Talk:Employee engagement/Archives/2014

Proposal to Re-jig

Further to a long-ago exchange with Orange Mike (above) I had a review of this article today thinking I might give it some needed depth with a "critical perspectives" section. My thinking was that we should be in a position to show how the concept of Employee Engagement is interrogated in both academic and practitioner circles, and use that to shed light on the status of the construct.

On doing that work, I now see that we'd get to the intended result (depth, objectivity) more efficiently by restructuring the article, providing a more accessible summary above the line, and firmer academic underpinnings throughout. If you are alert to the history of this page and would like me to bear any specific factors in mind as I undertake this overhaul, please kindly let me know here or there. Adhib (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For anyone with an interest in what I would propose to sort this out, I have a working draft now in my sandbox. It adds some context and academic depth, and removes some of the less meaningful '87% of Engaged Employees think such and such' type statements (which may be true, but without knowing how that study defined that segment, according to which assumptions, to what margin of error, etc, is far from being meaningful). Please do kindly comment. Adhib (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Now finalised and pasted across. Adhib (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is fine for academics to offer 'definitions', but Wikipedia should describe accurately, IMO

Obviously the definitions offered by prominent academics are part of the scope of the topic, but 'employee engagement' is a concept that is often used in contexts that are absent academic rigour. In 'common use' EE is a descriptive concept, and in its academic manifestations it is absolutely theoretical. There is no argument that consistent measures can produce results that can have utility, but that does not change the fundamental nature of the topic. There is 'employee-engagement-as-theory', and 'employee-engagement-theory-in-use'; both have widespread currency but it is always better to remember the basic nature and natural contexts of an article's topic. Good rewrite, by the way! 86.17.152.168 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As a hard scientist, it seems to me worthwhile to distinguish between 'property', 'characteristic', theoretical construct'; (there are other alternatives). Density is a 'property' of 'concrete' objects, and a 'known property' of pure elements (at standard pressure and temperature). Employee engagement is clearly something different from that.

As a Social Psychologist, you will know that many terms are coined by academics; as an optimist, I like to think that this is usually done for good reason, to clarify the behavioural interactions that are being studied. I thought 'characteristic' was quite a good choice to describe 'employee engagement', as it avoided using the unfriendly term 'theoretical construct'. Given that you reverted in good faith, I will be interested to see whether you will revert this much simpler edit.

The UK government commissioned an inquiry into employee engagement (The McLeod Report), and I contributed to that - ever since I have taken a interest whenever I come across an article examining 'engagement strategies'. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anon. This is a tricky philosophical area and at this stage I am not sold that "Employee engagement is clearly something different from [a property of concrete objects]". I also believe that most employee engagement researchers are describing what is for them something just as "real" as density. Fortunately, we personally don't have to try and resolve that issue. If the distinction you describe in relation to employee engagment is supported by reliable sources then it does have a place on wikipidia. It is just a matter of you providing those sources. Without them you points can only be assumed to be original research and do not belong here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is Alasdair speaking (Anon) - where is your consensus that 'property' is an appropriate word? I appreciate that for Wikipedia consensus may sometimes be more important than accuracy, but consensus is best demonstrated by positive action by multiple persons, surely? I will try "working concept", as after some quick research this morning, I failed to find any reference to EE as a 'property' (outside of Wikipedia). Don't be misled from reality by a bias against IP editing, at least. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair. I make no claim that there is consensus around property, just that "theoretical characteristic" and "working concept" do not seem warranted to me. They point to the artificiality of the concept that I don't think is justified by the sources. Please find some sources that support your view, or leave alone the more straightforward lead sentence. A third option, as you seem to really want to embed some philosophy in the article, might be to introduce a wikilink to property. Would that satisfy you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

. . . . would it not be easier if you found wording that preserves both conciseness and accuracy?

I invite other editors to engage with this question. Also, I would like to focus attention on the way the Intro refers to 'work'. A scan of current internet usage of EE, shows (IMO) that employees have (can have) an emotional relationship with their organisation, which is separate from their relationship with their own actual work. This seems to be in accord with the Intro picture caption. On this basis, it would be better to refine the wording. Replacing 'work' with 'workplace' may be all that is required.

In our everyday 'use' of language, there is NO more reliable source than our everyday 'exposure' to language. The fact that EE researchers think that their subject area is as 'real' as Density, does not make it so. (Unless, was it Berkeley who wrote that nothing was actually real?) IMO, WP:NPOV implies careful use of everyday language. The FACT that EE is not a 'property' of anything, is NOT a slight on Social Psychology. When I studied Psychology at Edinburgh, the best lecturer I had was the Social P lecturer - she remarked once that just because a subject is 'woolly', is no excuse for woolly thinking. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just re-read earlier comment - if there is a 'tricky philosophical question', it is: "Can Good Faith be reconciled with 'playing Wiki-games'?"

