higher.

Manage outcomes, not process. “manager surveillance,” akin to

micromanagement, can serve to disengage employees.9 By focusing

on outcomes, employees are empowered to determine how they are

achieved. (see “productivity over process.”) While certain organizational

processes need to be followed, relaxing those that inhibit people from

performing to the best of their ability will create a sense of ownership

over their work and boost engagement.

Productivity Over Process

organizations in our report that focus on outcomes over process are

experiencing high levels of employee engagement. md Financial management

encourages managers to focus on results—not process or face time. This

requires a high level of trust between manager and employee. managers need

to provide extra clarity around expectations and deliverables, and it is up to

employees to achieve these objectives.

similarly, managers at Geosoft are encouraged to take a hands-off approach

to management. In the company’s experience, new managers tend to be a

little more micro—usually driven by a desire to ensure the work is up to their

own standards. managers are coached to remove the “how” from their style of

management, instead focusing on the “what” in terms of outcomes.

9 Jensen and Raver, “When self-management and surveillance Collide.”


www.cboc.ca/ip


CHAPTER 10

Conclusion

Chapter summary

• At a time of increased employee mobility, decreased employee loyalty, and a focus on maximizing the value of human capital, an engaged workforce can be the key to unlocking greater retention, higher performance, and superior business outcomes.

• Leadership—at both the management and executive levels—has the greatest impact on employee engagement.

• Employee demographics play a large role in determining employee engagement levels, and strategies should be developed with the preferences of key job families and demographics in mind.

• organizations with highly engaged employees are addressing the workplace factors in The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model.

• Investing in leadership training, encouraging personal and professional growth, and interesting work that allows employees some flexibility and control over how work gets done are among strategies and practices that foster engagement.




Employee engagement is among the most important people metrics that organizations can measure. What began as an attempt to measure how happy people were with their jobs has developed into a robust, scientifically driven, multi-million dollar industry. At a time of increased employee mobility, decreased employee loyalty, and a focus on maximizing the value of human capital, an engaged workforce can be the key to unlocking greater retention, higher performance, and superior business outcomes.

The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model has

helped establish a set of factors that influence engagement. nurturing

a work environment and practices that positively “nudge” these factors

will increase engagement. Through detailed analysis, we have confirmed

that the factors presented in this model apply to employees in various

positions, industries, and sectors. While some factors may have a

greater influence for certain segments of employees, each of the seven

factors influences engagement to some degree for all. The following are

the main findings from our research:

• Senior leaders are a growing factor in engagement. While senior

leaders have always played a significant role in employee engagement,

their influence relative to middle management has increased.

• Only about a quarter of employees are engaged. By investing

in management and workplace practices that positively nudge the

seven factors influencing engagement, Canadian organizations

will improve employee retention, performance, and other important

business outcomes.

• Demographics play a substantial role in determining the

importance of workplace factors. not all employees are influenced

equally by the same workplace factors. For example, what is an


www.cboc.ca/ip



influential factor for educators may not be as influential for health care

workers. Technical and non-technical professionals exhibit significant

differences in strengths of different engagement drivers.

• The direct measures of engagement are each influenced by

different workplace factors. Questions to do with pride, sense of

accomplishment, and intention to leave all have different drivers from

the employee engagement model, which means they are driven by

different characteristics of the work environment.

Related to these findings, and informed by organizational strategies

from our case studies, are the following overall good practices identified

through our research:

• Invest in leadership training. This includes leadership development for

all levels of management, from supervisors to CEos. Understand where

each level of management can play a role, such as in recognition, work

design, or involvement in decision-making, and target training toward

these areas.

• Decentralize accountability for employee engagement. Engagement

strategies are most successful when Human Resources is not the

only part of the business held accountable for results. Build formal

accountability for engagement into performance plans for leaders at

the Vp and middle-management levels.

• Strive to make work interesting and challenging. managers, in

collaboration with their direct reports, should find ways to make work

more interesting and challenging. Find out where employees’ interests

and ambitions lie and try to design work that can add some of these

elements into their established responsibilities.

• Encourage personal and professional growth. people want to feel a

sense of forward progression with their careers. When individuals believe

they are growing, they become more engaged with their organizations.

• Foster an autonomous work environment. Where possible, allow

employees the flexibility to choose how and where their work is done.

