Of espoused values and enacted values

"This slide has a spelling mistake", remarked one of employees attending the 'corporate values workshop'. "Sorry, I can't find it", said the puzzled facilitator. "The problem is with what is shown as renewal. The correct spelling should be removal!", replied the employee. 

We come across these kinds of tragicomic situations when there is a significant difference between the 'espoused values' (the values that an organization publicly states that it believes in) and the 'enacted values' (the values that the organization actually exhibits) of an organization. The enacted values get reflected in the manner in which the organization treats its stakeholders, including the employees. 

In the particular incident that we started this post with, the employee did have a point. The organization had gone through repeated cycles of trying to renew itself by firing a large number of employees and replacing them with new employees. While there was no evidence to prove that the newly hired employees did any better than the employees they replaced, it did give the management the satisfaction that they took quick and decisive action. It also created an illusion of progress (or even an illusion of renewal). So, 'renewal' in this organization actually meant 'removal' though it was referred to by means of more progressive terms like 'workforce refresh' and 'top-grading'!

It is indeed 'fashionable' to have well-articulated set of corporate values. Also, how can we even think of (let alone work with) an organization that doesn't have any values? However, the most essential thing about values is that they should be 'valued'. To me, something should be called a value only if it is so important (so valuable and so core to the organization) that the organization will exhibit it even when it leads to competitive disadvantage or results in a loss to the organization. Also, values are about 'who you are' as an organization and hence the values are 'discovered' (not 'designed'). 

Unfortunately, many organizations trivialize values and hence the values 'safely' remain in corporate presentations and on the walls of the organization. The arduous journey from the walls to the head to the heart and to the hands is never even seriously attempted. Ironically, this lack of congruence between the espoused values and the enacted values of the organization creates the highest amount of 'cognitive dissonance' and 'disengagement' in the case of those sincere employees who take the organization and its stated values seriously.

Any comments?

The silent organization

"I noticed something surprising during my induction program. While I met many employees from the various functions and levels in the organization, no one told me any stories about the organization. This has never happened to me in any of the organizations that I have worked before!", said the newly hired employee with a puzzled expression. 

The first thing that came to mind when I heard the above exchange was the Sherlock Holmes story ‘Silver Blaze’. The following exchange takes place in the story: 

Scotland Yard detective: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Scotland Yard detective: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Typically, employees like to tell stories (from the 'glorious past' of the organization) to a newcomer. These stories could be about a great leader who architected a turnaround in the organization, about a team that managed to accomplish a difficult goal in the face of overwhelming difficulties, about something that the organization did that made big impact on the society, about an amazing example of customer service, about a significant innovation or technological breakthrough made by the company, about outsmarting the competition etc. The stories also could be about something in which the employee was personally involved like an accomplishment, a great manager or team member or mentor, an incident where the company went out the way to support the employee during a crisis etc. 

Telling these stories to a newcomer allows the employees to 'relive' the incident and feel proud and energized. These stories can help the newcomer to connect to the heart and soul of the organization better than any facts and figures presented during the induction. It is said that a social group (including an organization) constructs its reality through the stories and legends. These stories embody the culture and values of the organization and serve as an effective enculturation tool. Also, the connect between the new employee and the organization (a key component of employee engagement that impacts the motivation and retention of the new employee) happens mainly through the connect the new employee forms with the current employees (and their stories!). So, this kind of storytelling is highly beneficial for the newcomer, the existing employees and the organization. 

If these stories are absent, it can be a sign of potential trouble for the organization and a useful 'early warning' for the new employee. Silent or 'story-less organizations' tend to be devoid of 'identity' and 'soul', and, hence it becomes impossible for the stakeholders, including the employees, to connect to it at an emotional level. After all, what is there to connect with?! 

Hence, typically, these kind of 'silent situations' occur when the employees are unable to connect emotionally to the organization or when they don't feel proud about the organization, their function or their job. While it is possible that 'nothing worth mentioning has happened in the organization', it is more likely that the employees 'didn't feel the connection and ownership' to what has indeed happened.  

These situations are more likely in organizations that take a more transactional approach to people management and don't pay sufficient attention to employee engagement, sense-making and creating a sense of belonging. Another possibility is that the organization has done something  trust-destroying (or even 'soul damaging'), like a 'mismanaged restructuring' or 'acting in a manner that very much at odds with the espoused values of the organization'. 

