This is a classic approach to Employee Engagement – that it’s about the “head, heart, and hands”.
The roots for this kind of approach lie in work on organizational commitment (link below).
If you measure engagement like this, you can segment the workforce in different ways, e.g.:
– People who “get it” but are still only “loosely connected”
– People who are “emotionally invested” but “not aligned to your vision”
– People who are “going the extra mile” but maybe in a way that’s “ineffective”
– People who are high on all 3 elements and are real “champions”
– People who are low on all 3 elements and you perhaps hope are thinking about moving on
– etc.
In analytics terms:
=> You can do clustering to identify prominent employee “types” and then identify hot spots
=> You can examine the key drivers of engagement for different groups
=> You can look at the link to retention (and performance)
=> You can build personas by brining in other data
=> You can make connections to your DE&I strategy.
If you’re interested, one of the classic papers on org. commitment is by John Meyer and Natalie Allen from 1991: “A three-component conceptualization of organisational commitment.” Human Resource Management Review 1: 61–89.
William Kahn, who is usually credited with providing the first formal definition of engagement said that “in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally.”
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, which has been widely deployed in academic circles, also measures three aspects: vigor, dedication, and absorption.
All the best things come in threes!
#EmployeeEngagement #OrganizationalCulture #EmployeeExperience
#Leadership #BehavioralScience #PeopleAnalytics #HR