Flexible work arrangements and input into decisions that affect their

work become possible when clear outcomes are established.

people want to feel a sense of forward progression with their careers.




• Make acknowledgement and recognition a priority. Enterprise

software has made it possible for employees at any level to recognize

the contributions of their colleagues. Anecdotal reports from

organizations suggest that using this technology has noticeable effects

on culture. Employee engagement can be influenced by incorporating

this technology as part of a broader recognition strategy.

We have clarified the importance of different workplace factors affecting

engagement. The increasing importance of senior leaders should cause

organizations to re-evaluate their relative influence related to employees’

sense of pride in and willingness to recommend their organizations. If

attrition and turnover are of greatest concern, lack of professional growth

opportunities may be a factor. And, that feeling of accomplishment that is

so closely linked to engagement can be achieved by increasing the level

of interest and challenge in employees’ work.

The current state of employee engagement presents many challenges

for organizations. Engagement has remained stubbornly low for over five

years, and Canada’s sluggish economy has added an uncertain external

dynamic to organizations’ efforts to boost engagement. only those

with a serious commitment to and sound understanding of employee

engagement will reap its full rewards.

Tell us how we’re doing—rate this publication.

www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?did=7924


www.cboc.ca/ip



APPENDIX A

Bibliography

Abraham, susan. “Job satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee

Engagement.” SIES Journal of Management 8, no. 2 (2012): 27–36.

Adp Research Institute. Employee Satisfaction vs. Employee

Engagement: Are They the Same Thing? Adp Research Institute, 2012.

Alfes, Kerstin, Catherine Truss, Emma C. soane, Chris Rees, and mark

Gatenby. Creating an Engaged Workforce. London: Chartered Institute

of personnel and development, 2010.

Amabile, Teresa, and steven Kramer. The Progress Principle. Boston:

Harvard Business press, 2011.

Anitha, J. “determinants of Employee Engagement and Their Impact

on Employee performance.” International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management 63, no. 3 (2014): 308–23.

Aon Hewitt. 2013 Trends in Global Employee Engagement: Report

Highlights. Lincolnshire: Aon Hewitt, 2013.

—. 2014 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Lincolnshire:

Aon Hewitt, 2014.

—. 2015 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Lincolnshire:

Aon Hewitt, 2015.

—. The Multiplier Effect: Insights Into How Senior Leaders Drive

Employee Engagement Higher. Lincolnshire: Aon Hewitt, 2012.

Ashforth, Blake E., and Ronald H. Humphrey. “Emotion in the Workplace:

A Reappraisal.” Human Relations 48, no. 2 (1995): 97–125.



Appendix A | The Conference Board of Canada

Augustin, sally, and Jay L. Brand. Impact of the Physical Environment

on Knowledge Worker Performance. Holland: Haworth, 2011.

BlessingWhite. Employee Engagement Report 2011. princeton:

BlessingWhite, 2011.

—. Employee Engagement Research Update. princeton:

BlessingWhite, 2013.

Bloom, nicholas, James Liang, John Roberts, and Zhichun Jenny

ying. “does Working From Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese

Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, no. 1 (2015):

165–218.

Brett, Joan F., and Leanne E. Atwater. “360° Feedback: Accuracy,

Reactions, and perceptions of Usefulness.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 86, no. 5 (2001): 930–42.

Buckingham, marcus, and Curt Coffman. First, Break All the Rules:

What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. new york:

simon & schuster, 1999.

Byrne, Zinta s. Understanding Employee Engagement: Theory,

Research, and Practice. new york: Routledge, 2015.

Christian, michael s., Adela s. Garza, and Jerel E. slaughter.

“Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of Its Relations

With Task and Contextual performance.” Personnel Psychology 64, no. 1

(2011): 89–136.

Cone. The Millennial Generation: Pro-Social and Empowered to Change

the World. Boston: Cone Inc., 2006.

Forum. Driving Business Results by Building Trust. Boston: Forum

Corporation, 2013.

Gallup. State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for

Leaders. Washington: Gallup, 2015.

Garr, stacia sherman. The State of Employee Recognition in 2012.

oakland: deloitte, 2012.


www.cboc.ca/ip



Gebauer, Julie, and don Lowman. Closing the Engagement Gap:

How Great Companies Unlock Employee Potential for Superior Results.

new york: portfolio, 2008.