The difficult thing here (for the organization) is that the situation can't be remedied just by getting the internal communication function to hunt for/write a large number of stories and do an intense campaign based on those stories. It is because the problem is with the 'emotional connection' to the stories and not with the absence of stories. In a way, it is a like the type of diabetes that occurs not because of lack of insulin but because of the loss of sensitivity to insulin! 

At the most fundamental level, this is exactly the way it should be. Storytelling is an intensely human activity and unless the human side of the organization is given adequate importance and nurturing, storytelling (and culture building and employee engagement/retention based on the same) would be an impossible dream! 

Stories come alive (for the storyteller and for the listener) only when they come 'straight from the heart' and that can happen only if the employees can connect with the story (and the organization) emotionally (and not just rationally). So, in an organization that doesn't invest in building and sustaining an emotional connect with the employees, employees are unlikely to connect with 'corporate-sponsored stories' and they are even more unlikely to tell those stories to newcomers. Yes, the employees might derive some pleasure in ridiculing the 'corporate-sponsored storytelling' attempt!    

Postscript: One of the queries that I have received in response to this post is whether this kind of storytelling can happen without face to face interaction (as virtual working is the norm in the current pandemic situation). I think that storytelling and the connect through the same can take place through virtual interactions also. These days, even psychotherapy is being done effectively through virtual meetings. It has been said that one of the advantages of virtual meetings is that one can observe the other person very closely without making that person feel uncomfortable. Of course, it works the other way around also!

Any comments/ideas?

When HR Philosophy is not just a 'philosophical issue'...

These days, many 'pragmatic' HR professionals seem to have an aversion to the term 'HR Philosophy'. They seem to think that paying attention to 'esoteric' things like this would be a needless diversion when they are busy with their HR initiatives and HR Transformation efforts. Some of them even seem to worry that paying too much attention to 'HR Philosophy' would come in the way of their 'business-orientation' and 'flexibility'. This often leads to a situation where organizations haven't given serious thought to crystallizing the basic tenets of their people management philosophy. 

There is nothing sacred about the term 'HR philosophy'. What is important is to make an attempt to reflect on, crystallize and leverage the key tenets of people management in the organization. It can very well be called the 'guiding principles of people management' instead of being called 'HR philosophy'. This term  'guiding principles of people management' also drives home the message that this is about an organization-wide aspect touching everyone in the organization and not particular to the HR function.  

The key problem with the aversion to 'HR Philosophy' is that no HR initiative or HR transformation effort can be effective if it goes against the basic nature of the employer-employee relationship in the organization. For example, no 'employee engagement' (in its original meaning of 'deep emotional connect with the organization leading to discretionary effort') is possible if employees are viewed primarily as costs. If employees are primarily as costs, then 'business-orientation' of HR should require that the primary job of HR is to control this cost - through downsizing, limiting development investment  and reducing the people related spend in general. So, an HR Transformation effort that aims to transform HR into a more developmental role would be irrelevant in that context. 

When it comes to HR initiatives, lack of a clearly articulated and consistently practiced HR Philosophy  can make the organization susceptible to 'taking up the latest fad in people management and discarding it soon after to take up the next one'. 

It can also result in highly inconsistent people management practices in the organization. For example, this can lead to the organization swinging wildly between

• high empowerment and high control

• large investment in employee development and no investment in employee development

• describing the organization as a 'family' and describing the organization as a 'talent market place driven purely by supply and demand'

• 'encouraging employees to form deep emotional bonds with the company' and ''downsizing at the first available opportunity' 

• high degree of differentiation for top talent and low degree of differentiation for top talent 

•  wanting to the 'career destination' for most of the employees  and wanting to look at employment relationship as a 'short-term contract to accomplish a particular task' 

• high degree of emphasis on organization values and no emphasis on organization values etc.

This, in turn, can cause a lot of avoidable suffering, confusion and waste! More importantly, the 'way the employees are managed' will influence how the employees respond to that/how the employees behave in the organizations. For example, 'Theory X' kind of assumptions/philosophy (i.e. that the employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can) in people management will promote 'Theory X' kind of behavior among the employees. This makes people management a very dangerous domain, unless we pay close attention to the (unstated) assumptions that govern people management - which is exactly what is meant by the HR philosophy of the organization. 

