Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great … · Title: Employee Engagement:...
Transcript of Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great … · Title: Employee Engagement:...
Employee Engagement.Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance
REPORT JULy 2016
Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance Todd Armstrong and Ruth Wright
preface
The benefits of an engaged workforce are clear: increased productivity, decreased turnover, and improved business results. However, employee engagement has remained stubbornly low and relatively unchanged over the last five years. To optimize investments in scarce resources, it is important to understand engagement as a concept and the workplace factors that drive it.
Drawing on data from a survey of 400 Canadian employees and a 10-year longitudinal database of engagement surveys, this report establishes The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model—a set of seven workplace factors that most influence employee engagement. Organizations can use the findings and best practices drawn from case studies of organizations with highly engaged workforces to evaluate their own measurement instruments, interpret the results, and make decisions on investments in good workplace practices.
To cite this report: Armstrong, Todd, and Ruth Wright. Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance. ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2016.
©2016 The Conference Board of Canada* published in Canada | All rights reserved | Agreement no. 40063028 | *Incorporated as AERIC Inc.
An accessible version of this document for the visually impaired is available upon request. Accessibility officer, The Conference Board of Canada Tel.: 613-526-3280 or 1-866-711-2262 E-mail: [email protected]
®The Conference Board of Canada and the torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board, Inc. Forecasts and research often involve numerous assumptions and data sources, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. This information is not intended as specific investment, accounting, legal, or tax advice. The findings and conclusions of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the external reviewers, advisors, or investors. Any errors or omissions in fact or interpretation remain the sole responsibility of The Conference Board of Canada.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
CONTENTS
i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1 1 Introduction 3 Purpose 3 Methodology
Chapter 2 5 What Is Employee Engagement? 6 Eighty Years of Employee Research 9 Job Satisfaction Is Not Engagement 10 From Concept to Measurement 12 The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model 13 Factors Have Different Strengths and Influence Engagement in Different Ways 16 Employee Engagement Surveys 17 Direct Measures of Employee Engagement 19 Key Findings
Chapter 3 23 Confidence in senior Leadership 25 Trust in Senior Leadership 28 Clear Communication 29 Setting and Achieving Goals 32 Following Through on Commitments 34 A Clear Vision 35 Impact of Confidence in Senior Leadership 40 Management Practices That Build Confidence in Senior Leadership
Chapter 4 43 Relationship With manager 45 Providing Constructive Feedback 46 Valuing Employees’ Opinions and Ideas 48 Including Employees in Decision-Making 49 Following Through on Commitments 52 Impact of Strong Manager Relationships 54 Management Practices That Engage Direct Reports
Chapter 5 57 Interesting and Challenging Work 59 Interesting Work 61 Variety 62 Challenging Work 64 Meaningful Work 66 Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work 69 Management Practices That Create Interesting and Challenging Work
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Chapter 6 72 professional and personal Growth 74 Clear Career Path 76 Career Goals 77 Opportunity to Learn and Grow 79 Impact of Opportunities for Professional Growth 81 Management Practices That Nurture Professional and Personal Growth
Chapter 7 85 Acknowledgement and Recognition 87 Taken for Granted 88 Recognizing Contributions 89 Accomplishments Are Acknowledged 91 A Feeling of Appreciation 92 Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition 95 Management Practices for Fostering a Culture of Recognition
Chapter 8 97 Relationships With Co-workers 99 Teamwork 100 Information Sharing 102 Where Personal Relationships With Co-workers Impact Engagement 104 Management Practices to Encourage Personal Relationships With Co-workers
Chapter 9 107 Autonomy 109 Controlling How Work Gets Done 110 Input in Setting Performance Objectives 112 Impact of Autonomy on Engagement 114 Management Practices to Encourage an Autonomous Working Environment
Chapter 10 116 Conclusion
Appendix A 120 Bibliography
Appendix B 127 detailed methodology 127 Employee Questionnaire 128 Sampling 128 Direct Measures of Engagement 128 Factor Modelling 129 Qualitative Interviews
Appendix C 130 survey Respondent profile
Appendix D 135 Talentmap Benchmark Respondent profile
Appendix E 138 detailed Employee Engagement model
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank their Conference Board colleagues Lynn Stoudt, Vice-President, and Colin Hall, Senior Research Associate, Leadership and Human Resources Research, for their review and advice.
We would also like to thank those who participated in the research:
• Kathy Labrecque, Vice-President, Human Resources, MD Financial Management• Shad Smereka, Director, Human Resources, Fountain Tire• Cathy Jordan, Executive Director, Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre• Sandra Channell, Vice-President, Human Resources, Northleaf Capital Partners• Angela Finlay, Director, Human Resources, Geosoft• Kathleen McNair, Executive Vice-President, Human Resources & Corporate
Communications, Corus Entertainment
We are grateful to our external reviewers for their feedback and insights:
• Dr. Alan Saks, Professor, Organizational Behaviour and HR Management, University of Toronto
• Karla Thorpe, Former Director, Leadership and Human Resources Research, The Conference Board of Canada
Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to Sean Fitzpatrick, President and CEO of TalentMap, for sharing that organization’s benchmark of employee engagement survey respondents.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employee Engagement: Leveraging the Science to Inspire Great Performance
At a Glance
• despite growing awareness of the value of a highly engaged workforce, employee engagement scores for most organizations remain low.
• Employee engagement can be separated into seven distinct workplace factors. Top employers leverage practices that “nudge” these critical drivers.
• Confidence in senior leadership has the greatest influence on employee engagement.
• organizations need to better understand the underlying factors that drive engagement and how this affects employees in different occupations and industry sectors and with different tenure.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. ii
For 15 years, employee engagement has been a growing priority for both human resources and organizations overall. Emerging evidence of engagement’s impact on key business outcomes has fuelled an abundance of new research along with a multi-million dollar industry. Despite growing interest and investment in employee engagement, however, corporate scores have plateaued and in many cases are declining. For every organization that has achieved top employer status, there are many struggling to move the needle.
The challenging business environment is a factor. Engagement does
tend to rise in good times. But even in a tough business environment,
there are organizations that are thriving and vital with high engagement.
For the rest of us, it is important to better understand what engagement
is, why it is important in our business context, and what strategies and
practices we can put in place to “nudge” it higher.
The purpose of this research is to help organizations better understand
how engagement can flourish in different workplace contexts. We
statistically deconstruct a model of engagement and factors that drive
it. We complement these data with good practices extracted from case
studies of six high-performing organizations. These organizations were
identified by mining a 10-year longitudinal database of engagement
surveys that was shared by boutique vendor Talentmap.
The Current State of Employee Engagement
our research shows that engagement is relatively low. only 27 per
cent of employees are highly engaged, and the level of engagement
has remained stagnant since 2010. not all segments of the working
population are equally engaged, however. Executives, those with
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Executive summary | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. iii
a tenure of less than one year, and people working in not-for-profit
organizations are among the most engaged. Employees with a longer
tenure, who work for mid-sized organizations, and who work in the
technical/skilled trades or federal government have among the lowest
levels of engagement.
A New Model for Employee Engagement
seven distinct workplace factors compose The Conference Board of
Canada’s employee engagement model. Areas that influence these
factors are explored in depth in the report, along with workforce
strategies and practices that have the potential to enhance engagement.
The seven workplace factors are:
1. confidence in senior leadership
2. relationship with manager
3. interesting and challenging work
4. professional and personal growth
5. acknowledgement and recognition
6. relationships with co-workers
7. autonomy
Combined, these seven factors represent 78 per cent of what
influences engagement. Employers need to develop an understanding
of how each of these factors can affect the engagement of different
employee segments, and how they can address them through
organizational strategy.
The Growing Influence of Senior Leaders
senior leaders have become the biggest factor influencing employee
engagement. It has been generally accepted that, among levels of
leadership, immediate managers hold the greatest influence over
engagement. our data indicate that this is not necessarily true. senior
leaders have more impact both within our model and as drivers of pride
in and willingness to recommend the organization. While there is no
senior leaders have become the biggest factor influencing employee engagement.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmployEE EngagEmEntleveraging the Science to Inspire great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. iv
doubt that managers hold a profound influence over engagement, the
perception and actions of senior leaders should be a growing area of
focus for organizations.
Different Drivers Affect Different Measures of Engagement
the data also revealed that different facets of engagement have
different workplace drivers. For example, employees’ confidence in
their senior leaders is the strongest driver of their sense of pride in
their organizations. However, opportunities for professional growth and
development have the greatest influence on attrition. organizations need
a clear understanding of what areas of engagement they are looking to
influence before deciding on which drivers should be areas of focus.
Demographics Matter
the factors within our model have a different degree of impact for
different demographic groups, industry sectors, and occupational
clusters. For example, having interesting and challenging work tends
to have a more positive impact on engagement for employees in not-
for-profit organizations, and provincial government departments and
agencies. an employee’s relationship with his or her immediate manager,
on the other hand, has a far more positive impact for newer employees
(those with tenures of less than three years) and longer-tenured
employees (those with 25 years and longer service). Confidence
in senior leaders resonates most with employees within the Crown
corporation sector (50 per cent indicating a positive impact on their
engagement from their senior leadership). Having an understanding of
organizational and people demographics will help organizations focus
strategic responses on what is most likely to impact engagement for a
specific workforce segment.
opportunities for professional growth have the greatest influence on attrition.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Chapter summary
• despite organizations investing millions of dollars in measuring and boosting employee engagement, scores remain stubbornly low.
• The purpose of this report is to help organizations better understand the factors that drive engagement and how an engaging culture can flourish in different business contexts.
• A model was developed featuring seven key factors that influence engagement, although effects vary for different demographic groups.
• Case studies share good practices that top employers use to nurture engaging work environments.
• The research draws on an extensive literature review, 10 years of employee engagement survey data, a representative sample of Canadian employees, and interviews with six organizations that have highly engaged employees.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 2
Organizations are pouring resources into ensuring their employees are engaged—and for good reason. Research shows that organizations with engaged employees outperform their competitors in key areas, including productivity,1 financial performance,2 and employee retention.3 A 2012 estimate pegged annual spending on outsourced and internally developed engagement initiatives in the United States at $720 million. The same study suggested that the market size could be as high as $1.5 billion.4 The question is whether the investments by organizations both in measuring engagement and in related initiatives to enhance it are yielding a proportionate return on investment.
For every organization that the media showcases as a top organization
to work for, there are many more that struggle to boost their engagement
scores. Results of our own model and measurement instrument
developed for this report suggest that overall engagement is quite low.
Based on a prototype survey developed for this report, 27 per cent of
the Canadian workforce is highly engaged. It behooves us as employers,
therefore, to better understand the complex concept of engagement,
what causes it, and what exactly the instruments we are using to
measure it are telling us. only then can we make astute decisions
about how best to invest scarce resources in improving the way
employees experience their work, workplace culture, and daily
interactions with colleagues and leaders.
1 Harter and others, The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, 22.
2 Rayton, dodge, and d’Analeze, Employee Engagement, 11–12.
3 Royal and yoon, “Engagement and Enablement,” 17.
4 Kowske, Employee Engagement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 1 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 3
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to help bring clarity to the theory and
practice of employee engagement. It serves as a practical guide that
organizations can use to think about and devise practices around
engagement. We identify key factors that influence how employees
experience their work, their work environments, and key individuals
with whom they interact. some trends in engagement over time are
highlighted. We also examine how different drivers or influencers of
engagement vary for key employee segments.
our goal is to provide a deeper understanding of what drives employee
engagement so that organizations can better:
• understand the main factors influencing employee engagement;
• align investments in employee engagement practices;
• respond to employee concerns;
• create a better overall employee experience and work environment;
• support managers and leaders;
• evaluate employee engagement assessment instruments—both the
questions asked and the employees’ responses.
Methodology
We leveraged several sources of data for the report:
• A review of literature on employee research tracked the evolution of
the concept of engagement and reviewed common definitions. The
literature review also acted as a key tool in establishing the validity
of our employee questionnaire.
• Analysis of a 10-year sample of raw employee engagement surveys from
boutique employee engagement specialist Talentmap identified trends
over time and preferences of key employee segments, including job
families, tenure, and organizational size.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 4
• We developed a prototype questionnaire by leveraging the Talentmap
instrument, the literature, and other employee engagement measurement
instruments. We used the prototype questionnaire to survey a sample
of 400 individuals for the purpose of developing a statistical model. We
then conducted a factor analysis on responses to arrive at a model of
employee engagement featuring seven key factors.
• The Talentmap database allowed us to identify top employers: four
organizations with sustained high engagement scores and two that
had significantly improved engagement over the past several years.
We conducted in-depth interviews with leaders from the organizations
to clarify specific practices that drove positive employee experiences
and responses.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 2
What Is Employee Engagement?
Chapter summary
• The study of employee engagement evolved from other areas of employee research such as job satisfaction and motivation.
• Employee engagement and job satisfaction are not the same.
• Academics and consultants tend to take different approaches to defining employee engagement.
• The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model identifies seven distinct workplace factors that influence engagement.
• Four direct measures of engagement assess the overall emotional, rational, and behavioural components of employee engagement.
• Taking a segmented approach to identifying which engagement factors are most important to different groups of employees will help organizations focus their engagement efforts.
• It is important to understand how surveys measure engagement.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 6
Employee engagement is essentially a state of mind that is influenced by the myriad ways that an individual experiences his work and interacts with leaders, peers, and other aspects of the work environment. To understand how the concept emerged, we looked at the last 80 years of employee research on satisfaction, motivation, and engagement. What matters from an employer’s perspective are the outcomes of engagement—especially such desired behaviours as discretionary effort, positive attitude, and high employee retention. To understand how engagement can be measured and improved, researchers focus on identifying a range of key factors that collectively influence it. In this chapter, we review the literature to break down the complex concept of engagement, to trace how it has evolved, and how it is currently defined and measured.
