The Employee Engagement-Performance Myth

Companies are always looking for ways to boost employee performance and financial success. One widely used strategy centers around improving employee engagement. The belief is that nurturing engaged, happy employees will lead to increased productivity, better customer service, and ultimately higher profits. However, the harsh reality is that employee engagement alone doesn't necessarily translate into better financial performance.

Organizations invest millions in engagement initiatives like rewards programs, team-building activities, and wellness plans, yet these rarely "work." While these efforts may boost morale and create a positive environment, they often fail to deliver a real return on investment. The truth is, if these initiatives don't directly impact core business metrics, they don't really matter from a financial standpoint.

While the concept sounds appealing, the notion that employee engagement alone will in fact lead to financial performance is thus a major fallacy. But let's delve deeper into why this notion is misleading and what the alternatives are.

The Engagement Fallacy

What exactly do we mean by "work engagement"? Essentially, it's about creating a positive, fulfilling work environment where employees feel energized, dedicated, and absorbed in their tasks.

Proponents of engagement argue that happy and engaged employees will naturally work harder, be more committed, make better decisions, and be more productive in their roles, thus leading to higher revenues and more profits. Indeed, a significant body of research has shown that employee engagement is slightly to moderately related to subjective reports of task or job performance.

Yet subjective reports of job performance rarely predict overall business unit or company financial performance. This oversimplified engagement-performance link fails to account for the complex interplay between the drivers of individual motivation, the organisation’s culture, climate and growth strategy, and the ever-changing business landscape.

Thus, it’s not surprising that research has increasingly started to question the assumed relationship between “soft” employee experiences (like work engagement) and real-world “hard” business performance metrics (like revenue, profitability, stakeholder value, and overall financial success).

Surprisingly, academic research linking subjective employee experiences to real-world financial or hard performance is quite sparse. In the very few studies where the relationship between employee engagement and financial performance was investigated, the empirical evidence supporting this notion was far from conclusive.

Several studies have failed to establish a consistent and significant relationship between work engagement and financial performance outcomes. While some research suggests a weak correlation between the two factors, others find no significant relationship whatsoever.

Moreover, even when a small and marginally significant relationship was found, the results were often confounded by many contextual factors like industry type, the size of the organization, and the economic conditions in which the company has to operate. Yet the oversimplified belief that an engaged employee will result in better real-world financial performance of a company remains quite prevalent in both science and practice despite the lack of empirical evidence.

The Missing Link: The Data-Driven Approach

Engagement alone doesn't guarantee employees make decisions contributing to the bottom line. Engaged employees lacking a clear understanding of how their contributions impact the organization's financial success may inadvertently invest their energy into activities that yield little tangible returns. The key to driving financial performance is thus not in fostering engagement, but rather in ensuring job characteristics and employees' efforts are aligned with the company’s strategic objectives and organisational growth goals.

The challenge, however, is to ensure that the right growth-orientated metrics are identified and that these metrics are, indeed, predictive of an organisation’s growth goals and financial growth targets. So rather than relying solely on engagement metrics, companies should adopt a more comprehensive and data-driven approach to their organisational development, talent management, and performance management strategies.

Workplace Dynamics Essential Reads

Power and Privilege in Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Why Employees Hide Knowledge, and What Leaders Can Do About It

Financial performance should be viewed as a process and an outcome of various “triggers” (e.g., job characteristics), process factors (e.g., motivation, or customer satisfaction), and contextual factors (e.g., organisational policies and procedures). To identify the right factors, companies should dissect their organisational strategy, growth goals and values, job design models, employee capability profiles, and job characteristics in order to identify important predictors of financial performance. These should then be actively measured and modeled to determine the most appropriate “route” to take or “factors” that need to be addressed to ensure financial performance.

For example, in a car dealership, sales performance depends on capabilities (e.g., negotiation skills), job characteristics (e.g., manager support), environmental factors (e.g., inventory availability), and rewards (e.g., commission structure). We know that these factors lead to improved organisational commitment and extra-role behaviours. These factors in turn “predict” sales numbers and financial performance.

Although all of these factors are theoretical predictors of our outcome, some may be more important than others in a given financial cycle. For example, there may be more work pressure at the end of a financial cycle and perhaps less at the beginning. Or where psychological flexibility or creativity may be a stronger predictor of financial performance in times of crisis (like the COVID-19 pandemic) as opposed to normal day-to-day routines.

Measuring these factors and figuring out the “strongest” or most relevant predictors at any given time can help target the allocation of resources or interventions to address the issues that would get us the most proverbial “bang for our buck.” In other words, not all factors are equally important at any given moment and we need to identify the right and most important factors to address to help us get to our outcome.

By leveraging advanced data analytics and adopting a more data-driven decision-making approach, organizations can gain valuable insights into the specific drivers of financial performance within their unique business context. This approach allows companies to identify the most impactful areas for investment and prioritize initiatives that directly contribute to achieving their financial goals.

Conclusion

While employee engagement fosters a motivated workforce, it shouldn't be the sole focus of HR efforts. Companies chasing engagement metrics without understanding their financial impact risk misallocating resources toward activities failing to achieve desired business outcomes. Instead, organizations must embrace a balanced, data-driven approach aligning employee efforts with strategic objectives and prioritizing initiatives proven to significantly contribute to financial success.