Examining the unstated assumptions, similar to the ones mentioned above, can also help to avoid the strange 'new normal for HR' that has emerged in some companies in response to extraordinary situation created by the Covid crisis. It goes something like this : 'Make large contributions to Covid relief, fire a large number of employees in parallel to reduce cost and conduct mental health sessions for the remaining employees'!

Now let's look a bit more deeply at the paradoxical issue of 'business orientation of HR'. There are multiple possibilities here - each with its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, HR can agree to whatever the business leaders say on people related issues ('after all, we get paid to support the business'). HR can take this approach to the next level by trying to ‘guess’ what the business leaders will be comfortable with and advocating that ('business leaders are our primary customers and we should be anticipating customer needs'). HR can also avoid surfacing issues (or suggesting solutions) that they think the business leaders will not be comfortable with ('business leaders are already stretched, how can we risk annoying them at this point').

This approach might help in reducing the number/intensity of possible conflicts between HR and business leaders on these issues, leading to faster decision making and smoother relationships. In this case, business leaders might ‘like’ HR and hence they might be more likely to cooperate in the roll out of basic HR processes and less likely to come down heavily on HR when HR makes a mistake. Hence conflicts are avoided - making life easier for both the parties involved. However, this can also lead to HR becoming essentially an 'order-taker', to sub-optimal decisions (see 'Training the victim' for an example) and even to HR 'perpetuating the convenient collective delusions' in the company.

Of course. we have to be mindful of the possible conflict between the stated HR philosophy in an organization and the 'actual' HR philosophy practiced in the organization. What really matters is the HR philosophy (basic assumptions about people management) that emerges from/that can be inferred from (or that gets reflected in) in the decisions made by the organization. 

There is no conflict of opinion on whether HR should be business oriented. HR exists to support the business and hence it should be aligned to the business needs/goals/strategy. ‘HR for HR’ (‘I want to do some HR interventions and I will get the business to agree’) is definitely not a good idea. The paradox occurs when we look at how exactly should HR demonstrate this 'business orientation'.

A more effective option is to work with the business leaders to crystallize the HR Philosophy/the basic tenets of people management in the organization. This would also enable HR to come with effective responses to various issues/situations – based on the people management philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation. 

This is not to say that the people management philosophy is cast in stone. The people management philosophy can be revisited as the organization and its environment evolves. Also, if there are extraordinary situations, extraordinary responses are required. The idea is to be as mindful as possible about the basic tenets of  people management in the organization (HR philosophy) while coming up with those responses. For example, some companies will have to downsize because of the headwinds created by the current Covid crisis. However, if the extent and manner of that downsizing should be in line with the basic tenets of people management in the organization. This would also help in reducing the 'survivor syndrome in organizations'.

While it is unpleasant (or even traumatic), employees understand that 'surgery' is sometime unavoidable in organizations. But they would also expect that that the organization uses it after exploring all non-surgical options, that the organization uses a surgeon's blade (and not a butcher's knife!) and that too with skill, sufficient post operative care and compassion! Of course, in a connected world, the organization's actions under a crisis situation would speak much more loudly than any employer branding efforts in the future!

Any comments/ideas? 

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 5 – Training the victim

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements'  and 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment' for the previous posts in this series).

Training the victim' is one of the most common 'crimes' committed in the domain of HR/Learning and Development. Often, this 'crime' follows a standard plot. There is a steady deterioration in the performance of a unit. Customers are unhappy. There is a lot of firefighting happening. The unit head is shouting at the senior employees. But nothing seems to be working. The unit head feels that since the situation hasn't improved despite all his efforts, the employees must be incompetent and/or don't have the right attitude (e.g. 'solutions mindset'). So he calls the HR Business Partner demands that the employees should be trained urgently. This leads to things like attitude training, skill-based training and training the managers in the unit on people management (under fancy names like 'engaging and energizing teams'). The employees dutifully attend the training programs, though they feel that they are being blamed (or even 'punished') for no fault of theirs. Even after the training programs have been rolled out, there is no significant improvement in the performance of the unit. 

