Personality - the intervening factor
Some employees will never be fully engaged, no matter how well developed and resourced your engagement strategy. That is the big finding of the new research.
Schneider etal (2018) compared the performance of 102 companies over a two-year period, and concluded engagement to be a significant driver of business performance. Company practices, supervisory support, and work attributes all mattered. No surprises there!
Other psychologists have also demonstrated the role of those key personality traits in engagement (Woods and Sofat, 2013).
In summary, initiatives do not create engagement directly; an individual's personality is a crucial intervening factor.
Interestingly, research highlights the significance of individual differences on specific engagement initiatives. For example, Rupp etal (2018) found that corporate social responsibility initiatives raised engagement generally, but particularly amongst individuals who had, and valued, autonomy. And, Bosch etal (2018) established that lunch breaks raised engagement, but not for everyone [Note 2]!
Assessing engageability
To gauge an individual’s engageability you could…
1) Ask pertinent interview questions
Questions such as…
● What 10 adjectives best describe you at work?
● How do you feel when really (dis)engaged at work?
● What would you like to change about your existing job?
● What is great about this job?
Of course, you need to follow up interview questions with “why”. And, look for answers demonstrating engageability, i.e. answers showing courage, energy, focus or positivity.
Here is a quick checklist to help you assess individuals’ answers. It has been carefully developed [Note 3] and is simple to use. For example, if you hear an instance of challenging authority, an instance of being resilient under pressure, give two ticks for courage!
courage
|
energy
|
focus
|
positivity
|
q challenging
|
q enthusiastic
|
q alert
|
q fulfilled
|
q courageous
|
q determined
|
q attentive
|
q happy
|
q resilient
|
q motivated
|
q focused
|
q inspired
|
q brave
|
q energetic
|
q involved
|
q positive
|
Observe/Rate behaviour
You might use assessment centre exercises to observe, then rate engageability. Many team exercises and role-plays will provide insights into courage, energy, focus and positivity. For example, asking a team to find a solution to a real life, difficult business issue would probably work well (and it would assess key competencies too).
Additionally, your recruitment/selection process as a whole tests individuals’ engageability. At the end of the process, ask when an individual displayed courage, energy…? Which applicants displayed most engageability through the process?
Use a personality instrument
Some off-the-shelf personality questionnaires assess courage, energy, focus and positivity, but use slightly different terminology. For example, focus is essentially the conscientiousness element of the Five-Factor personality model, the “Big Five”. Take a close look at the questionnaire you already use, and questionnaires you might use.
Explanations and answers
Please let me know if you’d like to know more. There's a quick "Contact me" form on the left. It would be good to hear from you.
Peter
Notes
1] Young etal use somewhat technical language to describe the crucial personality factors: they use extraversion, proactivity, conscientiousness, and “positive affectivity”. Statistically, Young etal found personality “explained 48% of the variance in engagement”. Personality typically explains about 9% of anything, including performance. So, 48% is a whopper result!
2] There is a message in these findings: determine if an applicant will understand, value and use the key elements of your engagement strategy.
3] The checklist follows on from Young etal’s research, the widely accepted Five-Factor personality model, and my research into employees’ motives (Goodge, 1994).
References
Bosch, C. , Sonnentag, S. and Pinck, A. S. (2018), What makes for a good break? A diary study on recovery experiences during lunch break. J Occup Organ Psychol, 91: 134-157. doi:10.1111/joop.12195
Goodge, P., 1994, Motive: A new tool for understanding needs and aspirations, Selection and Development Review. Vol 10 (2), pp 4-6
Rupp DE, Shao R, Skarlicki DP, Paddock EL, Kim T‐Y, Nadisic T. Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR‐specific relative autonomy and individualism. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:559–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2282
Schneider B, Yost AB, Kropp A, Kind C, Lam H. Workforce engagement: What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:462–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2244
Woods, S. A. and Sofat, J. A. (2013), Personality and engagement at work. J Appl Soc Psychol, 43: 2203-2210. doi:10.1111/jasp.12171
Young HR, Glerum DR, Wang W, Joseph DL. Who are the most engaged at work? A meta‐analysis of personality and employee engagement. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1330–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2303
