3: Metrics and Instruments for Measuring Engagement
"You cannot manage what you cannot measure," and as such the difficulty in promoting employee engagement is rooted in an inability to accurately measure it. Many organizations seek to avail themselves of surveys and other metrics that claim to measure engagement, but do not understand the premises on which these instruments are based. Hence the believe that engagement will result in productivity, productivity, and all the other benefits remains largely a matter of faith.
The author lists a number of goals for measuring engagement:
- Identify the factors that contribute to engagement or detract from it
- Determine which individuals or organizational units are most/least engaged
- Observe what the most/least engaged groups do differently to identify best practices for the rest of the organization
- Determine the link between engagement and key business outcomes
Measuring Engagement Domains
A number of instruments have been created to help organizations assess the engagement of their employees. The author means to consider three of them.
The Shirom-Melamed Vigor Measure (SMVM)
Regarded as "one of the most reliable instruments for measuring work engagement," this assessment seeks to measure the connection between an individual and the work they perform in terms of their physical, emotional, and cognitive attributes. It's a simple 12-question assessment that uses a seven-point scale in response to simple questions such as "I feel full of pep" or "I feel able to be creative."
The author suggests that this instrument has shown high accuracy in predicting turnover and is broad enough to be applied to any organization or occupation. Though it is admitted that this is a snapshot approach that may vary over time, even with the same individuals. (EN: It's also generally found that attitudinal studies may reflect only the past few days' of experience, rather than sentiment over a longer period of time. Hence it's less indicative of long-term engagement than it is of when a given employee is having a good/bad week.)
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
Another engagement survey, developed at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, likewise presents the user with a number of questions (which vary according to the version of the tool) that are rated on a seven-point scale to indicate agreement with statements such as "I am enthusiastic about my job": and "my job inspires me."
He claims that this test "has proven to be one of the most reliable and validated instruments in measuring work engagement" (EN: but he provides no evidence of correlation to any specific performance metric).
Employee Engagement Interview (EEI)
The EEI takes a slightly different approach: rather than asking employees to rate their engagement on a scale, the interview is conducted by an individual (in the HR department, or an outside consultant) and asks the employee open-ended questions such as "What are specific ways in which you engage in your work?" and "How does your individual performance impact customers?" The interviewer then rates the degree to which the responses reflect certain attitudes about work.
This approach is more effective in gathering qualitative data by leading employees to consider their engagement in terms of very specific experiences rather than as a general impression. However, it tends to be time-consuming and the interpretation of the employees' responses can be subjective and inconsistent, particularly if multiple interviewers are used.
Measuring Job Satisfaction
The next set of instruments are intended to measure job satisfaction - the employee's emotional state arising from their positive or negative attitudes toward their employer and work environment.
The Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA)
The 12-question GWA is the most widely used method for measuring employee engagement in the workplace, and it is claimed that their questionnaire correlates closely to profit, customer satisfaction, retention, productivity, and a number of other desirable characteristics. The respondent indicates their agreement with statements such as "I have a best friend" and "I know what is expected of me" on a five-point scale.
Since this instrument is offered by a leading research company, it has been widely adopted and results can be benchmarked against a significant database, though it has been suggested that some of the questions are a bit effuse and not always applicable.
The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)
The author refers to the "Job Satisfaction Survey" originally developed at the University of South Florida. The survey asks participants to rate, on a six-point scale, their agreement with various sentiments such as "I am being paid a fair amount" and "My supervisor is unfair to me."
(EN: Note that this instrument was developed in 1985 as a means of measuring the sentiment of the community for comparative sociology. It was not originally meant to be used to assess an employee's satisfaction, and the creator concedes that "there are no specific scores that determine whether an individual is satisfied or dissatisfied." This may be a case of businesses attempting to use the wrong tool for the job.)
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
The MSQ is another psychological tool that may be improperly employed by the commercial world. Originally developed in 1977 to assess the satisfaction of people with specific professions, it presents the user with a five-point scale with which to agree or disagree with 100 sentiments such as "I am noticed when I do a good job" and "I have the chance to help people."
Measuring Job Burnout
Significant technological changes have introduced new challenges and increasing demands on individuals in the workplace. Technology enables a single worker to perform tasks that once required a staff of individuals - meaning that the average worker is being expected to do more diverse tasks more quickly, and this has placed an enormous amount of stress on employees. Under such conditions, there is a growing problem of employees who feel emotionally and mentally exhausted by their work, feeling disengaged and detached as they struggle merely to keep pace. Hence, there is increasing incidence of employee burnout.
Burnout is the antithesis of engagement that is recognized as a critical problem across many different countries and occupations. It also constitutes a crisis for employers - and as such often receives greater attention than engagement. That is, fewer employers are interested in improving morale as a preventative measure as are interested in interceding only when there is a clear crisis. This is not the ideal approach, but happens to be the most common.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)
The MBI was developed in the late 1970s as a method ot measuring burnout in the healthcare industry, and remains the most widely used instrument for measuring employee exhaustion. The survey asks workers to indicate their agreement with statements such as "I have felt frustrated by my job" and "I have difficulty sleeping" on a seven-point scale. The questions address three basic qualities that are believed to be linked to burnout: exhaustion, depersonalization, and frustration.
Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO)
A relatively new instrument (developed in 2007), the SWEBO measures both the dimensions of burnout (exhaustion, disengagement, and inattentiveness) as well as the dimensions of engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption).
As with the others instruments, it is a survey that asks employees to rate on a four-point scale the degree to which they agree or disagree with different statements about their workplace attitudes such as "There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work" or "I can usually manage the amount of my work well."