Beyond employee engagement — how might we build work for people?
Soolin Barclay, development partner at FORWARD — The RMIT Centre for Future Skills and Workforce Transformation — writing with director Peter Thomas, in collaboration with development partners Pete Cohen, Inder Singh, Kate Spencer, Sally McNamara, Daniel Bluzer-Fry, Helen-Babb Delia and Courtney Guilliatt.
At RMIT FORWARD, we are exploring future-focused ways of working and how we might build a workplace ecosystem for people.
All of our team members are part-time portfolio workers. We work flexibly when and where we choose, connect in person frequently and when desirable, and our gatherings are hybrid by default. We have frameworks and tools to support our ways of working (WoW), and our workspace has been designed intentionally to cultivate conversation, connection and development of our reconciliation practice.
Our team WoW captures the spirit of this approach:
‘what’s on our minds is not where we work or when we work but the foundational and persistent themes that underlie all work — collaboration, transparency and trust.’
This article explores familiar concepts in a new way, against the background of employee engagement:
- Mental health and well-being are a fundamental part of work and should be designed into how we work.
- Inclusion and belonging are not add-ons but an essential part of a workplace.
- Flexibility is the default, and autonomy is built into work.
- Career development is non-linear, and career transitions are inevitable.
To build work for people, organisations should provide options that align with individual worker values, motivations and needs.
Employee engagement has been a hot topic for a long time, possibly dating back to William A. Kahn’s paper ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work’.
Kahn defined employee engagement as
‘the harnessing of organisation members’ selves to their work roles […] people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.’
Decades of academic research have elaborated on this, creating concepts like dedication, vigour and absorption as characteristics of engagement. Inevitably, there are disagreements about how employee engagement can be measured, a chasm between academic researchers and practitioners and a great deal of sometimes conflicting research and commentary on the links between employee engagement and outcomes like job satisfaction, staff retention and productivity.
Gallup estimates the cost of low employee engagement to the global economy could be as much as US $ 7.8 trillion, which, however much you doubt the quantum of loss, is a significant problem.
Measuring engagement is hard, though. Traditionally, employee engagement within an organisation has been measured by a survey, often designed by an external company. When the results come in, what typically follows is a flurry of action planning to address the negative results. Rarely is meaningful change achieved, and the outcome can be impressively negative. As Palmer Morrel-Samuels says in this HBR story, some of the failures are spectacular such as when in 1997, United Parcel Service was hit by a strike ten months after receiving impressive marks on its regular annual survey on worker morale.
If academics don’t agree, organisations find it hard to measure engagement and trying to make meaningful change happen is hard, perhaps it might make more sense to look at things that really change how people experience work.
Perhaps we need to focus on people as individuals, not as resources and pay more attention to their individual needs from, motivations for and expectations of work.
One of the many effects of the pandemic was to prompt a reassessment of the importance of family and social connections and accelerate the use of technology in our work.
But more importantly, perhaps it started a process of redefinition that prompted people to think about what engagement means for them. That process has given rise to The Great Resignation, quiet quitting and, for some, the anti-work movement. Gallup’s 2022 report on the state of the global workplace found 60% of people were emotionally detached at work, and 19% were just miserable. Unsurprisingly, unionism is on the rise. In 2023 we are already seeing numerous lay-offs from some of the world’s biggest companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta and Disney. Rarely are they handled well, and they often fundamentally breach organisational trust.
And now, a new generation has entered the workforce — Generation Z. It is estimated they will comprise 27% of the workforce by 2025. They are idealistic and participate in public protests and social media discussions on inequality and climate change. They have different values and motivations and expect more of work than previous generations — demanding flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance and that their employers are globally aware and responsible.
Given all of these changes, and now that disruption is the norm, a human-centred approach and a continuous conversation about how we work will be critical to creating an ecosystem of care, connection, balance and resilience. While the use of AI in the workplace may be on the rise, and even if we don't know what the future holds, ultimately, organisations that want engaged employees will need to build work for people and with people.
Most of us will be familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the model is reimagined as being made up of interrelated needs, much like the biopsychosocial model that is used in pain management (where if one element is out of balance, it can amplify pain), it might tell a different story. Updated for today, it might look like the below (new additions are in italics).
So what might this look like for how we work? Here are some ideas.
Mental health and well-being are a fundamental part of work and should be designed into how we work.
According to the World Health Organisation, mental health is a basic human right. WHO defines it as ‘a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community’.
COVID-19 shone a light on mental health and well-being like never before. We felt distress globally and were impacted by the virus, public health measures, financial insecurity, misinformation and uncertainty. Many frontline workers experienced increased levels of incivility at an unprecedented level. Whilst these widespread effects shifted some stigma attached to mental health, major depressive orders and anxiety disorders increased by 28% and 26%, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.