It is nonsensical to suggest that a proposal that common words be given their common meaning is original research. Perhaps you are just being silly! (silliness can EASILY be reconciled with Good Faith) Either way, the Intro would obviously NOT benefit from citations. I don't know about Wiki-policy on the topic - I just know from using Wikipedia, that the best Intros are uncluttered (but still true). Like the "Red Hot Chillie Peppers" intros! 86.17.152.168 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[this comment from 86.17.152.168 moved from above. Please do not interrupt other editors' talk page contributions]: I would not (in fact, have never before) usually edit INTO another comment. But for simplicity, it seems (excuse the pop-pscyhology) that you are over-sensitive to a perceived artificiality. This is just perhaps in YOUR head? EE is real, and is used purposefully by organisations to guide their strategy (and tactics too, probably). The concept of EE is strong enough to withstand being accurately described as a 'theoretical construct'. It doesn't need you to 'protect' it, by elevating it to a 'property'. Simple & Accurate is my Good Faith advice (and just in case you were really only engaging in a wind-up (UK usage), 'shame on you!'.

I think this small debate overlooks some of the work that 'property of the relationship' is doing, here, which I strongly suggest we retain. It's a clear and distinct choice of words, for a very slippery conceptual object. Slippery how? Well, firstly, in practitioner usage, EE may refer to anything from the psychological state of an individual participant, to an abstract property of the organization's brand, to a sciencey KPI for morale in a team or a division or an organization or a society ... it would therefore be misleading to start by suggesting that it is one of those concrete things in the first sentence. Secondly, relationships and their properties are themselves ontologically exotic beasties, and practitioner assumption tends not to indulge the finer points of the relevant philosophies - it much prefers brains, stones, things you can act on systematically with predictable results. An encyclopaedia has a duty to its readers to be more precise. And yes, as you've discussed, just because it's slippery doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it is 'theoretical'. Adhib (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Signs of employee engagement in the workplace

Hi U3964057 - what concerns do you have about the edit? I made a note in the comments when I reversed your deletion and thought that would be sufficient. Csimms9 Csimms9 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Csimms9. Thanks for coming to the talk page. I mentioned my concerns in my edit summary. That is, I felt the edit was "out of context and possible spam". Your own subsequent edit summary did not address these. You simply stated that it was not spam and gave a summary of the content. As such, are you able to do any more to assuage my concerns? The use of self-published materials from a corporate website, instead of academic sources, is a massive red flag. I also have noticed that your entire editing history seems to be efforts toward increasing the presence of aubreydaniels.com in Wikipedia. This suggests to me that I should have conflict of interest concerns also. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi U3964057 - Employee engagement is a widely discussed topic in the business world and the world of Performance Management. It is "employee" engagement afterall - it applies to the workplace. I thought the article was lacking in potentially helpful information for managers and leaders who may be interested in understanding how engagement shows up in the workplace. Since the article provides ways of generating engagement, it seems that the article should also provide signs of engagement to help indicate whether or not engagement efforts are proving to be effective (comments are therefore not out of context). It is in no way a "spam" comment. Aubrey Daniels is a recognized expert in workplace topics and he is a reliable source. Talent Management is a resource for topics like employee engagement and is a source along the same lines as others included in the references like HRM Magazine, Ivey Business Journal, and the Harvard Business Review.--64.238.127.18 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Csimms9 (I presume you just forgot to log in). I do, of course, see the logical connection between employee engagement and measuring employee engagement. My concern was not that the subject shouldn’t be included in the article. It was instead that the addition seemed to be dropped haphazardly into the article. In other words, I felt that there were better locations (e.g. corrolates), or that a better effort could be made to integrate the content with the existing article. Does that make sense to you?

It is also the case that ‘tacked on’ content like this is another red flag for spam and promotion, which makes it one of a number of other red flags. The others being your single purpose account, and your linking to a product or business where other sources are available (e.g. peer reviewed academic journals). Actually, I think we can add two more red flags to that list. One is your somewhat disingenuous description of your source. That is, you equated the consulting firm aubreydaniels.com to the industry magazines and educational institutions HRM Magazine, Ivey Business Journal, and the Harvard Business Review. These are obviously very different beasts. The final red flag is that you didn’t address my comment about a potential conflict of interest. I will therefore ask you straight up, are you employed by, or otherwise affiliated with, aubreydaniels.com? Before you answer though, you should bear in mind that there are ways to investigate these things using the IP addresses that you have used. It would not look good for you or the organization if a claim that you are not an affiliate turns out to be a lie. And anyway, being associated with a company doesn't prevent you from contributing to Wikipedia. It just changes the way you should go about it. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Analytics of engagement

I have reverted the insertion of large section of copyrighted text. A sample of this published content also appears in an article "The analytics of engagement", available online here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/work/The-analytics-of-engagement/articleshow/40174851.cms Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)