These kind of situations occur mainly because of wrong diagnosis/wrong need identification. The main problem in these contexts might not necessarily be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policy, business process or leadership level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the organization/unit head to address the issues/make changes at these levels. So there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue and to attempt a training solution. Since the real issue remains unaddressed (despite the 'training solution'), there can't much improvement in the situation. 

I am not saying that there won't be issues at the individual capability level. Of course, this possibility should also be explored and if there is evidence for the existence of such a need, an appropriate learning solution could be attempted. My point is just that a proper diagnosis needs to be carried out before a solution is attempted (instead of jumping into the most convenient solution) and that when it comes to taking the responsibility for the deterioration in the performance of the unit in such situations, sometimes, the individual employees are 'more sinned against than sinned'.

Often, the way the HR function is structured in the organization increases the possibility of a wrong diagnosis. This happens mostly in those organizations where the Learning function separate from the Organization Development and HR Business Partner functions. In these contexts, when a business leader directly contacts the Learning specialist supporting the unit with a 'capability problem' (or even with the request for a particular training program), it is highly possible that the Learning specialist just carries out the request without spending much effort to check if the problem has been diagnosed correctly and if a training solution is appropriate. Sometimes, this happens because the Learning specialist does not have sufficient understanding of the entire business/people context in the unit or because the training specialist does not have the requisite diagnostic/consulting skills. In these cases, 'training need identification' becomes no more than 'order taking'. Also, if the training specialist is measured mainly on the number of training programs/number of person-days of training, then there might not be much incentive for the training specialist to 'refuse an order' or even to 'question an order'!

Hence, a close partnership between the Learning function and the Organization Development/HR Business Partner functions will help in making the diagnosis/need identification more accurate by bringing in the requisite diagnosis/consulting skills, enhanced understanding of the context and greater credibility/influence with the business leaders (see OD Managers as Court Jesters). This would also make the 'solution' more appropriate and enhance the effectiveness of implementation by being able to manage the change better. Of course, defining the mandate for the Learning function in a more holistic manner and using the correct performance parameters to assess/reward Learning specialists would also be required.

Any comments/ideas?

Note: It is interesting to note that from a psychological point of view, 'training the victim' can be considered to be a variation (or a mild version) of the broader theme of 'blaming the victim'. This involves holding the victims responsible (at least in part) for what happened to them when something bad happens. This enables others (e.g. the unit head in this case) to absolve themselves of any blame/responsibility and also to reduce cognitive dissonance which would have resulted if they had to admit that the 'system' (strategy/structure/policy/process, in this case) that they were responsible in creating/managing might be at fault. This, in turn, helps them to avoid the need for taking the more difficult/painful remedial steps that are required to address the real issue/cause of the problem. 

Sometimes, this can also lead to tragic-comic situations. A few years ago, I heard about a situation where there was a proposal to conduct 'followership training' for the entire staff in a unit. Apparently, the unit head was a very poor leader and he was making the life of his staff miserable, leading to problems in employee engagement and retention (that, in turn, were creating issues for the HR team). Since it was felt that the unit head won't be open to any sort of feedback and/or training, it was being suggested that the staff in the unit be trained in followership (as the leader won't be/can't be trained on leadership)! This might qualify as a classic case of 'trying to solve the wrong problem' !

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 2 – In the valley of attrition

In this post, let’s come back to a series that we had started a long time ago : Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, we will explore concepts in HR that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management  (See ‘The attrition principle’ for the first post in this series). 

What exactly is this valley of attrition? An employee is said to be in the valley of attrition when the mind has left the organization, but the body is waiting for an offer letter to arrive!

While this concept might seem unorthodox or even a bit esoteric, this phenomenon is quite common in organizations. In employee engagement surveys, typically there is a question on the ‘intention to leave’ (e.g. “Are you seriously considering leaving the organization?”)*. Now, if we compare the % of employees who answer in the affirmative to the question on ‘intention to leave’ with the actual ‘attrition rate’ we are likely to find a very significant gap (e.g. 55% of the employees express the ‘intention to leave’ but the actual attrition is only 15%  in a particular organization).