Eighty Years of Employee Research
Early employee research did not focus on engagement at all, but rather
on job satisfaction. Exhibit 1 shows a timeline of people and publications
involved at key points in the evolution of employee research from job
satisfaction, to motivation, to employee engagement. one of the early
attempts to define and measure job satisfaction was in 1935.1 This
research examined employees’ level of satisfaction with their jobs,
along with their willingness to leave their employers. over the next three
decades, the research evolved to include elements of human motivation.
some of the most prominent work was done by Frederick Herzberg,
1 Hoppock, Job Satisfaction.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 7
who developed the famous motivation-hygiene theory. In 1968,
Herzberg suggested that motivational (i.e., achievement, recognition,
and responsibility) and hygienic (i.e., compensation, supervision, and
work conditions) factors influenced job performance.2 He stated that the
presence of “motivators” contributed to job satisfaction and the absence
of “hygienic” features engendered dissatisfaction.
Kahn changed the conversation significantly in 1990 with his introduction
of the concept of “personal engagement.” He defined the term as
“the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles.”
In engagement, he states, “people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.”3
shortly thereafter, the business world—largely management
consultants—caught on to the potential of measuring a more robust,
predictive, and meaningful measurement of employees’ affinity to
their work: employee engagement. In 1998, Gallup, Inc. was the first
organization to conduct engagement research on a large scale. The
company analyzed 25 years of data from over 80,000 managers in more
than 400 organizations.4 Hundreds of questions and millions of interviews
were distilled into the ground-breaking Q¹²—12 questions that could
2 Herzberg, “one more Time,” 56–58.
3 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement,” 694.
4 Buckingham and Coffman, First, Break All the Rules.
Exhibit 1Key Developments in the Evolution of Employee Research
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975
1935, Hoppock.Job Satisfaction
1968, Herzberg.Motivation-Hygiene Theory
1990, Kahn. PersonalEngagement Theory
2014, Saks & Gruman.Integrative Theory
of Engagement
1999, Gallup. Q¹²
1985 1995 2005 2015
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 8
simply measure employee engagement. more specifically, this research
was the first to draw attention to the critical workplace factors influencing
employee engagement—most notably the role of the manager and other
peer relationships. The Q¹² also identified factors such as recognition,
professional development, and organizational vision. It was the largest
non-academic study to test the concept of employee engagement and
make it available to business and consultants. The research also helped
popularize the use of surveys to gauge employee opinion.
The popular “head, heart and hands”5,6 model provides additional insight
into employee engagement. The “head” aspect of the model assesses
the rational connection people have with their jobs. This includes the
perceived fit between skills and responsibilities and whether or not
people have the tools to do their jobs. The “heart” aspect of the model
assesses the emotional connection that employees have with their jobs.
pride in and affinity to the organization’s mission and vision are among
these emotional factors. Finally, the “hands” element of the model looks
at behavioural outcomes of engagement, which include discretionary
effort, a willingness to recommend the organization to a friend, and the
likelihood of leaving the organization. Together, these three facets add
a dimensional understanding to employee engagement.
other researchers have looked at various aspects of the workplace
and work life. dr. Alan saks, professor of organizational Behaviour
and HR management with the Centre for Industrial Relations and
Human Resources at the University of Toronto, along with his colleague
Alan Gruman, has suggested four main attachments or relationships:
engagement with the task, with the work, with the group/team, and with
the organization.7 This new line of thinking suggests that people can be
engaged with some areas of their workplace but not others.
5 Ashforth and Humphrey, “Emotion in the Workplace,” 119.
6 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 9–10.
7 saks and Gruman, “What do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?” 173.
The Q¹² was the largest non-academic study to test the concept of employee engagement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 9
Job Satisfaction Is Not Engagement
more recently, researchers have looked at deconstructing and analyzing
engagement itself—especially how it differs from job satisfaction.
some researchers state that job satisfaction is a necessary precursor
to engagement.8 others suggest that job satisfaction is an outcome of
engagement.9 While the exact causes and effects of, and correlations
between, job satisfaction and employee engagement are not completely
understood, the key difference between the two concepts lies in
behavioural and attitudinal outcomes.
Job satisfaction is largely focused on employees’ contentedness
with their workplace experiences. Edwin Locke’s definition of job
satisfaction is one of the more enduring: “a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences.”10 Conceptually, job satisfaction includes, among other
areas, job security, organizational financial stability, compensation/pay,
benefits, and safety.11 These elements are provided by the employer to
the employee. If employees feel they are getting what they need from
these elements, they are likely to be satisfied.
Employee engagement, by contrast, is less concerned with how satisfied
employees are and more focused on what employees are willing to
give back to the organization. The degree to which employees feel
connected with the work itself, have the opportunity to use their skills,
contribute to the organization’s business goals, and perceive the job to
be meaningful12 are all examples of how and why employees would give
back to the organization through discretionary effort and loyalty. Another
way of assessing engagement is through Kahn’s model of psychological
8 Abraham, “Job satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee Engagement.”
9 orgambidez-Ramos, Borrego-Alés, and mendoza-sierra, “Role stress and Work Engagement.”
10 Locke, “The nature and Causes of Job satisfaction,” 1300.
11 society for Human Resource management, 2012 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement.
12 Ibid.
Employee engagement is focused on what employees are willing to give back to the organization.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 10
attachment. Engaged employees are more likely to invest their entire
selves into their roles, whereas the disengaged experience a state of
psychological distance and withdrawal.13 This notion is related to the
concept of flow—a state of intense focus and concentration.14 Employees
who are engaged are said to be “in the moment.” At peak performance,
they are “in flow.”
It is often argued that employee engagement is a better measure than
job satisfaction. The reality is that both can be accurately measured
and used for different reasons. Employee engagement has become a
more popular measure because it more accurately addresses important
employee characteristics related to favourable business outcomes—
namely, effort, attitude, job performance, and retention.
depending on the business context, organizations may want to focus
more on devising tools to measure engagement directly as well as the
characteristics of the workplace that affect it. Understanding what factors
drive engagement and how employees perceive or experience those
factors provides the organization with crucial evidence. This evidence,
in turn, informs decisions about potential organizational responses.
From Concept to Measurement
In their drive to differentiate themselves from a business and product
perspective, management consultants have created myriad definitions of
employee engagement.15 While there are great similarities among these
definitions and the related questionnaires, the differences complicate
the task of arriving at standardized factors and related questions
for measuring engagement. (see “defining Employee Engagement:
Two separate Worlds.”)
13 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement,” 701.
14 nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow Theory and Research.”
15 Ibid.
Both employee engagement and job satisfaction can be accurately measured.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 11
Defining Employee Engagement: Two Separate Worlds
The multitude of employee engagement definitions have implications for how
the concept is measured. Academics and research arms of major consulting
organizations diverge on how employee engagement should be defined.
Within the academic domain, employee engagement has been defined from
a psychological perspective. definitions vary widely as researchers have
attempted to capture the essence of a broad set of drivers and outcomes:
• “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption.”16
• “The simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred
self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,
personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full
role performances.”17
• “A holistic investment of the entire self in terms of cognitive, emotional, and
physical energies.”18
management consultants, in contrast, have focused their definitions on a few
main, structural components of engagement along with a greater emphasis
on outcomes:
• “A measurement of an employee’s emotional commitment to an organization;
it takes into account the amount of discretionary effort an employee expends
on behalf of the organization.”19
• “Rational—How well employees understand their roles and responsibilities.
Emotional—How much passion they bring to their work and their organization.
motivational—How willing they are to invest discretionary effort to perform their
roles well.”20
16 schaufeli and others, “The measurement of Engagement and Burnout,” 74.
17 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement,” 700.
18 Christian, Garza, and slaughter, “Work Engagement,” 97.
19 Adp Research Institute, Employee Satisfaction vs. Employee Engagement, 3.
20 Towers Watson, Turbocharging Employee Engagement.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 12
• “say: speak positively about the organization to co-workers, potential employees
and customers. stay: Have an intense sense of belonging and desire to be a
part of the organization. strive: Are motivated and exert effort toward success in
their job and for the company.”21
The consultant definitions tend to be more applied (i.e., “effort”) when compared
to academics’ (i.e., “preferred self”). The key take-away from looking at these
groups is the distance between the two and the challenge it brings to finding
standardized measurement tools. Consultants have largely proceeded with their
own applications and measurements of engagement, which can create problems
for establishing a valid and reliable measure for employee engagement.
Finding an accurate definition of employee engagement can be difficult
enough. Having to test these definitions through valid and reliable
research tools, such as surveys, only adds to this challenge. But it is
through collecting and analyzing employee data that the true value of
employee engagement is realized.
The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model
With this research, The Conference Board of Canada set out to
determine the key workplace characteristics that compose employee
engagement. As a first step, we conducted a literature review focusing
on primary research that established a clear relationship between
workplace characteristics and engagement. We operationalized
each workplace characteristic found to influence engagement
into survey questions using keywords from literature and the
Talentmap questionnaire.
To collect the data, we used a representative sample of Canadian
employees drawn from an online panel. We then used an analytical
technique called factor analysis to create The Conference Board of
Canada’s Employee Engagement model. Through this technique,
21 Aon Hewitt, 2013 Trends in Global Employee Engagement, 3.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 13
survey questions that highly intercorrelate are grouped together. Factor
analysis was used to construct Gallup’s Q¹² questionnaire.22 For a more
detailed description of the methodology, see Appendix B.
After factoring all questions within the survey, we identified
seven distinct factors based on 25 questions included in the factor
model. (see Exhibit 2.) Any survey questions excluded from the model
were removed due to either high cross-correlation with multiple factors23
or little correlation with any factor. This meant that these particular
questions could not be assigned to any one factor alone and, if included,
would hinder the strength of the overall model. (see Appendix E for
factors with survey questions.)
Combined, the seven workplace factors represent 78 per cent of
what influences employee engagement. put another way, 22 per cent
of employee engagement is represented by other elements of the
workplace that our model did not capture—an acceptable number
considering the standards of social science research.24
Factors Have Different Strengths and Influence Engagement in Different Ways
While each of the seven workplace factors influence engagement,
not all have the same degree of influence. (see Chart 1.) our analysis
shows that no one workplace factor has a disproportionately high or
low influence on the model: All are within a range of about 10 to 20 per
cent. However, a factor’s influence is determined in part by the number
of questions grouped within it. For example, the “relationships with
22 Buckingham and Coffman, First, Break all the Rules, 253.
23 A note on cross-correlation: Variables exhibiting a high degree of correlation with several or all other variables are considered to be cross-correlated. In some cases, such as employee engagement, some topics covered by certain questions tend to correlate highly with many questions within a survey instrument. A common strategy or technique for dealing with cross-correlation is simply to remove each question from the analysis exhibiting cross-correlation and conduct diagnostic testing to determine the effect of the question’s removal from the resulting model.
24 pett, Lackey, and sullivan, Making Sense of Factor Analysis, 116–18.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 14
co-workers” and “autonomy” factors have the lowest influence within
the model, but they both contain only two questions. This is because
these two factors do not have the breadth of impact that comes with a
factor like “confidence in senior leadership.” senior leaders simply have
more attributes that influence engagement (i.e., confidence, ambition,
communication, and trust) compared to other factors.
The relative influence of each factor varies among different demographic
segments. In other words, each individual, depending at least somewhat
on the demographic group to which they belong, is influenced to a
Exhibit 2The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Confidence insenior leadership
EmployeeEngagement
Autonomy
Relationshipswith co-workers
Acknowledgement& recognition
Professional& personal growth
Relationshipwith manager
Interesting& challenging work
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 15
greater or lesser degree by each factor. For example, autonomy is an
important factor influencing engagement for those working in education.
At the same time, an autonomous work environment is less influential
for employees in the information technology and retail trade sectors. All
of these factors influence engagement. Taking a segmented approach
to identifying which factors are most important to different groups
of employees (for example, looking at engagement by age, level of
responsibility, tenure, or sector) will help organizations focus their
engagement efforts.
Analysis for much of this report will focus largely on significant
differences between these demographic groups. Those with the highest
significant differences between groups are detailed throughout the
report. In other words, each of the 25 areas within the model will be
examined through the lens of influential demographics while taking
into account statistical significance.
Chart 1Influence of Engagement Factors Within the Model(percentage influence within model)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
5
10
15
20
2519.9
17.0 16.313.3 13.2
10.8 9.5
Confidence in senior
leadership
Relationship with manager
Interesting & challenging
work
Professional & personal
growth
Acknowledgement & recognition
Relationships with
co-workers
Autonomy
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 16
Employee Engagement Surveys
The majority of medium-sized and large employers in Canada measure
employee engagement. A Conference Board of Canada survey indicated
that the figure is as high as 75 per cent.25 Today, a handful of large
consulting firms have developed employee engagement research and
survey offerings. These survey tools are substantially similar, but they
also have important differences. It is, therefore, important to understand
how these surveys measure engagement. They can typically be broken
down into two components:
1. Workplace characteristics that influence engagement. These
workplace characteristics are broken down into rating questions that
are similar to those related to each of the factors included in our model.
2. Direct measures of engagement itself. These questions try to capture
engagement at a high level and usually refer to elements of employees’
rational, emotional, and behavioural connection with their jobs.