Gibbons, John. Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research

and Its Implications. new york: The Conference Board Inc., 2006.

Gibbons, John, and Russell schutt. A Global Barometer for Measuring

Employee Engagement. new york: The Conference Board Inc., 2009.

Gourlay, stephen, Kerstin Alfes, Elaine Bull, sunitha narendran, Georgy

petrov, and Amanda shantz. Locus of Engagement: Understanding

What Employees Connect With at Work. Wimbledon: Chartered Institute

of personnel and development, 2011.

Gross, Rob. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee

Engagement: Making the Connection. Toronto: mandrake, 2010.

Hackbarth, natalie, dan Harris, and Hilary Wright. 2015 Employee

Engagement Trends Report. omaha: Quantum Workplace, 2015.

Hackbarth, natalie, david Weisser, and Hilary Wright. 2014 Employee

Engagement Trends Report. omaha: Quantum Workplace, 2014.

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. oldham. “motivation Through the

design of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance 16, no. 2 (1976): 250–79.

Harter, James K., Frank L. schmidt, sangeeta Agrawal, and stephanie

K. plowman. The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and

Organizational Outcomes: 2012 Q12 Meta-Analysis. Washington: Gallup

Inc., 2013.

Harvard Business Review Analytic services. Frontline Managers: Are

They Given the Leadership Tools to Succeed? Boston: Harvard Business

school publishing, 2014.

Hawkins, naoko, Jane Vellone, and Ruth Wright. Workplace Preferences

of Millennials and Gen X: Attracting and Retaining the 2020 Workforce.

ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2014.




Herzberg, Frederick. “one more Time: How do you motivate

Employees?” Harvard Business Review 46, no. 1 (1968): 53–62.

Hoegl, martin. “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork: How to Keep project

Teams small.” Business Horizons 48 (2005): 209–14.

Hoppock, Robert. Job Satisfaction. new york: Harper, 1935.

IBm. The Value of Training. Armonk, ny: IBm, 2014.

Ipsos Loyalty. Build a Better Workplace: Employee Engagement Edition.

Toronto: Ipsos, 2012.

Jensen, Jaclyn m., and Jana L. Raver. “When self-management and

surveillance Collide: Consequences for Employees’ organizational

Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behaviors.” Group &

Organization Management 37, no. 3 (2012): 308–46.

Kahn, William. “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement and

disengagement at Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 4

(1990): 692–724.

Kowske, Brenda. Employee Engagement: Market Review, Buyer’s Guide

and Provider Profiles. oakland: Bersin by deloitte, 2012.

Kraus, sascha. “The state-of-the-Art of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Research: A Citation Analysis.” International Journal of Strategic

Management 11, no. 1 (2011).

Latham, Gary p. “The motivational Benefits of Goal-setting.” Academy

of Management Executive 18, no. 4 (2004): 126–29.

Lewis, Gregory B., and sue A. Frank. “Who Wants to Work for the

Government?” Public Administration Review 62, no. 4 (2002): 395–404.

Locke, Edwin A. “The nature and Causes of Job satisfaction.” In

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. marvin d.

dunnette, 1297–1349. Chicago: Rand mcnally, 1976.

Loegl, martin. “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork: How to Keep project

Teams small.” Business Horizons 48 (2005): 209–14.


www.cboc.ca/ip



martin, Heidi, Ruth Wright, and Allison Cowan. Human Resources

Trends and Metrics: HR Measurement Benchmarking, Third Edition.

ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2014.

mathis, Terry L. “strategies for Employee Engagement.” Industry Week

262, no. 11 (2013): 34–36.

miller, Thomas W., Bruce C. ogilvie, and Janet Branch. “sport

psychology Consultation: The Influence of Gender on Learning style.”

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 60, no. 3 (2008):

279–85.

nakamura, Jeanne, and mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. “Flow Theory and

Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, eds. s.

