Recently I read the Gallup Organization published research, I was astonished after reading this…what a scrutiny….

I just carried forward few of the thoughts from the research. I request the respected members to give their estimation…

The Gallup Organization published research proved that a more engaged employee is also a more productive employee. The research also proved, that a more engaged employee is also a more profitable employee, a more customer-focused employee, a safer employee, and an employee who is more likely to withstand temptations to jump ship and in turn it is also true that the longer employees stay with an organization, the less engaged they become.

Why are we so ineffective at engaging our people? And why, despite increasingly complex human resource systems, does the problem get worse the longer a person stays?

Asked more positively: What can we do to build a working environment that, over the course of an employee's tenure, creates higher levels of per-person productivity, customer service, employee retention, and safety and, underpinning it all, higher levels of employee engagement?

How much can we change a person after we hire him?

A person's recurring patterns of thought, of feeling and of behavior do not change significantly. If he is empathic when he is hired, he will stay empathic. If he is impatient for action when he is hired, he will stay impatient. If he is strategic, always asking "What if?", he will stay strategic. If he is competitive, he will stay competitive. Gallup labels these recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior talents, but whatever word you use -- such as traits, qualities, or characteristics -- science's perspective on them is clear: They don't change much after a person is hired.

msantos

Hi,

The subject matter that you mentioned here was taken up earlier at one of the hr e-groups on the internet  with the thread title: "Performance Management: This Time Individual".

We had a long discussion there, although the focus was more on the PMS and its relationship to an article that Gallup wrote which was titled: "The Four Disciplines of Sustainable Growth".

What's is noteworty in the Gallup article is not that "a more engaged individual is more productive" than those who are not, but that "the level of engagement of employees decrease as they stay longer in the organization".

I say this because we all know by experience that those who are loyal and more committed/ engaged to the company really works harder than those who are not.

But getting the Gallup Statistics (after interviewing 700,000 people) that showed that engagement proportionately decreases with tenure, means that there is a NEGATIVE FACTOR in the employment relationship that triggers the decrease in employee engagement.

In my view, the negative factor is a more important subject that HR practioners and consultants should investigate and attempt to solve.

Hence, the proposed PMS and "four disciplines" by Gallup were (to me) irrelevant to their research findings.

Thanks

Meera