After data have been collected, workplace questions from factors
that influence engagement (the first component) are correlated or
regressed against overall engagement (the second component) to
determine which workplace measurements have the greatest impact on
engagement within the organization. With this information, organizations
can devise strategy and practices around workplace areas that most
influence engagement.
The analysis presented in this report takes a different approach.
While we address both of these component areas, the focus is on
the first—modelling the workplace factors that influence engagement.
The group of overall engagement questions—hereafter referred to as
“direct measures”—is used only to demonstrate the strength of the
model and to identify factors that share a strong relationship with
these direct measures.
25 martin, Wright, and Cowan, Human Resources Trends and Metrics, 86.
The focus of this report is on modelling the workplace factors that influence engagement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 17
Direct Measures of Employee Engagement
one of the main ways that organizations measure engagement is
through targeted survey questions that probe the core of employees’
rational, emotional, and behavioural affinity to their work and
organizations. For our survey, we identified and developed these
questions in much the same way as those included in the employee
engagement model. We compiled primary research showing the
validity of various questions26,27 in order to identify the most prominent
measures. These were selected with the head, heart, and hands model
of employee engagement in mind.28 We analyzed questionnaires, where
available, for the inclusion of these questions and we used Talentmap’s
engagement survey to help guide question structure.
Based on this literature review and questionnaire analysis, we
used the following four survey questions as direct measures of
employee engagement:
1. I would recommend my organization to a friend as a great place to work.
2. I derive a sense of accomplishment from my work.
3. I am proud to work for my organization.
4. At the moment, I do not plan on leaving my organization.
These measures can be analyzed in conjunction with our employee
engagement model to examine the relationship between known direct
measures of engagement and the specific factors that influence
engagement in our model. Chart 2 shows this relationship.
In this chart, the bars represent the relative influence each factor has
within the model. (data are similar to those shown in Chart 1.) The
three different lines represent employees that fall into low, moderate,
and high levels of engagement based on the four direct measures. These
data reinforce the validity of our model by linking it to the four external,
26 Gibbons and schutt, A Global Barometer for Measuring Employee Engagement.
27 Thomas, A New Measurement Scale for Employee Engagement.
28 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement,” 694.
organizations measure engagement through targeted survey questions.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 18
direct measures of engagement. For example, the factor having the most
influence in our model, “confidence in senior leadership,” also shows the
greatest separation between levels of engagement based on the direct
measures. Likewise, the “autonomy” factor has the lowest influence
within our model and also shows the lowest separation between levels
of overall engagement. In other words, the factors that are the most
influential within our model are also the most influential in determining
low, moderate, and high levels of overall engagement.
This report focuses on the influence of each individual factor separately,
summarizing the contribution and influence of each one within our model.
only where each of the four direct measures has a relatively strong
relationship with particular workplace factors are they discussed.
Chart 2Relationship Between Factors and Direct Measures(average factor influence)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
10
20
30
40
Overall Low Moderate High
Confidence in senior
leadership
Relationship with manager
Interesting & challenging
work
Professional & personal
growth
Acknowledgement & recognition
Relationships with
co-workers
Autonomy
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 19
Key Findings
The following are some of the key findings from our research.
• Employee engagement is relatively low. Based on the 25 questions
included in our model, 27 per cent of respondents are highly engaged.
• Engagement has plateaued over the last five years. Immediately
following the shocks of the 2008 financial crisis, employee engagement
decreased. since 2010, engagement scores have remained relatively
unchanged. (see “Examining Engagement over Time.”)
Examining Engagement Over Time
overall engagement of Canada’s workforce has varied over the past decade.
Talentmap’s benchmark database was mined to glean insights on why this has
occurred. Greater volatility was characteristic of engagement scores between
2005 and 2010, followed by a period of stability. (see Chart 3.)
Chart 3Overall Employee Engagement, 2005–14(percentage engaged)
Source: TalentMap.
4750
53 5451
56 55 5553 53
2005 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
40
45
50
55
60
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 20
The recessionary period of 2008 and 2009 showed a marked decrease in
engagement. This mirrors other research that shows engagement is linked
to economic conditions.29 From 2010 to 2014, employee engagement scores
have more or less plateaued, with only a slight downward trajectory. This gives
the impression that organizations are “stuck” when it comes to engagement.
The economy improved moderately between 2010 and 2015, but employee
engagement did not. most employers would benefit from a better understanding
of what influences engagement and the practices that improve related
characteristics in the workplace.
• Employees in different demographic groups are not equally
engaged. Those in more senior roles30 tend to be more engaged, while
those in general service, production, skilled trades, and administrative
roles are among the least engaged. Engagement also varies by tenure.
(see Chart 4.)
• Leadership at all levels of the organization has the greatest
influence on engagement. Areas related to leadership are the two most
influential areas of the model: “confidence in senior leadership” (20 per
cent) and “relationship with manager” (17 per cent). When compared
to all areas of the model, the former has the greatest relationship with
employees’ sense of pride in their organizations and willingness to
recommend their organizations to others as great places to work.
• Different facets of overall engagement have different drivers. The
multi-dimensional nature of engagement requires a multi-dimensional
approach to analysis and strategy. What influences a sense of pride in
working for an organization (senior leadership) is not necessarily what
causes employees to stay with their current employers (opportunities
for professional growth and development). What drives an employee
to recommend their organization as a great place to work (senior
leadership) is not necessarily what provides them with a sense of
accomplishment in their work (interesting and challenging work).
29 Aon Hewitt, 2014 Trends in Global Employee Engagement, 17.
30 “senior executive” refers to all executives reporting directly to the CEo. “Executive” refers to all other executives.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 2 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 21
• Different segments of the population are engaged by different
factors. While “confidence in senior leadership” is the most influential
factor overall, it may not necessarily be the most influential for all
employee segments. Rather than indiscriminately applying the model
to all employees, addressing what engages individuals on a segmented
basis is more likely to increase engagement.
• Organizations that are successful with engagement take a
multi-dimensional approach. Those finding success understand the
importance of the factors included in our model, and take them all
into account when devising engagement strategies. Leadership, work
environment, and people management, among other areas, are all
woven into a greater human resources (HR) strategic plan. Leaders
are formally held accountable for employee engagement within
their organizations.
Chart 4Groups Reporting High Levels of Engagement(percentage highly engaged)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Technical and skilled trades
500−1,499 employees
Clerical and support
Tenure 20 years to less than 25 years
Federal government department/agency
50−99 employees
Not−for−profit organization
Tenure less than 1 year
Executives
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
52.0
50.0
41.0
40.7
17.5
17.2
16.3
14.8
14.8
Group Overall
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 22
The research and practice of employee engagement has advanced
significantly in a relatively short period of time. Workplace factors that
influence engagement have been identified and refined as the domain
matures. Researchers and consultants have developed tools that are
as valid and reliable as possible. However, the issue lies with the fact
that engagement has been, and to a great degree still is, a concept with
varied definitions and a multitude of influences. As engagement matures
further, it behooves employers to gain clarity around the concept’s true
meaning, valid measurement, and best practice so they can invest
resources in areas that can truly help increase employee engagement.
The remainder of this report focuses on the factors included in our
employee engagement model, along with the results of our survey.
Each workplace area within each factor is analyzed individually and in
relation to various demographics. The order of presentation within each
chapter is based on a combination of each area’s contribution to each
factor, relationship with direct measures of engagement, and logical flow.
Good practices and case studies provide direction on how leaders can
increase employee engagement.
Engagement is a concept with varied definitions and a multitude of influences.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 3
Confidence in Senior Leadership
Chapter summary
• “Confidence in senior leadership” has the strongest influence among the seven factors identified in the model.
• Workplace areas related to confidence in senior leadership have surpassed those related to “relationship with manager” as strong drivers of engagement.
• Trust is an important area within the confidence in senior leadership factor.
• Confidence in senior leadership is most influenced by an organization’s size and sector and the tenure of employees.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 24
Employees’ perceptions of senior leadership is the strongest factor influencing employee engagement—accounting for nearly 20 per cent of our model. This factor encompasses several characteristics affecting how senior leaders are perceived by employees. These include employees’ confidence in leaders’ abilities to achieve goals, the presence of a compelling vision for the organization, clear communication, trust, and follow-through on commitments. (See Exhibit 3.)
In this chapter, we explore these key leadership characteristics and how
they relate to engagement. The workplace factor we call “confidence in
senior leadership” is analyzed by various workforce segments, and we
discuss key practices. Each of the six key leadership characteristics is
examined to establish a more foundational understanding of all that the
confidence in senior leadership factor encompasses.
Exhibit 3The Confidence in Senior Leadership Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Senior leadershave put fortha compellingvision for our organization.
Senior leadersset ambitiousbut realistic
goals.
Senior leadersclearly
communicate theobjectives for
our organization.
I trust oursenior leaders.
Confidence inSenior Leadership
Senior leadersfollow through
with theircommitments.
I haveconfidence that
our seniorleaders can
achieve our goals.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 25
Trust in Senior Leadership
Trust in senior leaders is a key component of the confidence in senior
leadership factor. It is also among the strongest drivers of overall
engagement.1 (see “What Is a ‘driver’ of Engagement?”)
What Is a “Driver” of Engagement?
In the context of employee engagement, a driver is any workplace characteristic
that influences overall engagement. All of the questions included in our model
are drivers, as they all impact engagement. However, not all drivers have the
same degree of impact. The relative strength of each driver is measured through
statistical correlations. In this report, we use driver analyses to identify individual
workplace questions that have a strong relationship with any of the four overall
engagement questions referred to in Chapter 2.
A meta-analysis conducted by The Conference Board Inc. showed
that trust and integrity were among senior leadership’s most engaging
characteristics.2 Indeed, our data also show that trust in senior leaders
has the strongest relationship with two of the four direct measures of
engagement: pride in and willingness to recommend your employer.
(see “drivers of pride.”)
Drivers of Pride in and Willingness to Recommend the Organization
In Chapter 2, we identified four direct measures of employee engagement. Trust
in senior leadership is the strongest driver of engagement for two of these four
direct measures: pride in and willingness to recommend the organization as a
great place to work. (see Table 1.)
1 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust.
2 Gibbons, Employee Engagement, 6.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 26
While trust is the single strongest driver, a look at the top three drivers for these
two direct measures shows that all three come from the confidence in senior
leadership factor. The characteristics of senior leaders, then, not only have a
strong influence within the employee engagement model but also have a strong
relationship with these direct measures.
senior leadership’s strong influence on employee engagement has been
attributed to their involvement in other areas within our employee engagement
model. For example, employees may attribute policies related to professional
development, acknowledgement and recognition, and flexible workplace
practices to senior leaders’ decisions. Aon Hewitt refers to this concept as the
“multiplier effect.”3 In a practical sense, organizations cannot address workplace
factors related to engagement without considering how senior leaders are
influencing these factors.
The strong relationship between trust and engagement is reason enough
to focus on trust in senior leadership. The fact that only 39 per cent
of employees trust their senior leaders—the third-lowest survey score
3 Aon Hewitt, The Multiplier Effect, 4.
Table 1Drivers of Pride in and Willingness to Recommend the Organization
I am proud to work for my organization.
I would recommend my organization to a friend as a great place to work.
driver #1 I trust our senior leaders. I trust our senior leaders.
driver #2 senior leaders follow through with their commitments.
I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.
driver #3 I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.
senior leaders follow through with their commitments.
Note: These are the top three drivers among all 25 areas in the model for these direct measures of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 27
across the entire model—adds a sense of urgency to the matter. not all
employees have the same level of trust in their leaders, however. one of
the greatest differences lies with an organization’s size. (see Chart 5.4)
As Chart 5 shows, employees’ trust in their senior leaders changes
based on the size of the organization. It is not employees in the largest
organizations who least approve of their senior leaders, but those in
medium-sized companies. In fact, employees in the largest organizations
(more than 5,000 employees) have comparable levels of trust to those
in organizations of 100 to 199 employees. Trust is highest among
organizations with 50 to 99 employees, suggesting that senior leaders
of smaller organizations are more effectively able to build trust and
confidence with employees. While all organizations can stand to improve
the level of trust between leaders and employees, those in medium-sized
organizations have a particular need to develop strategies for improving
this dynamic.
4 data represent the proportion of respondents that answered either “agree” or “strongly agree” (i.e., top-box or “% favourable” score).
Chart 5Trust in Senior Leadership, by Number of Employees(percentage favourable; n = 389)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
50.7
63.0
36.0 39.2
24.1
32.8 38.8
Number of employees Overall sample (39.0)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 28
Clear Communication
As stewards for the organization, senior leaders are expected to
communicate regularly with employees. Genuine and continuous
communication from senior leaders acts as an enabler for many of
the other factors related to engagement, including “relationships with
co-workers” and “acknowledgement and recognition.” organizational
communication research has found that inconsistency in messaging
and a lack of transparency contributes toward an erosion of trust in the
workplace.5 Without healthy internal communication, perceptions of
senior leaders can begin to deteriorate—and engagement along with it.
perceptions of clear communication were relatively low. overall, 43 per
cent of respondents felt that senior leaders clearly communicated
organizational objectives. These results present an interesting picture
when broken down by sector. (see Chart 6.)
Governmental organizations—regardless of size—have the lowest
senior leader communication scores. In fact, there is a greater than
10 per cent gap between the provincial government score (highest
among the three levels of government) and that of the next highest
sector—universities, hospitals, and school boards. Federal government
employees have the poorest perception of leader communication, at
only 25 per cent favourable. Crown corporations, on the other hand, are
one of the two groups to score over 50 per cent. While there are clear
differences in how government departments and Crown corporations
function, the difference between these two groups is, nonetheless,
significant given that both are publicly administered.
5 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust, 8.
