”What is the difference between an Employee Satisfaction Survey, an Employee Engagement Survey, and an Employee Commitment Survey”
While most HR consultants/HR practitioners use these terms interchangeably, I ventured to dwell on the difference between them. Let us think of the difference between these from three perspectives:
a) If we go by definition: Looking at the pure definitions (Source: Dictionary.com),
Commit: to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance;
Engage: To gain over; to win and attach;
Satisfy: to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.);
So looking at the definition, it looks like the HR managers might have to fulfill the basic needs of the employee first, what we know very well as hygiene factors. These might range from something as basic as the seating area of the employee, the compensation being offered, or transport to and from the office.
Once the employee is fairly satisfied with his working conditions, the next step for an HR manager would be to try to win over and convince the employee that the organization cares for him/her beyond the work environment. These could range from outbound programs for a relatively younger workforce to bringing in the families of the employees for various engagement programs and other work-life balance initiatives.
Employee commitment can be garnered only when the satisfaction and engagement measures are backed by strong career growth measures, a feeling of trust and constant development in the personality of the employee.
b) From the Employees’ perspective:
I have seen very few employees who are “satisfied” with the compensation they are getting. While other “hygiene” factors might be taken for granted, a typical employee is satisfied only when the right engagement measures are put in place.
In terms of commitment, there is a school of thought that says that a lot of it is intrinsic. However, I have seen a number of employees who are highly committed in the initial few days in an organization. But they lose steam over time simply because the other factors (those essential for satisfaction and engagement) are not in place. So while I agree to some extent that commitment comes from within, it has to be backed by other factors and constant reinforcement for it to remain on track.
c) From the Employers’ perspective:
As far as the organization is concerned, the first step is to segment the population of employees and try to identify what would satisfy and what would engage which group of employees.
For the critical set of employees, the organization would want to identify a clear gradation of measures moving from satisfaction to engagement to commitment. For others, depending on the budgetary constraints, they may decide on identifying the key measures to be taken.
So we see that the 3 terms are different and have different meanings for the employee, the employer and even the dictionary. Let us not club the 3 and project them all in the sane vein!!
I agree they are all different. Here's another way to consider their interaction:
ReplyDeleteWhat if an employee is first committed to the work they do (regardless of the company for whom they work)? So 'commitment' becomes the inner-most circle.
Then, based on how they are able to engage their skills, abilities, and interests they have a varying degree of engagement.
And finally, the more they are able to do what they enjoy (i.e., be engaged in what they are committed to doing) they have a greater level of satisfaction.
Thats a perspective Scott..I guess its a circular loop that we are looking at...A satisfied employee is a committed employee and vice versa...
ReplyDeleteHmmm. I've seen dozens of different definitions of employee engagement (as compared to satisfaction and commitment, or not).
ReplyDeleteLook at this definition from Hewitt: "Highly-engaged employees speak positively of their employer, want to remain with the organization, and are willing to do all they can to help achieve corporate success."
That goes beyond simple "satisfaction" (happy with the working conditions and the work "contract") and committed (willing to do the job assigned).
Then there is another definition involving line of sight -- employees clearly see where the company is going and want to do all they can to help the company get there.
Both have to do with discretionary effort -- creating an environment in which the employee WANTS to give more effort to achieve more than their own direct goals. They want to help the company succeed, which requires the employee to know and understand the company's strategic goals and what the employee can do at his/her desk to make those goals reality.
That's a whole different level than commitment or satisfaction.
How do you get there? How do you communicate goals, strategies and desired behaviors in a way that means something to every employee personally and induces true engagement?
I believe it's through recognition -- a sincere thank you for effort and simple appreciation -- that encourages employees to repeat behaviors you need to succeed, thereby engaging them in your strategic objectives.
I write a great deal on this topic on my blog at http://globoforce.blogspot.com.
Thanks Derek.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have said. From an organization's point of view, the only way you can reach any level of satisfaction, engagement or commitment is by varying degrees of recognition...
And making sure that the parameters being used for this recognition are transparent and agreeable to a high % of the population..(We obviously cannot have everyone agreeing with these)
While I agree with part of Hewitt's definition, I feel that the willingness to do all they can achieve for corporate success would fall into the employee commitment bracket..