The WHO 2022 World Mental Health Report found support to be inadequate for our high level of mental health needs. In the same year, Gallup found that only 33% of employees thrived at work, and in 2021, PwC found that 85% of workers said their well-being declined during the pandemic. Even more disturbingly, half of all mental health conditions experienced start by age 14, and over 75% of mental health problems occur before the age of 25. These findings make integrating mental health and well-being into work even more important because the youth of today are the workforce of the future. In Australia, the business case for investing in mental health and wellbeing is also clear: 91% of employees believe it is important, and almost 50% have left a workplace due to a poor mental health environment.
Now legislation has been introduced in one Australian state and is forthcoming for another, which introduces obligations to manage psychosocial risks in the workplace.
Introduced on 1 October 2022, the Work Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (NSW) 2022 identifies a ‘psychosocial hazard’ as one that may cause psychological harm, whether or not it may also cause physical harm. Hazards arise from or relate to the design or management of work, social factors at work such as workplace relationships and social interactions, and/or the equipment, working environment or requirements to undertake duties in physically hazardous environments (s55A). The examples provided in the NSW Code of Practice and by the Victorian Government’s Solicitor’s Office for its impending legislation are extensive, extending to poor support, organisational justice, change management, environmental conditions or workplace relationships and low job demands, control, clarity or recognition and reward. In the context of the continued cognitive load experienced by many, it is hard to imagine many workplaces being able to eliminate or minimise such hazards as far as reasonably practicable, and their underlying causes. And yet, shouldn’t we all be able to work in an environment free from these risks?
These changes are not unique to Australia. Policy recommendations are being made by the European Trade Union Institute to move beyond non-binding framework agreements to greater regulation from member states for mitigating psychological risks.
A one-size-fits-all approach to well-being in the workplace is not going to suit everyone, and regulation can only go so far. To move beyond a tick-the-box exercise, mental health and well-being must be integrated into how we work. This fundamentally requires psychological safety, a required condition of engagement also defined by Kahn as being ‘able to ‘show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career.’
Much of this responsibility will fall on managers — and it may not be easy. We all perceive and respond to psychosocial hazards in different ways.
Open and continuous conversations about workload and personal commitments, such as caring responsibilities, will be needed, along with authentic support so that the whole person is considered at work. Effective communication, transparency, and continuously managing trust will be required.
Inclusion and belonging are not add-ons but an essential part of a workplace.
A well-known quote from Verna Myers, an expert on diversity and inclusion, is ‘diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.’ Similarly, Kim Brimhall and colleagues say inclusion is ‘the extent to which all employees are accepted as valued members of the organization, recognized for their unique characteristics, and encouraged to participate in the workplace.’
At RMIT FORWARD, we believe that effective leadership should be inclusive. Many workplaces have focussed on attracting diverse talent, and these skills are a must-have. Employee engagement narratives often talk of being oneself within the workplace. This requires feeling accepted, respected and valued for who we are as an individual.
It is our diverse range of experiences that make us unique. They allow us to bring value to an organisation as they allow us to bring new perspectives, new ideas and new solutions to problems. If we feel included, we are more creative and committed. We perform better and are more satisfied with our jobs.
And inclusion influences a person’s sense of belonging or relatedness within a group. Belonging is being valued for differences in the context of frequent and positive interactions within a group that has long-term and stable conditions of care. Perhaps Myers’ quote could be extended to ‘Belonging is feeling free to dance by oneself without fear of exclusion or judgment’.
The need to belong is a fundamental human need. It has a powerful influence on how we think and helps us to cope with stress during challenging times. It is so strong that the prospect of exclusion can significantly affect cognitive processes such as reasoning, problem-solving and even the speed and accuracy of work. A lack of belongingness can be a primary cause of multiple and diverse problems which may impact mental health and well-being.
If workplaces were a place where we felt we belonged — like home — they would be more attractive to visit.
Flexibility is default, and autonomy is built into work.
Flexible work refers to the scope to vary standard working arrangements. This might include changes to how work is done (work adjustments), when work is done (flexible times, compressed hours, part-time work, job-sharing) and where work is done (work from home or other locations).
COVID-19 raised a fundamental question about the benefits of working in the office compared to the time, cost and potential health risks of commuting to work, at least for knowledge-based workers. The shift to hybrid work has not been smooth, with some employers resorting to blanket mandates or manager-enforced working arrangements. Even flexible work practices can be applied rigidly if done with a one-size-fits-all approach, which rarely works and may lead to increased worker resentment. For people living with a disability, this type of approach is exclusionary and working from home arrangements during the height of the pandemic acted as an important equaliser for their contributions.
Recently, workers at organisations that have flexible work have said that the number one factor that has improved their company culture over the past two years is flexible working.
Many people have a strong desire to have autonomy over when, where and how they work so that it aligns with their personal circumstances. Remote working provides greater autonomy and flexibility, which can increase motivation, accountability and perceptions of the meaningfulness of work. And as we have come to find in the era of Teams and Zoom, effective communication is not dependent on location.