Without healthy internal communication, perceptions of senior leaders can begin to deteriorate.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 29
Setting and Achieving Goals
Having collective goals helps people stay focused and motivated.6
Likewise, organizational goals help the workforce focus. Leadership
characteristics influencing engagement include the extent to which
those goals are perceived as realistic and the degree of confidence
that employees have in leaders’ ability to achieve them. Two questions
within the confidence in senior leadership factor are related to goals:
1. senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.
2. I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.
The results of our survey show that employers have some work to do
around changing employee perceptions of these two areas. overall,
only 38 per cent of respondents feel that senior leaders set ambitious but
realistic goals—the lowest favourable rating of any question in our model.
6 Latham, “The motivational Benefits of Goal-setting.”
Chart 6Perception of Senior Leader Communication, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
20
40
60
80
100
57.151.3 49.4
44.9
32.7 29.625
Sector Overall sample (43.0)
organizationNot-for-profitCrown
corporationUniversity/hospital/
school board
Municipalgovernment
Privatesector
corporation
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 30
At 41 per cent, not many more have confidence that senior leaders can
achieve the goals they set. While this certainly presents challenges at a
high level, not all employees are unanimous in their perceptions of goal
setting—particularly when it comes to tenure. (see Chart 7.)
Those with a shorter tenure have a more favourable perception of
leaders’ ability to set and achieve organizational goals. This perception
generally weakens as tenure lengthens, with compounding implications
over time. The longer an employee stays with an organization, the more
the organization has invested in the employee. It is critical for leaders
to obtain employee buy-in for their goals in order to enhance and
sustain engagement.
Chart 7Perceptions of Senior Leaders’ Ability to Set and Attain Goals, by Tenure(percentage favourable; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
< 1 year 1 year to< 3 years
3 years to< 5 years
5 years to< 10 years
10 years to< 15 years
15 years to< 20 years
20 years to< 25 years
25 years orlonger
0
20
40
60
80
100
54.2
75.0
49.0 44.934.1
45.5
32.139.3 43.6 44.9
39.534.9
27.620.7
26.5 28.6
Senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.
I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 31
From Middle Management to Senior Leadership: The Big Shift
The idea that senior leaders and managers influence engagement is not new.
What is new, however, is the relative degree of influence each has. There
was a time when managers were accepted as being the strongest driver of
engagement. While managers are certainly a key player in the engagement
equation (they are the second most influential factor in our model), the focus
on and influence of senior leaders has been growing.7,8
7 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Report 2011, 17.
8 Hackbarth, Harris, and Wright, 2015 Employee Engagement Trends Report.
Table 2Employees’ Willingness to Recommend the Organization Is More Influenced by Senior Leaders Than by Managers
Overall ranked importance Driver
1 I trust our senior leaders.
2 I have confidence that our senior leaders can achieve our goals.
3 senior leaders follow through with their commitments.
6 senior leaders have put forth a compelling vision for our organization.
10 senior leaders clearly communicate the objectives for our organization.
11 senior leaders set ambitious but realistic goals.
15 my manager values my opinions and ideas.
19 my manager includes me in decisions that affect my work.
20 my manager provides me with constructive feedback.
21 my manager follows through with his/her commitments.
Note: The rank is based on the correlation with all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 32
our data support this theory. Looking at the confidence in senior leadership
and relationship with manager factors alone, Table 2 shows how each of
the questions compare as drivers for employees’ willingness to recommend
the organization to a friend—one of the key direct measures of engagement
introduced in Chapter 2.
Comparing the two factors, all senior leadership questions show a stronger
correlation with employees’ willingness to recommend their organizations
compared to questions related to immediate management. This correlation
is similar to that of other direct measures of engagement, and should cause
organizations to reconsider the true importance of senior leaders vis-à-vis
other workplace factors in their employee engagement strategies.
Following Through on Commitments
Committing to and following through on promises is another driver with
a strong influence on engagement. The notion of following through with
commitments is important for two reasons. First, senior leaders who
follow through with commitments engender trust. As we saw earlier, a
sense of trust between leaders and employees is one of the strongest
drivers of engagement. second, following through on commitments is
related to a sense of progression. Employees are engaged when they
see their organizations moving forward and achieving goals. Failure to
follow through with commitments limits both the level of trust and sense
of achievement.
overall, only 40 per cent of respondents feel that their senior leaders
follow through on their commitments. This is among the lowest ratings of
all questions included in the model. The issues surrounding leadership
follow-through become clear when looked at by level of responsibility.
(see Chart 8.)
Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, as an employee’s
level of responsibility decreases, so too does their perception of
leaders following through with their commitments. not surprisingly, it
is the executives themselves that have the most favourable perception
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 33
of following through with their commitments. professionals and other
workers hold the least favourable opinions on the subject of executive
follow-through. These results can negatively affect overall engagement,
as those who make up the largest portion of organizations have the least
favourable view of leadership execution.
second, this chart highlights a clear gap between executive and
professional perceptions. At 72 per cent, leaders’ self-evaluation is much
higher than those of professionals, which is around 40 per cent. While
senior leaders may feel they are following through on commitments, in
the eyes of employees, where it has the greatest effect on engagement,
senior leaders are falling short. Closing this gap requires clearer
articulation of goals, honest dialogue, clear communication around
follow-up action, and the capacity to do what has been committed.
Chart 8Perception of Senior Leader Follow-Through, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Executive Management Professional—non-technical
Professional—technical
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
0
20
40
60
80
100
72.0
52.342.0 40.3
19.8
Level of responsibility Overall sample (39.5)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 34
A Clear Vision
A strong organizational vision is one of the more important areas within
the confidence in senior leadership factor. Engagement is heightened
when employees have a clear sense of where their organizations are
heading. While vision can be influenced by more than just senior leaders,
they are generally seen as the main drivers of overall direction.
Clarity around organizational vision was the second-lowest-scoring area
within our employee engagement model. other research has shown
that employees’ perception of organizational vision is relatively weak.9
overall, only 38 per cent of respondents feel that their senior leaders
put forth a compelling vision for their organizations. These results
varied significantly when analyzed by sector. (see Chart 9.)
9 Ipsos Loyalty, Build a Better Workplace, 5.
Chart 9Senior Leaders Have Put Forth a Compelling Vision, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
organizationNot-for-profit Crown
corporationUniversity/hospital/
school board
Municipalgovernment
Privatesector
corporation
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
0
20
40
60
80
100
51.3 50.044.9 40.7 40.3
24.517.5
Sector Overall sample (37.8)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 35
The main finding that can be drawn from this chart is that the larger
levels of government—provincial and federal—have the lowest scores
around organizational vision. only 25 per cent of provincial employees
feel their leaders put forth a compelling organizational vision, and this
figure is only 18 per cent for federal employees. In addition to sector,
these low scores may be due in part to the size of the organizations.
Communication is a key component for communicating vision, and
it is more difficult to effectively communicate the vision within larger
organizations. Larger government organizations should ensure that
there is clear, consistent, well-communicated messaging that cascades
from senior to middle management.
Impact of Confidence in Senior Leadership
senior leadership plays an influential role in engaging employees across
organizational demographic groups, and awareness of these differences
can facilitate effective strategies for enhancing employee engagement.
Using the model as a tool for analysis, we are able to determine which
demographic segments are positively or negatively impacted by specific
engagement factors. The more positive the impact, the greater the
influence the factor has on engaging employees. The data for each
factor in the model were clustered10 into four levels—negative, somewhat
negative, somewhat positive, and positive—each corresponding to a
range of impact on employee engagement from negative to positive.
(see “Understanding ‘Impact’ of Workplace Factors of Engagement.”)
A negative impact level corresponds to employees indicating that
their engagement is negatively influenced by a particular workplace
factor. positive impact results, however, indicate that engagement
for employees is greatly influenced (or driven) by a workplace factor.
10 Cluster analysis: This technique is most commonly used in the social sciences and market research, primarily to subdivide a survey sample into two or more groups (or clusters). This is done in such a way that the members belonging to a single cluster are very similar to each other and very different from members contained in other clusters. In the case of the questions on employee engagement, the technique was employed to exploit the similarities and differences among respondents at different levels of impact, based on their assessment of each factor.
The larger levels of government have the lowest scores around organizational vision.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 36
In other words, they gave survey items associated with that factor a high
approval rating. Charts 10 and 11 summarize the four levels of impact
on engagement reported by respondents across all demographic
groups for the confidence in senior leadership factor.
Chart 10Level of Impact on Confidence in Senior Leadership, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
12.3 26.8 35.3 25.8
10.2 21.0 38.6 30.1
12.5 42.5 27.5 17.5
20.4 36.7 30.6 12.2
10.3 33.3 30.8 25.6
21.4 7.1 21.4 50.0
7.4 22.2 48.1 22.2
12.2 24.5 38.8 24.5
9.6 30.1 26.0 34.2
11.1 14.8 37.0 37.0
16.0 40.0 40.0 4.0
7.8 21.6 49.0 21.6
16.7 27.8 37.0 18.5
14.8 18.0 39.3 27.9
9.2 31.6 31.6 27.6
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 37
overall, 61 per cent of respondents indicated that confidence in
senior leadership somewhat positively or positively impacts their level
of engagement, while 39 per cent reported a somewhat negative or
negative impact on this workplace factor. Within the industry sector, the
greatest proportion of respondents (50 per cent) indicating a positive
Chart 11Level of Impact on Confidence in Senior Leadership, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to <10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
12.3 26.8 35.3 25.8
24.0 40.0 36.0
14.0 22.1 30.2 33.7
13.9 25.0 37.5 23.6
12.0 31.0 36.0 21.0
13.5 25.2 37.8 23.4
4.2 4.2 45.8 45.8
10.2 18.4 42.9 28.6
9.1 25.0 36.4 29.5
21.4 21.4 33.3 23.8
6.4 33.3 33.3 26.9
7.0 32.6 39.5 20.9
24.1 27.6 37.9 10.3
12.2 40.8 22.4 24.5
14.7 17.3 44.0 24.0
9.3 29.9 32.7 28.0
12.0 29.6 36.0 22.4
14.0 26.9 30.1 29.0
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 38
impact from confidence in senior leadership came from those working
in Crown corporations. Respondents from private sector organizations
appear to be more positively impacted by the confidence in senior
leadership factor than those from public sector organizations. At the
employee level, executives had the highest positive impact score (at
36 per cent) and no executives provided a negative score.
perception of senior leadership positively impacts the engagement of
employees with less than one year of service (46 per cent), whereas
employees with longer tenures were more negative—especially those
with 20 to 25 years of service. Employees from smaller organizations
(fewer than 100 employees) reported considerably higher positive
impact scores than those working in organizations with 100 or more
employees. Chart 12 shows the varying levels of impact the confidence
in senior leadership factor has on employees from a range of
demographic and sector segments.
Understanding “Impact” of Workplace Factors of Engagement
Impact, for the purposes of our engagement model, can be thought of as a
performance outcome. That is, respondents that indicated a positive impact
on a particular workplace engagement factor provided higher approval ratings
for each item associated with or composing that factor. For example, within the
confidence in senior leadership factor, respondents reporting a positive impact
provided assessment ratings of their senior organizational leaders that were
marginally better than those indicating a somewhat positive level of impact,
and significantly better than those indicating levels of somewhat negative or
negative impact. (see Chart 12.)
Comparing the percentage difference in mean ratings of positive respondents
with those with less positive levels of impact (somewhat positive, somewhat
negative, and negative), it becomes clear why impact may be used to describe
these four distinct perceptions. (see Chart 13.) Respondents with a positive
impact level rated their confidence in senior leadership about 170 per cent higher
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 39
Chart 12Organizations at Varying Levels of Confidence in Senior Leadership(mean scores; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.5
2.3
3.4
4.3
1.5
2.3
3.3
4.3
1.6
2.3
3.3
4.1
1.7
2.5
3.5
4.1
1.4
2.3
3.4
4.1
1.7
2.4
3.3
4.1
Negative impact Somewhat negative Somewhat positive Positive impact Sample mean
I have confidencethat senior leaders
can achieve our goals
Senior leaders putforth a compelling
vision for organization
Senior leaders setambitious butrealistic goals
Senior leaders clearlycommunicate objectives
for organization
I trust oursenior leaders
Senior leadersfollow through with
commitments
Chart 13Comparison of Percentage Gap Between Positive and Negative Impact on Employee Confidence in Senior Leadership (per cent; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
202423282328
69737687
7989
144147
166
183187193
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Positive impact vs. somewhat positive impact
Positive impact vs. somewhat negative impact
Positive impact vs. negative impact
I have confidencethat senior leaders
can achieve our goals
Senior leaders putforth a compelling
vision for organization
Senior leaders setambitious butrealistic goals
Senior leaders clearlycommunicate objectives
for organization
I trust oursenior leaders
Senior leadersfollow through with
commitments
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 40
(on average) than those at a negative impact level, 24 per cent higher than those
at a somewhat positive impact level, and 79 per cent higher than somewhat
negative impact respondents.
A key finding from analyzing this factor is the considerable gap between
employees whose ratings are categorized as positive and those who rated
it as negative. While there may be some variation in the ratings of individual
items within the factor, the results indicate that above all else, organizational
leaders with overall positive employee ratings have succeeded in capturing
the confidence, trust, and commitment of their workforce. organizations with
a high proportion of employees that provided a negative rating will likely have
low engagement.
Management Practices That Build Confidence in Senior Leadership
The following are strategies that organizations can use to boost
engagement by focusing on senior leaders:
Build trust among employees by following through on
commitments. The survey data indicate that trust in senior leaders
is the item with the strongest influence on engagement. Keeping
communications in line with goals and actions will improve employees’
perceived trust in leaders.