Lopez and C.R. snyder, 195–206. oxford: oxford University press, 2009.

net Impact. Undergraduate Perspectives: The Business of Changing the

World. san Francisco: net Impact, 2010.

n-gen people performance Inc. Career Expectations: n-gen Generational

Index Report. Toronto: n-gen people performance Inc., 2009.

orgambidez-Ramos, Alejandro, yolanda Borrego-Alés, and Isabel

mendoza-sierra. “Role stress and Work Engagement as Antecedents of

Job satisfaction in spanish Workers.” Journal of Industrial Engineering

and Management 7, no. 1 (2014): 360–72.

pang, Chris, and yvette Cameron. Technology Overview for Employee

Recognition and Rewards Software. stamford: Gartner, 2015.

pett, marjorie A., nancy R. Lackey, and John J. sullivan. Making

Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument

Development in Health Care Research. Thousand oaks: sage, 2003.

pink, daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

new york: Riverhead Books, 2009.

project management Institute. Project Management Talent Gap Report.

newtown square: project management Institute, 2013.




Rayton, Bruce, Tanith dodge, and Gillian d’Analeze. Employee

Engagement: The Evidence. Bath: Engage for success, 2012.

Richman, Amy, Karen noble, and Arlene Johnson. When the Workplace

Is Many Places: The Extent and Nature of Off-Site Work Today.

Watertown: WFd Consulting Inc., 2002.

Robinson, dilys, sarah perryman, and sue Hayday. The Drivers

of Employee Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment

studies, 2004.

Royal, mark, and Juran yoon. “Engagement and Enablement: The Key

to Higher Levels of Individual and organizational performance.” Journal

of Compensation and Benefits 25, no. 5 (2009): 13–19.

Ryan, Richard m., and Edward L. deci. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic

motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.” Contemporary

Educational Psychology 25 (2000): 54–67.

saks, Alan m. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee

Engagement.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, no. 7 (2006):

600–19.

saks, Alan m., and Jamie A. Gruman. “What do We Really Know About

Employee Engagement?” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25,

no. 2 (2014): 155–82.

schaufeli, Wilmar B., marisa salanova, Vicente González-Romá, and

Arnold B. Bakker. “The measurement of Engagement and Burnout:

A Two-sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of

Happiness Studies 3, no. 1 (2002): 71–92.

society for Human Resource management. 2012 Employee Job

Satisfaction and Engagement: How Employees Are Dealing

With Uncertainty. Alexandria: society for Human Resource

management, 2012.

Thomas, Christopher. A New Measurement Scale for Employee

Engagement: Scale Development, Pilot Test, and Replication. deKalb:

Academy of management Annual meeting proceedings, 2007.


www.cboc.ca/ip



TInypulse. 2013 TINYpulse Employee Engagement Survey. 2013.

http://tinyserver.info/resources/employee-engagement-survey-2013

(accessed February 22, 2016).

Towers perrin. Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee

Engagement. new york: Towers perrin, 2003.

Towers Watson. Turbocharging Employee Engagement: The Power

of Recognition From Managers. new york: Towers Watson, 2010.

Vilorio, dennis. “sTEm 101: Intro to Tomorrow’s Jobs.” Occupational

Outlook Quarterly 58, no. 1 (2014): 2–12.

Wellins, Richard s., paul Bernthal, and mark phelps. Employee

Engagement: The Key to Realizing Competitive Advantage. pittsburgh:

development dimensions International, 2005.

WorldatWork. Survey on Workplace Flexibility 2013. scottsdale:

WorldatWork, 2013.

Wright, Ruth. Measuring What Matters: People Drive Value. ottawa:

The Conference Board of Canada, 2004.


http://tinyserver.info/resources/employee-engagement-survey-2013

Appendix B | The Conference Board of Canada


APPENDIX B

Detailed Methodology

The research design used in this report incorporated both quantitative

and qualitative methodologies. This appendix provides additional

detail on the specific methodologies used to design the employee

questionnaire; obtain the employee sample; create The Conference

Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model; identify the direct

measures of engagement; and perform the executive interviews for the

case studies.

Employee Questionnaire

The employee questionnaire was created in order to collect data on

workplace perceptions of Canadian employees. First, a literature review

was conducted on over 100 pieces of research that identified workplace

drivers of employee engagement. These drivers were then categorized

based on workplace areas such as professional growth, autonomy, and

professional relationships. The resulting group of categories formed the

theoretical factor model that would be used to ground the creation of the

questionnaire and factor analysis.

Key terms related to each of these factors were identified and used

to create survey questions. The question structure of Talentmap’s

employee engagement questionnaire was used to help guide the writing

of these questions. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure


www.cboc.ca/ip



employees’ perceptions with each of the workplace areas. Individual and

organizational demographic questions were included in order to perform

aggregated data analysis.

