Talent Engagement Matrix
Besides the typo in the chart, I thought this to interesting. Mostly this comment:
"But as a manager, to choose between an empty promoter and a cynical performer, I go with the latter anytime!"
Why would this even be a choice? Why is the company hiring folks that are not effective? If they aren't effective, should they still be at the company? Companies want talented individuals. Whether they are engaged or not typically comes from how long they are at the company/how long they have been out of school.
Of course, if their are any HR experts out there that want to step in and correct me, feel free, but I treat engagement as the opposite of corporate cyncism. And the only way to stop that is for the company to always match their actions and words (and be tailored to the individual).
3 comments:
andy's caption:
I'm feeling... blue today... oh so blue... blue, blue, blue.
Why do companies have them? Statistically the larger a company is, the more likely it's population will resemble the general population..ergo you won't always have the best. Smaller companies or tightly runned smaller units within large companies CAN have all engagued and effecitive people. Again, look at the leadership of a company. Compromises are made for business and sometimes they are made in hiring. Not agreeing with the principal just stating it as observation.
My rough feeling is that engagement is the belief by employees in the leadership. I agree with your observation that everyone hired won't agree with leadership decisions and as a corporation get larger you are increasing your chances that this will occur. Plus to compound this, you have changes in leadership (just a fact of life) and that brings with it more "dis-engagement".
Post a Comment