Carefully select which strategies and objectives to communicate.
Transparent and honest communications, regardless of the medium,
are linked to a strong sense of trust in leaders among employees.11
Ensure that only those strategies and objectives for which there is
a relatively high confidence of action are communicated broadly.
Customize communications for longer-serving employees.
Employees with a longer tenure generally have a more negative
perception of their senior leaders. With an aging population, this
11 Forum, Driving Business Results by Building Trust, 8–9.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 3 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 41
segment of employees is already large and will remain so for the
foreseeable future. Conducting focus groups to identify experiences
that underlie low engagement will highlight actionable strategies.
As these employees begin to exit the workforce, their goodwill in terms
of transferring knowledge and helping to develop younger cohorts will
influence productivity.
Make senior leaders accessible. Employees are more engaged with
their organizations when they have opportunities to interact with their
leaders. At Geosoft, the senior leadership team visits global offices
regularly to get feedback and ideas from global teams. (see “Case
study: Geosoft Inc.”)
Case Study: Geosoft Inc.
Geosoft Inc. is an earth sciences exploration services and technology company.
The company has existed for 30 years and serves clients in mining, energy,
marine, and government organizations.
At Geosoft, all employees are responsible for employee engagement. senior
leaders ensure the right programs are in place; managers engage employees
by building personal and professional relationships; and employees are expected
to bring solutions—not just challenges—to the table.
Through the use of HR analytics, employee engagement surveys, and exit
interviews, Geosoft has identified key drivers of engagement for its organization.
The strongest driver is employee perception of senior leadership.
Accessibility is the key word from an engagement perspective. senior leaders
visit global offices regularly. Here, they meet face to face with employees to
gather ideas and feedback about the organization.
Geosoft’s approach to professional growth is another contributing factor to its
high level of employee engagement. Geosoft is a smaller company and, as
such, has relatively few opportunities for upward mobility compared to larger
organizations. To address this, Geosoft has adopted the philosophy that career
progression need not be defined as upward advancement. The company created
three different paths through its professional path program: the geo path,
Employees are more engaged when they have opportunities to interact with their leaders.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 42
focusing on core business development; the technology path, which maps
out opportunities in software development; and the other path, which looks at
supporting areas of the business such as HR and marketing. All paths could
lead to the C-suite, but the program is structured to lead people into roles where
they can add the most value and be the most engaged—regardless of the level
of responsibility.
many of the key business benefits of an engaged workforce have been realized
at Geosoft. The company has had 30 years of consistent growth, the turnover
rate has seldom been higher than 5 per cent, and average absenteeism has
been less than three days per year. The combination of an accessible senior
leadership and a genuine commitment to professional development have made
Geosoft a model organization for employee engagement.
Provide opportunities for employees to interact with senior leaders
professionally. For those to whom senior leadership is important, 19 per
cent mentioned “teamwork” as a source of pride—more than any other
single aspect of the workplace. open door policies, input on strategy,
and special projects that include interaction with senior leaders can help
engage employees with leaders and the organization.
Engage senior leaders. Employees tend to be more engaged when
their senior leadership is engaged. This is known as the “cascade
effect.”12 Target engagement research to senior leaders. Ensure that the
organization is addressing the right drivers to keep leaders engaged in
order for them to have a positive influence throughout the organization.
(The Conference Board of Canada will be releasing a companion report
on management engagement.)
12 Aon Hewitt, The Multiplier Effect, 2.
Employees tend to be more engaged when their senior leadership is engaged.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 4
Relationship With Manager
Chapter summary
• The “relationship with manager” factor comprises four managerial characteristics: providing constructive feedback; valuing employees’ opinions and ideas; involving employees in decision-making; and following through on commitments.
• The higher the employee’s level of responsibility, the more influential this factor is.
• Employees’ relationship with their managers heavily impacts engagement in the information technology and retail trade and health care industries.
• Highly engaged organizations are investing in management training and are making the ability to engage employees a required skill.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 44
It is often said that people don’t leave their employers; they leave their managers. This snippet of conventional wisdom may not be completely true (there are six other factors within our model), but findings from the literature1,2 and our model leave little doubt as to the importance of managers in employee engagement.
“Relationship with manager” is the second-strongest factor, accounting
for 17 per cent of the overall engagement model. Following through
on commitments, valuing employees’ opinions and ideas, providing
constructive feedback, and including employees in decisions that affect
their work are managerial characteristics that affect this important
workplace relationship. (see Exhibit 4.)
In this chapter, we examine each of these four areas individually.
1 Aon Hewitt, 2013 Trends in Global Employee Engagement, 3.
2 saks, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement,” 610.
Exhibit 4The Relationship With Manager Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
My managerfollows through
with his/hercommitments.
My managervalues my
opinions andideas.
My managerprovides me
with constructivefeedback.
My managerincludes me indecisions that
affect my work.
RelationshipWith Manager
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 45
Providing Constructive Feedback
Employees want to know how they are performing. Knowing where they
are doing well, and what they can improve, gives employees a sense of
security in their roles and a clear indication of what needs to improve.
When giving feedback, managers should be mindful of employee
perception of how feedback is received. “Constructive” or
“developmental” feedback is meant to help employees develop their
knowledge and skills to improve their performance. Giving feedback that
is perceived as inaccurate, however, can lead to negative perceptions
of the process.3 Giving constructive feedback has less to do with
having it be positive or negative and more to do with its ability to help
employees improve. Receiving negative feedback from a manager can
actually serve to increase engagement—as long as the feedback clearly
identifies issues and is accompanied by a clear plan of action.
Close to half of respondents (48 per cent) indicated that their manager
provides them with constructive feedback. This represents the lowest
score of the four questions included in the factor. The perception that
respondents receive constructive feedback is one of the few areas in the
model that showed a noticeable difference by gender. (see Chart 14.)
our data support other research that recommends managers take into
account gender and cultural preferences when delivering feedback to
employees. What is perceived as constructive by one group may not be
perceived in the same way by another. Just over half (52 per cent) of
females in our sample felt they received constructive feedback from their
managers. While this is only slightly over half, it is still only 7 per cent
higher than males (45 per cent). one study on learning styles showed
that women preferred more positive, affirming feedback and men wanted
more factual and/or theoretical-based feedback.4 Going beyond gender,
3 Brett and Atwater, “360° Feedback,” 938.
4 miller, ogilvie, and Branch, “sport psychology Consultation,” 284.
Giving constructive feedback has more to do with its ability to help employees improve.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 46
Conference Board of Canada research found that younger workers
(also known as “millennials”) preferred positive reinforcement as a
means of feedback.5
Valuing Employees’ Opinions and Ideas
Valuing employees’ opinions and ideas has to do with the extent to
which individuals perceive they can make a difference. people are
more likely to be engaged if they feel they are having a genuine effect
on organizational outcomes.6 one of the best ways managers can
promote this perception among employees is by asking for and, where
possible, acting on employee input on matters that affect their roles.7
By considering employees’ opinions and ideas, managers are sending
a clear message that employees can have an impact on company
direction and strategy.
5 Hawkins, Vellone, and Wright, Workplace Preferences of Millennials and Gen X, 25.
6 Wellins, Bernthal, and phelps, Employee Engagement, 13.
7 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Report 2011, 37.
Chart 14Manager Provides Constructive Feedback, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
100
26.5 2944.5
27 21
52
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 47
This was among one of the most favourably rated questions by our
sample. However, the responses did vary significantly by level of
responsibility. (see Chart 15.)
As level of responsibility decreases, so too does the perception that
opinions and ideas are valued. From an operational perspective, this
result makes sense. By virtue of their influential position, the opinions
and ideas of senior leaders, for example, typically have more influence
on organizational decision-making. Therefore, the perception of having
impact is higher. While this may be the case, it does little to boost
engagement throughout the rest of the organization. Employees at all
levels should be made to feel their opinions and ideas are valued by
their leaders and managers.
Chart 15Sense That Opinions and Ideas Are Valued, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
20
40
60
80
100
8074.4 72
66.7
50.5
Level of responsibility Overall sample (65.5)
Executive Management Professional—non-technical
Professional—technical
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 48
Including Employees in Decision-Making
Employees like to be involved in decisions that affect them.8 many factors
related to engagement, such as professional development opportunities
and degree of autonomy in how work is done, are filtered through
managers. organizations can encourage engagement by providing
employees with opportunities for more involvement in decisions.
overall, slightly over half of respondents (53 per cent) feel their
managers include them in decisions that affect their work. The industry
sector was one of the greatest demographic influences on this survey
question. (see Chart 16.)
8 Robinson, perryman, and Hayday, The Drivers of Employee Engagement, 21.
Chart 16Employee Perception of Inclusion in Decisions That Affect Their Work, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Crowncorporation
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Municipalgovernment
Privatesector
corporation
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
0
20
40
60
80
100
76.9
61.2 57.1 53.1 48.1 47.7 45
Sector Overall sample (52.8)
organizationNot-for-profit University/
hospital/school board
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 49
managers in the not-for-profit sector appear to be doing the best job
in this area. At 77 per cent, this figure is almost 25 percentage points
higher than the overall score. private sector corporations have one of the
lowest scores (48 per cent). There is little difference between the various
levels of government, with only 8 percentage points separating the
highest (provincial, 53 per cent) from the lowest (federal, 45 per cent).
Following Through on Commitments
Following through on commitments establishes a degree of trust
between employees and their managers. The belief that leaders and
managers follow through on these commitments is a key way that
trust can be fostered. over half of respondents (56 per cent) feel their
managers follow through on their commitments. The most significant
difference in perception is by level of responsibility. (see Chart 17.)
Chart 17Managers Follow Through With Their Commitments, by Level of Responsibility(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
20
40
60
80
100
64 65.1 68
55.6
39.6
Level of responsibility Overall sample (56.3)
Executive Management Professional—non-technical
Professional—technical
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 50
Two key insights can be drawn from Chart 17. First, there is little
difference between executives, managers, and non-technical
professionals regarding their perception of manager follow-through.
In a model that typically sees engagement increase with level of
responsibility, those who usually have no direct reports—non-technical
professionals—actually have the most favourable perception of their
managers’ follow-through. However, this result may be due more to
the type of work that non-technical professionals do than to their level
of responsibility.
second, there is a sizable difference between technical and non-
technical professionals regarding their perception of manager follow-
through. The difference between these two groups of employees that
have essentially the same level of responsibility can be found throughout
our model. (see “Technical and non-Technical professionals.”) non-
technical professionals have scores that are more than 12 per cent
higher than technical professionals in terms of their perception of
manager follow-through. managers should work to have a clear
understanding of what is achievable before making commitments
to employees. Failure to do so can negatively impact trust and, by
extension, engagement.
Technical and Non-Technical Professionals: The Same But Different
The differences between technical and non-technical employees extends
far beyond the relationship with their managers. Technical professionals
(i.e., analysts, engineers, IT specialists, scientists, and software developers)
differ greatly from non-technical professionals (i.e., accountants, business
administration professionals, police officers, and lawyers) across almost
all of the factors in our model. (see Chart 18.9)
9 seven different cluster solutions were calculated based on the variables included in each factor. data should, therefore, only be compared within, not across, each factor.
managers should have a clear understanding of what is achievable before making commitments to employees.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 51
The greatest difference (28 percentage points) is with the “interesting and
challenging work” factor. Based on some of the characteristics that make work
interesting and challenging, such as variety, task identity, and task significance,10
non-technical professionals may perceive their work to align better with these
traits. managers need to realize that these differences exist, and organizations
should develop management strategies based on the differences between
these two types of employees.
With the exception of the confidence in senior leadership factor, technical
professionals score lower than non-technical professionals across the entire
model. The difference between the groups of professionals suggests there
are inherent characteristics for each of the two groups that require a unique
approach to engagement. It is important to note that both groups are often at the
same job grade and can work on the same teams. Clear challenges emerge for
organizations looking to engage these two very different types of employees.
10 Hackman and oldham, “motivation Through the design of Work.”
Chart 18Perception of Workplace Factors, by Type of Professional(percentage favourable)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
20
40
60
80
100
33.3 31
48.657
48.6
77
5.616
40.351 52.8
67
55.6
69
Technical professional (n = 72) Non-technical professional (n = 100)
Confidence in senior
leadership
Relationship with manager
Interesting & challenging
work
Professional & personal
growth
Acknowledgement & recognition
Relationships with
co-workers
Autonomy
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 52
Impact of Strong Manager Relationships
The immediate manager’s influence on engagement is higher for some
industry sectors and employee groups than for others. High positive
and somewhat positive ratings by employees in not-for-profit (74 per
cent) and federal and provincial government organizations (70 per cent
and 64 per cent respectively), for instance, reflect strong relationships
with managers relative to other industry sectors. municipal government
organizations have the highest proportion of combined negative and
somewhat negative ratings at 45 per cent. (see Chart 19.)
Chart 19Impact of Relationship With Managers, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
9.4 28.9 38.8 22.8
8.5 33.5 36.9 21.0
5.0 25.0 50.0 20.0
8.2 28.6 32.7 30.6
5.1 20.5 46.2 28.2
28.6 7.1 42.9 21.4
14.8 29.6 37.0 18.5
12.2 28.6 36.7 22.4
8.2 24.7 45.2 21.9
3.7 25.9 40.7 29.6
12.0 24.0 44.0 20.0
3.9 35.3 39.2 21.6
9.3 33.3 33.3 24.1
16.4 26.2 39.3 18.0
10.2 29.6 35.7 24.5
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 53
At the employee level, managers themselves expressed the highest
combined positive and somewhat positive impact ratings for their
immediate managers at 71 per cent. Trades, clerical support, service,
and production employees had the lowest combined negative and
somewhat negative impact ratings at 52 per cent. (see Chart 20.)