Sampling

A random sample of 400 people from a panel of Canadian employees

served as the response base for the research. A representative cross-

section of employees from various industries, lengths of service, and

other key variables was sampled for and achieved.

Direct Measures of Engagement

The scale comprising four direct measures of engagement yielded

strong internal consistency with a Chronbach’s α of 0.825. The strongest

workplace drivers for three of the four direct measures were determined

using the pearson correlation coefficient. “At the moment, I do not

plan on leaving my organization” was the only measure that used the

spearman rho coefficient due to issues with normality.

Factor Modelling

A confirmatory factor analysis was used to create The Conference Board

of Canada’s Employee Engagement model. Twenty-five of the original

33 variables were included in the final model. The Kaiser-meyer-olkin

measure of sampling Adequacy was 0.930. The approximate chi-square

value for Bartlett’s Test of sphericity showed significant relationships

among the variables in the factor analysis (X2 = 19334.492, n = 400,

p < 0.001). Factors were extracted using principal components and

rotated using the varimax method. Factor scores were saved as

variables using the regression method. These factor scores were divided

into quartiles, and the top quartile among all factor scores was used to

indicate that a factor had a “high impact” on that specific group of cases.



Appendix B | The Conference Board of Canada

Qualitative Interviews

The six in-depth interview participants were selected from Talentmap’s

benchmark database. Four organizations with sustained high

engagement scores and two with a trended increase in engagement

scores were selected to participate. one-hour interviews with each

of the six participants focused on strategy, measurement, practices,

and outcomes related to employee engagement. The interviews were

recorded to improve the quality of the analysis. Within-case and cross-

case analysis identified themes related to good practices.


www.cboc.ca/ip



APPENDIX C

Survey Respondent Profiletable 1The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)

Number Percentage*

Length of service

< 1 year 24 6.0

1 year to < 3 years 49 12.3

3 years to < 5 years 44 11.0





25 years + 49 12.3

Total 400 100

Number of employees

1–49 73 18.8

50–99 27 6.9

100–199 25 6.4

200–499 51 13.1

500–1,499 54 13.9

1,500–5,000 61 15.7

> 5,000 98 25.2

Total 400 100

(continued …)



appendix C | the Conference Board of Canada

Number Percentage*

Region

maritimes 46 11.5

Quebec 14 3.5

ontario 186 46.5

prairies 90 22.5

British Columbia 61 15.3

territories 3 0.8

Total 400 100

Functional area

administration 46 11.5

Finance 24 6.0

Human resources 13 3.3

Information technology 21 5.3

legal 3 0.8

occupational health, safety, and wellness 8 2.0

operations 93 23.3

Sales 19 4.8

marketing 9 2.3

Customer relations 27 6.8

Research and development 30 7.5

Education 28 7.0

Engineering 14 3.5

Communications 7 1.8

Health care 16 4.0

policy 7 1.8

other 35 8.8

Total 400 100

table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)


www.cboc.ca/ip




Number Percentage*

Sector

private sector corporation 176 44.0

Federal government department/agency 40 10.0

provincial government department/agency 49 12.3

not-for-profit organization 39 9.8

Crown corporation 14 3.5

municipal government 27 6.8

University/hospitals/school board 49 12.3

other 6 1.5

Total 400 100

Gender

male 200 50.0

Female 200 50.0

Total 400 100

Age

18–34 75 18.8

35–44 107 26.8

45–54 125 31.3

55+ 93 23.3

Total 400 100

(continued …)



appendix C | the Conference Board of Canada

Number Percentage*

Level of responsibility

Executive 25 6.3

management 86 21.5

professional—technical 72 18.0

professional—non-technical 100 25.0

trades, clerical, support, service, and production

111 27.8

other 6 1.5

Total 400 100

Industry

natural resources, excluding oil and gas 8 2.0

oil and gas 12 3.0

manufacturing 27 6.8

Food, beverage, and tobacco products 11 2.8

Chemical, pharmaceutical, and allied products 3 0.8

Construction 17 4.3

High technology 10 2.5

Communications and telecommunications 15 3.8

transportation and utilities 17 4.3

Finance and insurance 10 2.5

Real estate 6 1.5

(continued …)



www.cboc.ca/ip



Table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)

Number Percentage*

Wholesale trade 9 2.3

Retail trade 21 5.3

Education 49 12.3

Health 31 7.8

Government 88 22.0

not-for-profit 23 5.8

services—accommodation, food, personal 5 1.3

services—professional, scientific, technical 20 5.0

other 18 4.5

Total 400 100

*Some percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.