The gap (between the intention to leave % and the actual attrition %) indicates the % of employees who are ‘stuck’ or ‘trapped’ in the organization – they want to leave but can’t find a job. This could be because they got so busy with their jobs that they didn’t pay adequate attention to their employability (e.g. they didn’t develop market-relevant skills).  This could be because they haven’t developed job-hunting skills or because they are not sure if they can make a successful transition to another organization. This could also be because, while they want leave, they don’t want to let go of some of the ‘comforts’  they have got used to in the current organization (and hence they are in the 'comfortably miserable' state). By the way, the first reason  mentioned above, might give a hint for developing a ‘sinister’ employee retention strategy – making the employees less employable (or even unemployable) outside the current organization!

While there could be multiple reasons why people are trapped in their current jobs, it has important implications for employee happiness, employee engagement and the consequent business outcomes. 

Feeling trapped is definitely not a pleasant state to be in! If you have never been in 'the valley of attrition' (and hence can't connect to this), imagine yourself having to wait for a long time in the departure lounge of an airport with your flight indefinitely delayed!

The trapped employees are unlikely be to be in the ‘engaged’ category (i.e. putting in discretionary effort). They are likely to be in the ‘not-engaged’ or ‘actively-disengaged’ categories. These can lead to low performance and/or passive resistance! So while the trapped employees are not 'attrition risks' they pose even greater dangers to the organization from performance and morale points of view! If some of these trapped employees have 'identity that is wrapped in their job', this could even lead to workplace violence!

Any comments/ideas?

*Note :  It is a peculiarity of human nature that we are often more clear about what we don't want (I don't want to continue in this organization) as compared to what we really want (I want to join this particular organization)! The 'intention to leave' is somewhat similar to the 'flight' response in the 'fight or flight' basic repose to danger (or pain). This danger or pain can be psychological as well as well as physical. When we are running away from danger or pain, the main focus is to somehow get out of the current (dangerous/painful) situation and not really to get to a predefined better place. This can lead to sub-optimal career (job change) decisions especially in cases of 'intention to leave' triggered by specific events (e.g. being overlooked for a promotion, disrespectful remark by the boss etc.). In the case of intention to leave created by more enduring factors (like lack of person-organization or person-job fit; see 'On what good looks like'), the job changes are likely to be more thought-through/deliberate.   

Of employee engagement and the 'survivor syndrome'

Employee engagement has been one of the key themes that we have been exploring in this blog (see Employee engagement and the story of the Sky Maiden, Passion for work and anasakti, The curious case of the object and subject of employee engagement, Appropriate measures for organizational commitment , The series on salary negotiations and psychological contract , Architects of meaning & Of owning and belonging for some of the examples). In this post, let’s look at employee engagement in the case of survivors of corporate restructuring/downsizing exercises(who often suffer from the so called ‘workplace survivor syndrome’ with symptoms like anxiety, depression, decrease in performance, poor morale and increased propensity to leave)  

At the heart of the survivor syndrome lies two emotions- guilt (“I didn't deserve to survive when my friends didn't”) and fear (“Next time, it could be my turn”). So, when it comes to employee engagement, the organization's best response is to help the survivors to deal with these emotions so that while the scars can't be erased, productivity can be restored to a great extent.

Guilt can be reduced by convincing the survivors that they deserved to survive (e.g. by following a transparent process for restructuring and for identifying the employees to be separated) and by ensuring that the employees who were separated have been well taken care of(e g. by providing a generous separation package & adequate transition support).

Fear can be addressed to some extent by publicly communicating (if possible) that the staff cuts have been completed and there is no such possibility in the foreseeable future. Providing the survivors the opportunity to receive psychological counseling/ stress management training with a focus on coping  strategies can also help. Of course, constant communication with the employees at all levels that addresses the stated and unstated concerns has to be continued. Another type of fear is regarding increased workloads and new skill sets required. This can be addressed through careful work planning and capability building. People managers can be trained to look for signs of stress in the employees and to manage the employees in a supportive manner. Of course, any tendency among the people manages to use the residual fear to drive productivity ('blackmailing' employees to work harder) should be curbed.