Chart 20Impact of Relationship With Managers, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
9.4 28.9 38.8 22.8
32.0 44.0 24.0
9.3 19.8 34.9 36.0
5.6 33.3 38.9 22.2
9.0 22.0 47.0 22.0
14.4 37.8 32.4 15.3
4.2 25.0 45.8 25.0
10.2 20.4 49.0 20.4
11.4 29.5 38.6 20.5
14.3 28.6 27.4 29.8
3.8 28.2 44.9 23.1
7.0 34.9 39.5 18.6
3.4 31.0 48.3 17.2
18.4 32.7 26.5 22.4
5.3 26.7 42.7 25.3
7.5 29.9 38.3 24.3
12.0 28.8 37.6 21.6
12.9 29.0 36.6 21.5
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 54
In terms of length of service, newer employees (those with less than
three years) had the highest combined somewhat positive and positive
impact ratings, and employees with the longest tenures (those with
25 years or more) reported the least positive ratings.
Management Practices That Engage Direct Reports
organizations with highly engaged workforces understand and actively
nurture the important relationship between employees and their
managers. The following are key practices that organizations in our
report are using to engage employees through immediate management.
Make employee engagement a job requirement for managers.
Highly engaged organizations have an engagement metric included in
managers’ performance assessments. They might, for instance, include
an overall team engagement score. This metric could include only the
four questions within the relationship with manager factor.
Use management performance metrics. Employee feedback,
engagement surveys, 360-degree evaluations, and performance reviews
can help identify low- and high-performing managers. objective, data-
driven evaluations such as these will ensure a standard method of
evaluation and provide a more reliable picture of managers who merit
recognition and those who would benefit from training.
Actively manage underperforming managers. For low performers,
consider an aggressive training regimen designed to develop their
management skills. Reassignment to other value-added roles that don’t
require people management may be an option. Assessing for people-
management skills should also be a criterion for promotion.
Invest in management training. Under-investment in leadership
development can negatively affect engagement results.11 From project
management, to conflict resolution, to workforce planning, there is a
11 Harvard Business Review Analytic services, Frontline Managers, 5.
organizations with highly engaged workforces nurture the relationship between employees and their managers.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 4 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 55
broad range of management training available. Investing in training
related specifically to actions that drive engagement, such as providing
constructive feedback and shared decision-making, provides an efficient
and focused approach to improving management effectiveness. (see
“md Financial management Inc.”)
Involve employees in management decisions. Create opportunities
for employees to have input on decisions that may affect their work.
At the very least, proactive communications regarding corporate affairs
will keep employees informed and included.12
MD Financial Management Inc.: The Manager Is the Key
md Financial management Inc. is a financial management and investment
services company for Canadian physicians and their families. products and
services include financial planning, investment counselling services, mutual
fund investments, estate and trust planning, and insurance. The company also
has a banking partnership offered through the national Bank of Canada that
covers credit and lending products.
The company has experienced a significant increase in employee engagement
over a relatively short period of time. overall engagement increased every year
between 2010 and 2015. While major changes in the business throughout this
period affected employee perception of the organization, increased engagement
can also be attributed to the following:
• Understanding value. From md’s perspective, an engaged workforce drives a
better client experience. Everyone in the organization needed to understand the
value of an engaged workforce.
• Managing underperforming managers. Any managers identified as a barrier
to engagement were removed either from their positions or the organization. This
was the first clear message that md was taking employee engagement seriously.
12 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 248.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 56
• Decentralized accountability. Employee engagement has traditionally been
an HR activity. md broke with this tradition and made engagement a divisional
accountability. Executives in finance, operations, marketing, and all other
divisions are responsible for their own levels of engagement, while Human
Resources acts as a business partner.
• Leadership development. In addition to an increase in formal leadership
training, quarterly face-to-face meetings of all leaders were organized to
discuss strategies and experiences related to people management—not
business performance.
• New manager program. md created an onboarding program tailored to
new managers. This program reinforced the importance of managers in
md’s employee engagement strategy by clearly detailing their new roles,
responsibilities, and expectations as people leaders.
• Updated total rewards program. md was using a traditional rewards
program focused heavily on cash compensation. A new program was adopted
that broadened the scope of rewards to include professional development
opportunities and flexible work arrangements.
• Employee-owned professional development. Each year, employees are given
a specified amount of money to spend on professional development as they see
fit. no approval is required from their manager or the business. This increases
employees’ sense of autonomy and encourages their professional growth.
• Abandoning the annual performance review. The company moved away
from branding employees with a performance rating. Instead of annual
performance reviews, employees have a “quarterly performance dialogue”
with their managers.
The catalyst for md came in the form of a fire at its ottawa head office in
January 2013. The fire left the building unfit for employees to do their jobs
on-site and forced them to work remotely for a full year. prior to the fire,
managers may have been reluctant to allow employees so much flexibility.
That same year, md had its best results in terms of assets under management.
While there are other business decisions that helped drive outcomes, key
performance indicators have been achieved by a measure of 150 per cent and
turnover is far below industry average. md attributes much of its success to
making employee engagement a corporate priority. The CEo does not treat
engagement as a temporary strategy, but rather as one that requires persistent
attention and refinement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 5
Interesting and Challenging Work
Chapter summary
• The “interesting and challenging work” factor is the strongest driver of employees’ sense of personal accomplishment—a direct measure of employee engagement.
• The perception of interesting and challenging work is lowest among employees with a tenure of between three and five years.
• men find significantly less variety and are significantly less interested in their work compared to women.
• Engagement for those in the education, not-for-profit, and health industries is heavily influenced by interesting and challenging work.
• The degree to which employees will find interest and challenge in their work can be predicted with a good assessment process.
• The opportunity to work in different roles and areas helps maintain employees’ sense of interest and challenge in their work.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 58
Areas related to employees’ perception of challenge, meaning, variety, and interest in their work compose the “interesting and challenging work” factor. This factor is the third most influential in our employee engagement model—accounting for 16 per cent. Kahn’s research, discussed in the introduction, explored how an individual’s work fosters a sense of interest, challenge, and meaning, and how this influences employee engagement.1 (See Exhibit 5.)
In this chapter, we explore work characteristics and how they relate
to employee engagement. Examining different perceptions of work
among various demographics enables a better understanding of which
employees are engaged and those who are less engaged. A look at
what organizations are doing to engage employees in their work provides
direction with this important factor of employee engagement.
1 Kahn, “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement.”
Exhibit 5The Interesting and Challenging Work Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Interesting andChallenging Work
I find mywork interesting.
Most of mywork is
challenging.
The work I dois meaningful.
There isenough variety
in the workthat I do.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 59
Interesting Work
Three-quarters of respondents to our survey rated their work as
interesting and challenging. Furthermore, each of the four related drivers
are also strong drivers of overall engagement. (see “Interesting and
Challenging Work.”) Having interesting work has a significant impact on
employee engagement.2 When people perceive their work as interesting,
it satisfies their innate curiosity and pleasure in discovery. This touches
on a concept known as intrinsic motivation, which can be defined as
“the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for
some separable consequence.”3 When people experience a feeling
of satisfaction from doing specific tasks, engagement in their work
increases. It helps contribute to the sense of “flow” in work and “being
in the moment.”
Interesting and Challenging Work: A Driver of Overall Employee Engagement
Employees’ sense of accomplishment is one of the four direct measures of
engagement discussed in Chapter 2. While elements of senior leadership are
the strongest drivers of pride in and willingness to recommend the organization,
this measure is more influenced by characteristics of the work itself. (see
Table 3.)
All four of the questions included in the interesting and challenging work factor
are among the top five drivers of this direct measure of engagement. The “sense
of accomplishment” indicator measures employees’ overall engagement with
their work (as opposed to their work teams or the organization). It makes sense,
then, that our model’s factor related to interest and challenge in the work is this
indicator’s strongest driver. To enhance engagement, organizations should find
ways to ensure employees’ work is interesting, meaningful, challenging, and
has variety.
2 Gourlay and others, Locus of Engagement, 18.
3 Ryan and deci, “Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations,” 56.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 60
perceptions of interesting work differ greatly across several demographic
groups, including level of responsibility and industry. Among the more
significant determinants is gender. (see Chart 21.)
Table 3Drivers of a Sense of Accomplishment
I derive a sense of accomplishment from my work.
driver #1 I find my work interesting.
driver #2 The work I do is meaningful.
driver #3 There is enough variety in the work that I do.
driver #4 overall, I feel appreciated for the work that I do.
driver #5 most of my work is challenging.
Note: These are the top five drivers among all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Chart 21Perception of Interesting Work, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
100
12 17
71
4.517
78.5
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 61
Women have a higher degree of interest in their work (79 per cent)
compared to men (71 per cent). This difference is reflected on the lower
end of the scale as well, with 12 per cent of men having an unfavourable
score compared to only 5 per cent of women. Based on our survey
data, females are more likely to be employed in fields that have a higher
perceived amount of interesting work (i.e., universities, education, not-
for-profit organizations). However, this does not change the fact that
males appear to be less interested in their work. At the same time, it is
important to keep in mind “interesting work” scored the second highest
within the overall survey results.
Variety
As with interest, having the opportunity to work on different tasks and
projects encourages employees’ engagement with their work.4 people
can lose focus and interest if insufficient variability is built into their tasks
or projects.
A majority (69 per cent) of respondents felt there was enough variety
in their work. This was among the highest-rated questions in our model.
Again, it differed by gender. (see Chart 22.)
Women perceive a higher level of variety in their work (72 per cent)
compared to men (67 per cent). survey findings suggest key differences
between men and women lie mostly with unfavourable scores. There
is a full 10 per cent difference between men (15 per cent) and women
(5 per cent) in terms of their perception of having little or no variety in
their work (unfavourable scores). This result may be due to the types
of occupations that men and women are likely to have. For example,
men are more likely to have more technical and general labour roles.
An understanding of how organizations can increase variety in
employees’ work, and the differences between men and women in
terms of expectations of variety, will help increase engagement for all.
4 Christian, Garza, and slaughter, “Work Engagement,” 119.
Females are more likely to be employed in fields that have a higher perceived amount of interesting work.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 62
Challenging Work
Challenging work has been linked to higher levels of employee
engagement.5 In contrast to routine tasks, challenging work presents
the opportunity for people to enter a state of flow—a state of intense
focus and concentration in the present moment.6 Challenging
work fosters more intrinsic motivation7 along with a higher sense
of accomplishment.
nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 per cent) perceive their work as
challenging. The extent of perceived challenge, however, differs greatly
by tenure. (see Chart 23.)
our research and others’8 show that employees in the upper tenure
ranges (78 per cent of employees with a tenure of 10 to less than
15 years in our sample) are among the most engaged. By this time,
employees have likely taken on more responsibility or expanded the
scope of their roles, leading to more challenge in their work.
5 Towers perrin, Working Today, 10.
6 nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow Theory and Research,” 195.
7 pink, Drive.
8 Hackbarth, Weisser, and Wright, 2014 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 45.
Chart 22Perception of Work Variety, by Gender(percentage favourable; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
100
15 18.5
66.5
5
23
72
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 63
on the lower end, those with a tenure of three to five years are by far
the least engaged (41 per cent). other research has confirmed that
employees in this tenure group are the least engaged.9 At this point,
employees are beyond the challenge that comes with learning a new
role within a new organization. What used to be challenging has become
routine, and many of them would be more engaged with additional/
different tasks or increased responsibility. organizations need to
understand the importance of variability and perceived challenge
in the context of tenure and role progression. Consider ways to help
employees expand or deepen responsibilities as they develop and are
ready to take on more challenge.
9 Hackbarth, Harris, and Wright, 2015 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 44.
Chart 23Perception of Challenging Work, by Tenure(percentage favourable; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
0
20
40
60
80
100
66.7 59.2
40.9
61.9
78.272.1
55.2 67.3
Tenure Overall sample (64.0)
< 1 year 1 year to< 3 years
3 years to< 5 years
5 years to< 10 years
10 years to< 15 years
15 years to< 20 years
20 years to< 25 years
25 years orlonger
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 64
Meaningful Work
people are more engaged with their work if they perceive it to be
meaningful. In their book The Progress Principle, Theresa Amabile and
steven Kramer state that the single most important stimulant to greater
work life is “making progress in meaningful work.”10 Employees will
consider their work meaningful if the results make a difference in some
measurable way to something that is important to them.
The perception of meaningful work is the highest-rated area within our
employee engagement model, with over three-quarters of respondents
(77 per cent) giving it a favourable score. not all people perceive
meaning equally in their jobs, however, as shown in Chart 24.
10 Amabile and Kramer, The Progress Principle, 74.
Chart 24Perception of Meaningful Work, by Sector(percentage favourable; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Municipalgovernment
University/hospital/
school board
Crowncorporation
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Privatesector
corporation
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
0
20
40
60
80
100 96.3 95.9 92.983.7
76.9 68.2 67.5
Sector Overall sample (76.5)
organizationNot-for-profit
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 65
Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is a great
deal of variability among levels of government. Generally, people prefer
to work for public sector organizations because they want to make
a difference in society by serving the public.11 However, municipal
government employees perceive a much higher level of meaning in
their work (96 per cent) compared to both provincial (84 per cent) and
federal (68 per cent) government employees. Working at the local level,
municipal employees may be better able to see their work’s impact
as there is less separation between the employee and the citizen.
