Is employee commitment different from employee engagement? Does it really make a difference? For most people, it may not be. Part of the problem is simple semantics. Both are measurement results, both of which are well suited to the needs of most organizations, but it is interesting to study them in more depth.
When the Loyalty Institute created the Labor Commitment Index in 1997, we developed the issue of measuring productivity, organizing pride, and intentions to stay in the organization. We believe that it is important to focus on behavior rather than ideas. One criticism of employee surveys is that they are simply cognitive and have little to do with reality. Of course, any employee survey will now rely on employee reports, which will certainly be affected by attitudes, but we hope to avoid this as much as possible.
Interestingly, the measure of this commitment is challenged. Some people think that it is too focused on behavior and needs to include the internal motivation of the employee. You can't win. Over the years, we have been worried about making our surveys more behavioral, and now some people say that we are going too far. So, later, we added questions about trust, values, and feelings of responsibility to complete the measurement, covering behavior and motivation. Although we continue to use word promises in the title, the index does become a measure of participation.
The way in which the term Engagement is now used is actually a measure of commitment behavior plus the internal motivations of participation. Obviously, this is a better measure and really provides the organization with a barometer of the health of the employee's work environment.
Therefore, while commitment and participation in debate may be a semantic issue for many people, the difference does emphasize that we must consider both behavior and motivation when creating an organizational work environment.
Orignal From: Commitment and participation
No comments:
Post a Comment