What is perhaps irreversible from the employee engagement point of view (especially for the next few years) is that the employer- employee relationship moves to a purely rational plane (whereas most definitions of employee engagement include the aspect of deep emotional connect that the employees have to the organization). This is because, layoffs are often perceived as a breach of the psychological contract. This would be more so in those organizations that have been communicating messages like ‘our company is one big family’ to the employees.

This would mean that, after the restructuring, companies would have to rely more heavily on rational means to retain and motivate employees (e.g. highly competitive salaries & performance-linked incentives, gain sharing schemes etc.) as well as investment in capability building to ensure 'employability'. Yes, the emotional connect can drive discretionary effort and lead to remarkable (business) results. But, organizations should engage the emotions of the employees only if they are willing to look at employee engagement as a relationship (and not as a tool) and are willing to reciprocate (in terms of going out of the way to care for the employees, beyond what the employment contract requires)!

In a way, the way out of the survivor syndrome is through a psychological transition process. So, actions that can facilitate the transition process like clearly explaining the need for restructuring and the process that would be followed, helping the employees to acknowledge and deal with their feelings of fear and guilt (as detailed above), clearly articulating the new vision for the organization and the possibilities it creates for the survivors and getting the survivors actively involved in rebuilding the organization and the social networks within the organization(that would have suffered because of the loss of social capital) are perhaps the highest leverage actions that organizations can focus on!

The curious case of the object and subject of Employee Engagement

"You should join us only if you fall in love with our company”, said the HR Head to a group of summer interns from premier business schools.

“I don’t think my exit should be considered as attrition; the company that I am leaving is very different from the company that I had decided to join”, said the OD Manager during his farewell.

I heard these statements quite some time ago. But they pop up in my mind whenever I think about employee engagement. The first statement (made by the HR Head), makes me think more about the appropriateness (or the lack of it) of the various metaphors used to describe employee engagement. The second statement (made by the OD Manager)  makes me wonder who or what exactly is it that the object of employee engagement and if employee engagement is a one-way street. Let’s explore these in a bit more detail in this post!

Employee engagement is a concept that is very popular these days as there is a significant amount of research that indicates the positive impact that employee engagement can have on business performance. Yes, like many fashionable things, employee engagement often gets trivialized into (‘fun and games’) activities that misses its core (See ‘Employee engagement and the story of the sky maiden’ for more details). While there are many definitions of employee engagement, a ‘strong emotional connect’ that leads to ‘discretionary effort’ is the central theme in most of these definitions. Also,  it is this ‘strong emotional connect’ that is one of the key underlying factors in the two statements that we started this post with!

Let’s start with the statement of the HR Head. He definitely had a point. Any transition to a new organization (especially when it is from campus to corporate) will have its own share of frustrations and if one develops a strong emotional connect to the organization (during the summer training, in this case) it becomes easier to overlook these frustrations.It also helps in not getting distracted at the workplace. The metaphor he used (that of falling in love, in the romantic sense of the term ‘love’) has remarkable similarities with the ‘strong emotional connect’ that we found in the definition of employee engagement sense. Yes, romantic love is a great enabler for 'pair formation' (and for recruiting one into the organization). Yes, this type of love can also lead to the employee putting in discretionary effort. 

The main problem is that people fall out of this kind of love, that too fairly quickly. To put it in another way, while it is a great enabler for pair formation, romantic love is not so effective when it comes to 'pair maintenance'. Also, as we have seen earlier in ‘Appropriate metaphors for organization commitment’, metaphors that are used to talk about the ‘employer-employee’ relationship often create complications because a metaphor is not an exact comparison and hence inaccurate/misleading meanings and assumptions creep in into our understanding of the relationship. Of course, metaphors have tremendous rhetorical value and hence leaders are tempted to use them for ‘motivating’ the employees (Please see ‘The Power of carrot and stick’ for a discussion on if there is any difference between motivation and manipulation)

Falling in love can lead to attachment or even possessiveness which can be counterproductive (see ‘Passion for work and anasakti’). Also, if the employee falls in love with the organization (and the organization doesn’t fall in love with the employee), it can lead to an exploitative relationship. Love that is not reciprocated often turns into hurt and hate very quickly!