Appendix d | The Conference Board of Canada


APPENDIX D

TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile Table 1 TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile (per cent)

Percentage*

Age (n = 119,306)

Under 25 4.9

25–34 24.5

35–44 29.4

45–54 27.9

55+ 13.3

Length of service (n = 106,806)

Under 1 year 15.0

1–3 years 21.2

3–5 years 14.3

5–10 years 21.3

over 10 years 28.1

Level of responsibility (n = 70,591)

senior executive 4.8

manager 17.8

Individual contributor 77.4

(continued …)


www.cboc.ca/ip



Table 1 TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile (per cent)

Percentage*

Organization size (n = 167,286)

small 8.8

medium 21.0

Large 70.3

Industry (n = 167,286)

Airport authority 1.2

Association (not-for-profit) 6.4

Biotech & pharmaceuticals 5.8

Construction/construction products 0.1

Consumer products & retail 7.9

Education 1.3

Energy sector 5.2

Financial services 16.8

Government & regulatory authorities 4.8

Government, federal/national 0.8

Government, municipal/local 10.1

Health care 5.6

Industrial products 4.3

psF (p.Eng, consultants, lawyers) 9.2

sports, entertainment/media, & communication 3.3

Technology 14.9

Transportation, distribution, & logistics 0.9

other 1.4

(continued …)



Appendix d | The Conference Board of Canada

Table 1TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile(per cent)

Percentage*

Region (n = 162,633)

maritimes 0.1

Quebec 3.3

ontario 58.2

prairies 29.6

British Columbia 8.8

Sector (n = 167,286)

private 67.0

public 27.1

nGo 5.9

*Certain demographics may not have been collected for all respondents. Only valid percentage figures are displayed.Source: TalentMap.


www.cboc.ca/ip



APPENDIX E

Detailed Employee Engagement Model

Exhibit 1The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model: Detailed

Senior leaders have putforth a compelling

vision for our organization.

Senior leaders setambitious but realistic

goals.

Senior leaders clearlycommunicate the objectives

for our organization.

I trust oursenior leaders.

Confidence inSenior Leadership

Senior leaders followthrough with their

commitments.

I have confidence thatour senior leaders can

achieve our goals.

My managervalues my

opinions and ideas.

My managerprovides me with

constructive feedback.

My manager includesme in decisions

that affect my work.

RelationshipWith Manager

My managerfollows through with

his/her commitments.

Most of mywork is challenging.

The work Ido is meaningful.

There is enoughvariety in the

work that I do.

Interesting andChallenging Work

I find mywork interesting.

My career goalscan be achieved


I can see a clearcareer path for me


Professional andPersonal Growth

I have opportunities togrow professionally


My work contributionsto the organization

are recognized.

My accomplishmentsare acknowledged

by leaders and peers.

Overall, I feelappreciated for

the work that I do.

Acknowledgement andRecognition

The work Ido is not taken

for granted.

In my work group,people share

information willingly.

RelationshipsWith Co-workers

In my work group,people work like they

are part of a team.

I have a say insetting my performancegoals and objectives.

Autonomy

I have controlover how my

work gets done.



About The Conference Board of Canada

We are:

• The foremost independent, not-for-profit, applied research organization in Canada.

• Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests.• Funded exclusively through the fees we charge for services to the

private and public sectors.• Experts in running conferences but also at conducting, publishing,

and disseminating research; helping people network; developing individual leadership skills; and building organizational capacity.

• Specialists in economic trends, as well as organizational performance and public policy issues.

• Not a government department or agency, although we are often hired to provide services for all levels of government.

• Independent from, but affiliated with, The Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.


www.cboc.ca/ip

255 smyth Road, ottawa on

K1H 8m7 Canada

Tel. 613-526-3280

Fax 613-526-4857

Inquiries 1-866-711-2262

conferenceboard.ca

Insights. Understanding. Impact.

pUBLICATIon 7924 | 7925

pRICE: $1,295


employee engagement: leveraging the science to inspire great … · title: employee engagement:...

Documents