But remote work needs to be managed effectively. Rather than requesting flexible work as an exception to the rule, having it as the norm fundamentally shifts the conversation from a deficit-based model to an asset-based approach about how, when and why we connect. The value of the physical workplace comes down to purposeful connection and community. It is difficult to replicate online the power of face-to-face connection, so finding appropriate and purposeful opportunities to do this is critical — whether it's to facilitate social connection, enhance learning, provide mentoring or promote collaboration.
The question of trust is fundamental to conversations about flexibility and autonomy. If knowledge workers were trusted to work from home during public health measures, should they not be trusted to work autonomously, provided that job-related outcomes are met?
Yet with the development of collaborative tools has come, in some cases, greater workplace surveillance, often in the guise of tools that help workers identify trends in their work habits. The prospect of being surveilled undermines trust — whether it’s management, identifying individuals for lay-off or redundancy or termination.
The alternative is a supportive managerial style and a focus on outcomes rather than activity. Organisations that do not provide this risk breaching the psychological contract, which can only have a negative impact on any measures of engagement. People may forgive an unintentional breach of privacy but less so calculated and intentional breaches by their employer. Trust can very quickly be lost and must be continually earned.
And not all work is office-based. Other workers, such as essential, frontline, site and shift workers, should not be excluded from this discussion. Even if traditional notions of flexible work are not available due to the nature of the work, there are ways to build flexibility and autonomy. For instance, research by the Champions of Change Coalition suggests that flexible rosters such as FIFO (fly-in, fly-out) arrangements, swap shifts, job sharing, part-time work, compressed work weeks, or split shifts are possibilities worth exploring. Other examples could include purchasing extra leave, flexitime or time off in lieu rather than overtime pay, depending on the context.
Tapping into workers’ knowledge can result in some creative concepts that can be tested in more traditional organisations that have been slower to adapt. These conversations are crucial to mitigate risks of worker burnout that are being felt across whole sectors in recent years and should not be dismissed just because they are difficult to have.
Career development is non-linear, and career transitions are inevitable.
Another aspect of flexible work is flexibility in how workers are engaged.
There has been an increase in casual work, labour hire or leasing arrangements and the gig economy has exploded since the 2008 economic crisis. Some 45% of Gen Z have side hustles, and one can only imagine how many aspire to the ultimate lifestyle work — being an influencer. While many of these forms of work have disadvantages — lack of employment benefits and security being high on the list — they provide flexibility, autonomy and varied work. As a result, organisations should no longer expect worker loyalty, as workers may have other sources of income.
For many, the future of work is a portfolio career. Careers can be built differently for each person and provide a hedge against whatever the future of work will bring. People are flexible and adaptive, and for those who have a growth mindset — the belief that human capacities are not fixed but can develop over time — portfolio careers may be the best choice. A ‘career’ then becomes a continuous journey of inquiry, development and discovery rather than a rigid, linear path. As the future of work evolves to embrace more intelligent and autonomous systems navigating the new freelance economy will be essential.
While we may not be able to completely forecast what the future of work looks like, it doesn't mean we can’t start to prepare.
Organisations that invest in the development of their people will succeed in the long term, and while career development may be ranked lower than other priorities, it’s in the top five. Career development might look like investing in workers who are transitioning into a new role within or outside the organisation, building complementary skills, or even supporting the learning of skills not directly related to a job.
McKinsey estimates that by 2030, between 400 and 800 million workers may need to find new jobs because of layoffs. Being laid-off is often experienced as personal rejection; whilst this may be difficult for an organisation to alleviate entirely, providing support that goes above and beyond a resume refresh would be appreciated.
Whilst there is no tried and tested formula that can be used across organisations, what is clear is that change is here to stay — this is one thing we can rely upon in the future of work. This means that any one approach, proposal or conversation is not going to work.
If organisations truly want to engage with their employees, they should provide options that align with the values, motivations and needs of their people.
The topics explored in this story — mental health and well-being, inclusion and belonging, flexibility and autonomy and career development — are not new.
What we suggest (and try to live) is a new way to approach them as part of the ecosystem of the workplace.
FORWARD is the RMIT Centre for Future Skills and Workforce Transformation.
Our role is to build an innovative learning ecosystem at scale, create new collaborative applied research and invent next-generation skills solutions that will catalyse workforce development in the future-oriented industries crucial to Victoria’s economic renewal.
We lead collaborative applied research on future skills and workforce transformation from within RMIT’s College of Vocational Education, building and scaling the evidence and practice base to support Victorian workforce planning and delivery and acting as a test lab for future skills to develop and pilot new approaches to skills training and education through digital transformation and pedagogical innovation.
We leverage RMIT’s multi-sector advantage to translate research insights into identifying workforce requirements and the co-design of practice-based approaches with industry.