Yes, there are other definitions of love, like the one Scott Peck uses in 'The Road Less Traveled' ('extending oneself for the spiritual growth of another') that can lead to discretionary effort without the complications mentioned above. But, those types of love are not something that someone can 'fall into' as it requires aspects like a higher purpose and conscious decision-making. 

This brings us to the interesting discussion on if it makes sense to (re)define engagement as conscious decision that the employees make instead of being an emotional reaction/outcome of emotional connect. While this sounds promising, this type of engagement (which is a deliberate decision) might not so easily lead to discretionary effort if the returns of that discretionary effort (which can very well be in terms of satisfying the higher order needs like esteem or self-actualization in the Maslow's hierarchy in addition to satisfying lower order needs like physiological and safety needs that are usually met by salary and job security). 

Yes, I have heard employees making statements like "I keep myself engaged regardless of what the organization does or doesn't do", though I am not sure if they used the term 'engagement' in the sense of discretionary effort (or just in the sense of keeping oneself focused on one's job). If it is the promised 'magic of employee engagement' (creating something out of nothing, like getting extra work done without paying anything extra for it) that get employers excited about employee engagement, then this definition can create complications! 

Now let’s come to the statement made by the OD Manager. Here the key issue is ‘what exactly is the ‘company’ that the OD manager was referring to when he talked about 'the company he joined' and 'the company that he was leaving'?’’ Is it the legal entity, is it the company brand , is it the products and product brands, is it the immediate manager, is it the team, is it the senior leaders, is it the CEO, is it the some higher purpose (other than making money) served by the company or is it the way get things get done in the company (company culture)? Most of the studies indicate the 'immediate manager' as the most important player in the game of employee engagement. But it could also be because the manager represents the organization for the employee and the organization's 'sins' are often incorrectly attributed to the managers (like when we say 'people leave managers and not organizations'; see 'Blame it on the managers' for more details). So, when it comes to the object of employee engagement, there are many possibilities and also many combinations of these possibilities!

If we examine the above list of possibilities (objects of employee engagement), we will find that most them can change and that some of them do change frequently in many organizations these days. This also indicates that the loss of social capital/breaking of working relationships during reorganizations can have an adverse impact on employee engagement. Again, it is possible that the employee’s preferences/factors that engage the employee changes during his/her tenure in the organization. So there are many moving parts here, on both sides of the equation, and that makes keeping the employee engaged quite challenging. Hence, employee engagement becomes a continuous activity and it requires a deep understanding and careful management of the evolution of the psychological contract!

 At a more fundamental level, the issue here is about the 'reciprocity' aspect of employee engagement. Why is it only about the employees feeling emotional connect to the organization (and putting in discretionary effort)  and not also about the organization reciprocating the feeling (and going out of the way to do something for the employees). Yes, as we have seen in the above paragraph, the 'object' of employee engagement can vary and hence the issue of who or what exactly is the 'organization' that is supposed to reciprocate  can further complicate things. May be, we can just say that all those who benefit from the the discretionary effort put in by the employee should reciprocate. While it is very clear that employee engagement benefits the organization, it is not very clear if it leads  to employee happiness or even employee satisfaction in the long run. 

So what does all this mean? To me, (employee) emotions are precious (or even sacred) and they should not be trifled with. Yes, emotions are also highly powerful in driving discretionary effort and they can lead to remarkable (business) results. So, organizations should engage the emotions of the employees only if they are willing to reciprocate (in terms of going out of the way to care for the employees in various ways depending on the context). If the idea is just to increase performance or to create accountability, there are other ways (that works on rational commitment and are well within the scope of the employment contract without getting into the domain of psychological contract) like goal alignment, performance management, gain sharing plans and performance linked incentives that can align the interests of the employer and the employee and hence address the 'principal -agent problem' (see 'Of owning and belonging' for more details). 

Hence, we should leverage the power of emotional connect (and the discretionary effort that comes from it) only if we are willing to look at employee engagement as a relationship (and hence a two-way street) and are able to consistently respond in a manner that respects and nurtures the relationship! Otherwise, we run the risk of the (perceived) intent of our employee engagement efforts resembling that which is often depicted in the cartoon strips on employee engagement (e.g. tricking the employees into 'gladly putting in extra effort without getting paid anything extra in return')!

Any comments/ideas?