Is a Happy employee an Engaged employee?

December 7, 2009 · Filed Under Business Ideas & TIps · 1 Comment 

Happy Cookies

There is much written and spoken about the need to have our team fully engaged. Best Buy in the States determined that a small increase in their engagement index added over $100,000 profit to each store. There is much research that shows loyal committed customers come about when their enthusiastic engaged employees.

But the story does not end there.

A CEO of a business employing about 200 people said to me recently that all of his team were happy.  At the time I did not react but rather we continued to talk about business issues. It was only later that I thought about his comment.

What does it mean when we say “employee engagement” or “engaged employee”?

Rather than some complex explanation I feel it could be simply stated that an engaged employee is one who is committed to the cause.

If you are committed to the cause you will go the extra mile. When the team are committed to delivering the product or service with the mission, values, intent of the business they will do those little things that matter, be an advocate to everybody and otherwise generally love helping. A person committed to the cause is a not a person who turns up at 8:30am and leaves at 5pm and just does his or her job in between.

A happy employee though likes the workplace, the work, the pay, the fellow team members but that does not mean they are committed to the cause. A happy employee does not mean they will go the extra mile in customer service, advocating the business to others or otherwise going the extra mile.

I have seen employee surveys which ask questions to determine whether the employees are happy. This could lead the management into a false sense of security. Engagement is more than happiness.

Are your employees engaged or just happy?

Photo courtesy of midiman

Tags: , ,

AIG Bonuses – Right & Wrong

March 18, 2009 · Filed Under Economics · Comment 

Last night I was having a conversation with some colleagues about the economic situation and the issue of the AIG bonus payments came up. Of the 4 of us present, the other three all felt that the bonus payments should not have happened. Yes you guessed it, I don’t agree.

So let me explain. From what I understand these payments are made to approximately 200 people under contractual arrangements entered into when these people joined AIG. Also these bonus payments are only payable based upon certain criteria being met. Therefore with this as the basis I firmly believe that all economies are founded on the basis that contracts are enforceable and somebody can not get out the contract at a later date if they want to change the goal posts. Thus the payments must be met to honor the obligations. If you say that since everything has changed and therefore the bonus payments should not be payable then where do you stop. Who has the discretion to honor which legal contracts? Remember these people getting the bonuses are not as I understand it the board or the CEO. The people getting it are the revenue generators for AIG.

I believe that the payment is to be made, so why has it become a big issue. It is obvious if you are a politician it is easy to be antibusiness and whip this into a fever pitch issue. I am concerned about the antibusiness sentiment that is coming out of the government in the US.

Now one of my colleagues stated that whilst the legal contracts may be correct but morally these people should not get the payments. I believe that morally the leadership of AIG has to honor its commitments to the team – so it cuts both ways.

Let’s look at these items in the cold hard light of day and remove the political vested interests from the argument.

There is a salient issue here in that businesses need to measure what matters i.e. what matters to the customers and make these measures the ones which rewards and bonuses are paid. If this was case then the bonuses would possibly not be payable.

I would love to hear your comments on this.

Tags: , ,