This increased line of sight contributes to an enhanced perception
of meaning.
second, people working for private sector corporations perceive the
lowest level of meaning with their work (68 per cent) compared to all
other sectors except federal government department/agency, which
scored the same. While this is a relatively low score, it also shows there
is great potential to increase engagement in the private sector by helping
individuals better understand the importance of what they do. private
sector employees make up a large proportion of the Canadian workforce.
Therefore, organizations should find ways of helping employees find
purpose and understand their contribution to the organization and
beyond if they want to increase engagement. (see “The Growing
Influence of Corporate Brand.”)
The Growing Influence of Corporate Brand
The concept of brand has progressed beyond products and services and
entered the realm of corporate social responsibility (CsR). over the last
decade, corporate brand has emerged as an influential driver of engagement,12
particularly among millennials.13,14 people want to work for organizations that
11 Lewis and Frank, “Who Wants to Work for the Government?” 402.
12 Gross, Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement, 2.
13 net Impact, Undergraduate Perspectives, 4.
14 Cone Inc., The Millennial Generation, 17.
There is great potential to increase engagement in the private sector.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 66
reflect their values and demonstrate a contribution toward making the world
a better place. Chart 25 shows the top six sources of pride as mentioned by
respondents in answers to the survey.
Corporate brand and corporate social responsibility ranked fifth and sixth on this
list, suggesting that these areas have the potential to influence engagement.
organizations should work to sustain a healthy public image and, where
possible, become involved with social causes—especially those that are
important to employees.
Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work
Interesting and challenging work is the third most influential factor within
our engagement model. However, this factor has a higher positive impact
on engagement for some industry sectors than others. These groups
include the not-for-profit sector (49 per cent); universities, hospitals, and
school boards (39 per cent); and provincial government departments and
Chart 25Sources of Pride in the Organization(percentage of respondents; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Teamwork Recognition Servicesoffered
Job purpose Corporatebrand
Corporatesocial
responsibility
0
5
10
1512.8 12.8
11.39.8
9.07.5
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 67
agencies (39 per cent). The results of these sectors are considerably
higher than the overall sample result of 26 per cent. (see Chart 26.)
Long-tenured employees with between 10 and 20 years of service and
employees age 55 or older also have above-average ratings for this
factor. (see Chart 27.)
Chart 26Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.6 28.4 37.3 25.6
10.8 40.9 34.1 14.2
10.0 35.0 32.5 22.5
12.2 18.4 30.6 38.8
10.3 12.8 28.2 48.7
14.3 57.1 28.6
22.2 55.6 22.2
2.0 8.2 51.0 38.8
9.6 38.4 23.3 28.8
7.4 14.8 59.3 18.5
4.0 28.0 48.0 20.0
7.8 33.3 37.3 21.6
9.3 25.9 35.2 29.6
13.1 27.9 37.7 21.3
8.2 25.5 42.9 23.5
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 68
The most negative ratings come from employees with three to nine years
of service. By industry category, the lowest combined negative and
slightly negative ratings come from employees in the private and federal
Chart 27Impact of Interesting and Challenging Work, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.6 28.4 37.3 25.6
28.0 40.0 32.0
4.7 32.6 39.5 23.3
12.5 29.2 34.7 23.6
4.0 20.0 38.0 38.0
16.2 32.4 36.0 15.3
8.3 20.8 54.2 16.7
10.2 38.8 30.6 20.4
15.9 36.4 38.6 9.1
14.3 27.4 41.7 16.7
3.8 25.6 30.8 39.7
4.7 20.9 32.6 41.9
10.3 24.1 31.0 34.5
2.0 32.7 42.9 22.4
17.3 36.0 24.0 22.7
9.3 24.3 40.2 26.2
7.2 28.0 41.6 23.1
3.2 29.0 37.6 30.1
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 69
government sectors. The key challenge is to help employees in sectors
and roles with low scores on this factor find meaning, variety, and
challenge in what they do.
Management Practices That Create Interesting and Challenging Work
Having interesting and challenging work is key to employees developing
a sense of accomplishment. organizations with high employee
engagement have an array of practices for cultivating a perception of
interesting and challenging work for their employees.
Provide opportunities for employees to experience new roles and
responsibilities. These do not need to be permanent arrangements.
simply providing the opportunity to expand one’s knowledge and
experience on an interim basis can be enough to increase engagement.
special assignments, job rotation, task forces, and volunteer work
are some examples of how people can expand their horizons. (see
“Enhance Interest in Work Through Role Expansion.”)
Enhance Interest in Work Through Role Expansion
organizations with highly engaged workforces often use job expansion as a
way to increase employee engagement. providing opportunities for employees
to experience new roles on a temporary or trial basis allows for interesting
new challenges, without the need for vertical promotion. At the same time, it
allows them to develop breadth and competencies required to formally advance
over time.
md Financial management uses an internal social media platform to source
talent for new projects. project scope, desired skills, expectations, deliverables,
and timelines are all posted, and interested employees can apply.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 70
Through sick leaves, vacations, and emerging opportunities, employees at
the Western ottawa Community Resource Centre can experience new areas
of the organization through a variety of different roles. For example, during a
community open-house event, a part-time employee working in the children
and youth program took on a significant role in event management.
during short-term absences, employees can be seconded to other agencies
or areas of the organization. Geosoft creates trial periods for roles in which
employees may be interested. For example, a director of marketing was given
a trial period as the Vp of marketing. After a year, the employee formally
succeeded to the role.
Assess job candidates for interest in job responsibilities. When
employees perceive a better fit, they tend to be more engaged. At the
interview stage, include questions related to interest in key job content
and responsibilities. Given a candidate’s skills and experience, hiring
managers should consider to what degree they think the person would
find interest and challenge in their new role. (see “Interest and Challenge
starts With Recruitment.”)
Interest and Challenge Starts With Recruitment
The degree to which an employee will be interested in and challenged with their
work may be determined before they even begin.
At Geosoft, HR has a series of specific questions related to candidates’ past
employment experiences that assess their likelihood of being engaged with their
work. Asking potential employees to explain what they liked, what they loved,
and what they didn’t like in previous positions can help determine if they will be
engaged with their new role at Geosoft.
Western ottawa Community Resource Centre hires with its core values of
empowerment, equity, partnership, and innovation in mind. If candidates convey
an orientation toward these core values during hiring and soon after they start,
they almost always become engaged with their work. As the Resource Centre
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 5 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 71
is an organization with social responsibility built into the fabric of what it does,
many candidates feel drawn to, interested in, and engaged with the work and the
organization—and HR can ensure this is the case by taking employee opinions
and history into account early in the hiring process.
Focus on those with low-middle tenure. Employees with three to
five years of service struggle with challenge and variety in their work
compared to other tenure groups. Actively communicate internal postings
through e-mail or an intranet website. Have employees meet with HR,
managers, and other leaders to determine what they want out of their
jobs and with their future careers. As newer employees master their
new tasks, find ways to deepen or broaden their exposure to other
parts of the organization.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 6
Professional and Personal Growth
Chapter summary
• opportunities for professional and personal growth have the single greatest influence on employees’ likelihood of leaving the organization.
• perception of professional and personal growth opportunities becomes more favourable as employees enter the 10-to-20-years-of-service range.
• non-technical professionals have a significantly higher approval of their growth opportunities compared to technical professionals.
• organizations with high engagement provide opportunities for professional growth and internal promotion.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 73
The “professional and personal growth” factor accounts for 13 per cent of our employee engagement model. (See Exhibit 6.)
This chapter looks at three key areas of our employee engagement
model: opportunities to grow professionally; the perception that career
goals can be achieved; and the sense that a clear career path exists.
The concept goes beyond training to address employee desire for
professional growth, career achievement, and a clear career path
within their organizations. Talent management practices that encourage
professional and personal growth are examined through the lens of our
employee engagement model.
Exhibit 6The Professional and Personal Growth Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Professional andPersonal Growth
I have opportunitiesto grow professionally
within this organization.
My career goalscan be achieved
within this organization.
I can see a clearcareer path for me
within this organization.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 74
Clear Career Path
Having a clear career path means that employees can envision
development, growth, and advancement. When employees believe
that they can reach their career goals, they are less likely to leave.1
(see “Lack of opportunity.”) Conversely, an unclear career path can
undermine employee engagement.
Lack of Opportunity Driving Employees Out the Door
our data show that having opportunities for professional growth is the strongest
predictor of intentions to stay with the organization. Three of the top four drivers
of the “intention to stay” survey question—a key overall engagement question—
were correlated to professional growth. (see Table 4.)
Having a clear career path, opportunities for growth, and the perception
that career goals can be achieved are among the four strongest drivers of
employees’ intention to leave an organization. putting these results into context
with other direct measures of engagement, it becomes clear that different direct
1 IBm, The Value of Training, 10.
Table 4 Strongest Workplace Drivers of Employees Thinking of Leaving the Organization
At the moment, I do not plan on leaving my organization.
driver #1 I can see a clear career path for me within this organization.
driver #2 my career goals can be achieved within this organization.
driver #3 I find my work interesting.
driver #4 I have opportunities to grow professionally within this organization.
Note: These are the top four drivers among all 25 areas in the model for this direct measure of engagement.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 75
measures of engagement have different drivers. pride in and willingness to
recommend the organization, for example, are driven largely by perceptions
of senior leaders. However, it is opportunities for personal and professional
growth that are ultimately the strongest drivers of employees’ intention to leave.
organizations should focus on the group of drivers associated with each direct
measure when looking to influence any one of them.
only 41 per cent of respondents can see a clear career path for
themselves within their organizations—the lowest score of any model
area not related to senior leadership. The degree of clarity perceived by
employees can be influenced by an organization’s size. (see Chart 28.)
Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, the perception
of a clear career path is highest for people in smaller organizations
and gradually decreases with an increase in organizational size. Even
though larger organizations usually have more positions and levels of
management, employees in smaller organizations still perceive a clearer
Chart 28Sense of a Clear Career Path Within the Organization, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
47.9 51.9 4839.2 33.3 31.1 42.9
Number of employees Overall sample (41.3)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 76
career path. This might suggest that employees are not necessarily
perceiving growth in a vertical sense, but instead as opportunities to
expand their knowledge, skills, and value to the organization.
The second finding is that the perception of clear career paths reverses
the pattern of decline in organizations with over 5,000 employees.
This may suggest that employees working in very large organizations
perceive greater opportunity for both vertical and horizontal growth
among different divisions. With larger organizations, more layers of
management provide more prospects for advancement and greater
opportunity to learn about different areas of public service.
Career Goals
The degree to which employees’ goals can be achieved is another area
influencing engagement. Career development has been identified as
one of the stronger drivers of employee engagement.2 The satisfactory
alignment of personal career goals with available opportunity
allows employees to envision their future growth and place within
the organization.
overall, about half of respondents (51 per cent) think their career goals
can be achieved. A look at these data by sector shows differences in
perception. (see Chart 29.)
The data show a sizable difference among levels of government.
It appears that the higher the level of government, the weaker the
perception that career goals can be achieved. seventy per cent of
municipal government respondents feel their career goals can be
achieved within their organization, followed by 57 per cent of provincial
respondents and only 40 per cent of federal respondents.
perceived ability to achieve career goals is relatively low in the private
sector (46 per cent). If high attrition and engagement is a concern,
programs like Career pathways introduced by Loyalty one might help.
2 Hackbarth, Weisser, and Wright, 2014 Employee Engagement Trends Report, 13.
Career development has been identified as one of the stronger drivers of employee engagement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 77
The program emphasizes advancement through skills development and
lateral moves as well as promotions. It was introduced in response to a
desire to enhance the engagement of millennials.3
Opportunity to Learn and Grow
Employees want the opportunity to learn and grow within their
organizations. These opportunities are important for employees and
are a key area linked with engagement.4,5 What’s essential is the
perception of always moving forward. opportunities to grow flow from the
performance management process. managers should be having regular
discussions with employees about their aspirations for advancement as
well as the skills and experience required to succeed.
3 Hawkins, Vellone, and Wright, Workplace Preferences of Millennials and Gen X, 20.
4 BlessingWhite, Employee Engagement Research Update, 2.
5 Aon Hewitt, 2015 Trends in Global Employee Engagement, 24.
Chart 29Employee Perception of Goal Achievability Within Their Organization, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Municipalgovernment
University/hospital/
school board
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Crowncorporation
Privatesector
corporation
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
0
20
40
60
80
100
70.4
59.2 57.1 57.1 56.445.5 40
Sector Overall sample (51.0)
Not-for-profitorganization
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 78
About half of respondents (51 per cent) feel they have opportunities to
learn and grow within their organizations. over time, however, perception
of opportunity changes. (see Chart 30.)
There are two distinct points in the employee life cycle at which
engagement is highest. First, perceived opportunities are highest within
the first year of employment. After the first year, the perception gradually
drops throughout the first decade.
second, perceptions begin to improve at the 10-year mark. Throughout
the second decade of an employee’s tenure (10 to 20 years of service),
the trend is completely reversed. It is during these years that
organizations valuing high potential talent and experience begin to
assess role fit and promote people into roles with greater responsibility.
In addition, the less engaged and weaker performers leave, while
more talented employees are developed. organizations should actively
communicate career opportunities and establish career paths for all
employees—especially those with fewer than 10 years of service.
Chart 30Opportunities for Professional Growth, by Tenure(percentage of respondents; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
< 1 year 1 year to< 3 years
3 years to< 5 years
5 years to< 10 years
10 years to< 15 years
15 years to< 20 years
20 years to< 25 years
25 years orlonger
0
20
40
60
80
100
66.7
53.1 47.7 44 53.858.1
48.3 42.9
Tenure Overall sample (50.5)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 79
Impact of Opportunities for Professional Growth
opportunity for professional growth is a well-established factor that
influences employee engagement. However, this factor has a higher
positive impact for certain segments of the workforce than others.
(see Chart 31.) The factor has higher than average positive impact
in provincial and municipal governments, crown corporations, and
employees in the university, hospital, and school board sectors. Its
impact is also higher than average in organizations with 1,500 or
more employees.
Chart 31Impact of Personal and Professional Growth, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10.4 28.9 38.8 21.8
10.8 33.0 36.4 19.9
17.5 27.5 35.0 20.0
10.2 22.4 40.8 26.5
5.1 30.8 46.2 17.9
21.4 21.4 35.7 21.4
3.7 18.5 51.9 25.9
8.2 28.6 36.7 26.5
11.0 35.6 37.0 16.4
7.4 33.3 40.7 18.5
8.0 24.0 44.0 24.0
11.8 21.6 45.1 21.6
11.1 38.9 38.9 11.1
13.1 23.5 38.8 27.6
10.2 23.5 38.8 27.6
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 80
opportunities to grow tend to have the highest positive impact on
those aged 18 to 34—young employees with significant room to grow.
professional growth also has a high positive impact on non-technical
professionals. (see Chart 32.)
Chart 32Impact of Personal and Professional Growth, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10.4 28.9 38.8 21.8
4.0 24.0 48.0 24.0
5.8 27.9 39.5 26.7
16.7 34.7 40.3 8.3
10.0 19.0 41.0 30.0
11.7 36.0 32.4 19.8
8.3 29.2 45.8 16.7
4.1 38.8 38.8 18.4
15.9 38.6 25.0 20.5
9.5 31.0 34.5 25.0
7.7 25.6 44.9 21.8
16.3 23.3 37.2 23.3
3.4 27.6 48.3 20.7
18.4 20.4 38.8 22.4
4.0 26.7 33.3 36.0
10.3 32.7 34.6 22.4
12.0 30.4 42.4 15.2
14.0 25.8 41.9 18.3
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 81
Employees in the federal government and crown corporations, as well
as professional technical employees and some long-tenured employees,
reported higher than average negative impact on engagement for
this factor.
Management Practices That Nurture Professional and Personal Growth
professional and personal growth is a key factor in our employee
engagement model. In addition, all four areas within the factor are
strong drivers of retention. organizations with high engagement take
internal promotion and advancement seriously—ensuring ample
opportunities are available to their staff. There are several strategies
that organizations can use to engage employees through professional
and personal development.
Create and communicate opportunities for internal growth.
people are increasingly considering external options for career
growth. providing a clear understanding of opportunities for internal
advancement still drives engagement. proactive communication about
how promotions are earned is important. (see “Internal promotion Alive
and Well” and “Case study: Fountain Tire Inc.”)
Enhance the individual aspect of training and development.
organizations have a tendency to tailor their employees’ training and
development activities to the goals of the branch, department, or
company overall. However, a software programmer might like to know
more about human resources. or perhaps a retail associate wishes to
take a course in marketing research. When the organization incorporates
the interests and aspirations of individual employees, employees feel
as though it truly supports and cares about their professional growth,
thereby increasing engagement. (see “professional Growth With a
personal Touch.”)
organizations with high engagement take internal promotion and advancement seriously.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 82
Create a tailored professional development approach for high
performers. High-potential and high-performing employees crave
professional and personal growth opportunities.6 For example, Corus
Entertainment developed a program for identifying, managing, and
developing high-performing and high-potential young talent.
Develop different training and development plans for technical
and non-technical professionals. The data indicate that those in
more technical roles are less satisfied with their opportunities for
professional growth and development compared to non-technical
professionals. people who manage technical employees may not have
a thorough understanding of the needs of each role/employee. people
in technical roles may desire work beyond their narrow technical tasks.
Broadening their roles could help heighten interest in their work and
increase engagement. Conversely, greater emphasis for this group
could be placed on access to development opportunities that allow
them to keep up to date in their field of expertise.
Internal Promotion Alive and Well in Organizations With Highly Engaged Employees
There was a time when career progression was more commonly achieved within
a single organization. However, people will be expecting to grow their skills and
advance in their careers by successive moves through a variety of organizations
and sectors.7 our research suggests, however, that organizations with highly
engaged employees are adopting a greater emphasis on internal promotion.
At Geosoft, most executives have grown with the company. The staff are given
the opportunity to act in progressive roles. For example, Geosoft allowed a
marketing manager to act as Vp of marketing, which ultimately resulted in the
individual assuming the position permanently.
Corus Entertainment has a program for identifying high-potential employees
who are in the early stages of their careers. The program deliberately focuses
6 Gebauer and Lowman, Closing the Engagement Gap, 239.
7 n-gen people performance Inc., Career Expectations, 4.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 6 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 83
on identifying younger talent within the organization. This helps employees
envision a career with progressive opportunities, thereby driving engagement
and retention.
Fountain Tire has a similar model of internal development and promotion. It is
a common occurrence for store owners to have started their careers as tire or
automotive technicians. store owners act as models for career advancement
opportunities, which give employees in a franchise operation a path for
future ownership.
Case Study: Fountain Tire Inc.
Fountain Tire is one of Canada’s premier tire and automotive service retail
networks, with 159 stores spanning the country from Vaughan, ontario, to
Victoria, British Columbia. The company is also a leading provider of tires
and tire-related services to commercial truck fleets and off-road vehicles used
in the oil and gas, mining, construction, and agriculture sectors.
Fountain Tire has seen a significant increase in employee engagement over
the last eight years. Along the way, it has used several key strategies to help
transform the organization:
• Establish benchmarks. When Fountain Tire first conducted employee
engagement research, there was no internal benchmark and its external
benchmarks came from a wide variety of industries and sectors. With the
help of an external provider, external benchmarks specific to the company’s
sector were provided along with a year-over-year internal comparison.
• Focus on the manager. The important influence of managers emerged
from mining the organization’s employee engagement surveys. Training and
development programs tailored specifically to managers were developed
and delivered on an ongoing basis. The organization went to great lengths
to communicate to managers their importance in employee engagement.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 84
• Demonstrate the benefits of engagement with data. Fountain Tire’s
engagement strategy ultimately achieved executive and franchise-owner buy-in
when clear relationships were established between engagement and business
outcomes such as sales and client satisfaction. The same approach was used
to convince managers of their important role in engaging employees.
• Decentralize accountability. Fountain Tire’s partnership model features
ownership at the local level. store managers at each location own 50 per cent of
the store and are responsible for day-to-day operations. Individual store owners/
managers were made accountable for their own store’s level of engagement.
• Establish clear career paths. Fountain Tire has a model of internal promotion
wherein it encourages development for all employees. It is common to have
current store owners who were once tire or automotive technicians.
similar to many other organizations, Fountain Tire decided to focus on
employee engagement due to the belief that engaged employees lead to more
satisfied customers. over the last eight years, the company has seen steady
improvement in financial results, manager performance, and customer retention,
satisfaction, and net promoter scores.
Professional Growth With a Personal Touch
Accommodating individual development goals centred on employee aspirations,
rather than exclusively organizational goals, can enhance employee
engagement. Geosoft gives its employees options. By offering three different
career paths—geography, technology, and other (including corporate services
such as finance and HR)—employees are able to choose the internal career
path that most interests them and aligns with their professional goals.
md Financial management has decentralized its approach to professional
development by allowing employees to own their own development budget.
Employees are provided with a fixed amount to spend as they see fit. This
empowering strategy allows employees to invest their money in training related
to professional growth or, if they so desire, personal enrichment.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 7
Acknowledgement and Recognition
Chapter summary
• All employees, whether senior leaders, managers, or fellow colleagues, can influence engagement by recognizing the achievements of others.
• mid-size organizations have the lowest “acknowledgement and recognition” scores.
• Acknowledgement and recognition is a strong driver of engagement for people with less than one year of service and those working in the retail trade industry.
• Internal social media platforms are enhancing the frequency and decreasing the formality involved in recognizing accomplishments.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 86
“Acknowledgement and recognition” is a key factor of employee engagement—representing nearly 13 per cent of our model. This factor measures the degree to which an employee’s efforts and accomplishments are recognized by colleagues,1 managers,2 and leaders.3
several areas compose this factor, including employees’ perception
that their work is not taken for granted; that their work contributions are
recognized; that their accomplishments are acknowledged; and that they
feel appreciated for the work they do. (see Exhibit 7.)
This chapter explores each of these four areas. demographic trends
and good practices will help paint a clearer picture of how employees
perceive acknowledgement and recognition and how organizations are
addressing this important factor of employee engagement.
1 TInypulse, 2013 TINYpulse Employee Engagement Survey.
2 Towers Watson, Turbocharging Employee Engagement.
3 Aon Hewitt, The Multiplier Effect, 6.
Exhibit 7The Acknowledgement and Recognition Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Acknowledgement& Recognition
The work Ido is not taken
for granted.
My workcontributions tothe organizationare recognized.
Myaccomplishmentsare acknowledged
by leadersand peers.
Overall, I feelappreciated for
the work that I do.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 7 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 87
Taken for Granted
Employees can become disengaged when they feel their work is
taken for granted.4 Leaders and managers should not assume that
acknowledgement is not necessary simply because responsibilities
are included in job descriptions. Being proactive by acknowledging
employees helps foster engagement.
only 47 per cent of respondents feel their work is not taken for granted—
the lowest-rated area within the acknowledgement and recognition factor.
This figure varies significantly by an individual’s length of service. (see
Chart 33.)
4 Byrne, Understanding Employee Engagement, 83.
Chart 33Perception That Work Is Not Taken for Granted, by Tenure(percentage of respondents; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
< 1 year 1 year to< 3 years
3 years to< 5 years
5 years to< 10 years
10 years to< 15 years
15 years to< 20 years
20 years to< 25 years
25 years orlonger
0
20
40
60
80
100
66.7
53.1 40.9 48.8 47.453.5
44.8
30.6
Tenure Overall sample (47.3)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 88
one of the key findings from these data is the relatively low score of
long-tenured employees. Less than a third (31 per cent) of employees
with a tenure of 25 years or more feel that their work is not taken for
granted. With such a long tenure, people might feel their work is taken
for granted, whether or not this is the case. organizations need to
ensure that they are recognizing the contributions of their long-tenured
employees in order to avoid disengaging this knowledgeable and
experienced segment of the workforce.
Recognizing Contributions
Employees contribute much of their time and effort to their work. As
others have pointed out, cash compensation for this contribution is
not enough.5 Recognizing employee contributions shows a genuine
appreciation for their work and helps boost engagement6—especially
when expressed by managers and senior leaders.7
Half of respondents feel their work contributions are recognized. When
only half of people perceive they are recognized for their work, it can
have a sizable negative impact on engagement. This perception differs
greatly among industry sectors. (see Chart 34.)
These data show that recognition is a greater issue for the public sector,
and this may be driven by larger spans of control. While the levels of
government showed significant differences in other areas of our model,
all three levels of government showed a similar trend here and scored
lowest among all sectors. Governments are often large organizations,
and managerial spans of control can be very large. Employees may
not have opportunities to interact with managers and peers. A focus
on having supervisors recognize individual employee contributions
5 Herzberg, “one more Time.”
6 Wright, Measuring What Matters, 5.
7 Wellins, Bernthal, and phelps, Employee Engagement, 2.
Recognizing employee contributions shows a genuine appreciation for their work.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 7 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 89
may be a more realistic approach than having senior leaders take on the
task. The latter, however, can be helpful in recognizing departments or
branches for their work.
Accomplishments Are Acknowledged
There is a difference between recognizing employee contributions
and recognizing accomplishments. Acknowledging accomplishments
means recognizing achievements. While there are definite similarities
between recognizing contributions and accomplishments (both are
included in the acknowledgement and recognition factor, for example),
the former focuses on employee input or effort whereas the latter
focuses on outcomes.
Exactly half of respondents feel their accomplishments are recognized by
leaders and peers. However, this figure differs by level of responsibility.
(see Chart 35.)
Chart 34Employees Feel Their Work Contributions Are Recognized, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Crowncorporation
Privatesector
corporation
University/hospital/
school board
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Municipalgovernment
0
20
40
60
80
100
71.8
57.151.7 51 44.9 40
37
Sector Overall sample (50.2)
organizationNot-for-profit
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 90
Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is little
difference among leaders and non-technical professionals. Executives,
managers, and non-technical professionals all score around the 60 per
cent mark, and non-technical professionals actually score higher than
managers. The accomplishments of senior executives are perceived as
being no more acknowledged than those of individual professionals.
second, there is a significant difference between professional groups
regarding their perceived level of recognition. Technical professionals
(46 per cent) score over 16 per cent lower than non-technical
professionals. In a broad sense, this result may speak to the types
of skills that are valued within organizations. From this we could
conclude that leaders and peers more frequently acknowledge the
accomplishments of non-technical workers, even though they are often
in the same job grade. organizations should assess whether they are
Chart 35Employees Feel Their Accomplishments Are Acknowledged, by Level of Responsibility(percentage of respondents; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Executive Management Professional—non−technical
Professional—technical
Trades, clerical,support, service,and production
0
20
40
60
80
100
6458.1 62
45.8
33.3
Level of responsibility Overall sample (50.0)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 7 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 91
valuing technically skilled employees to the same level as their non-
technical peers—especially given the growing demand for the skills of
technical professionals.8
A Feeling of Appreciation
A feeling of appreciation encompasses elements from the other three
areas within the acknowledgement and recognition factor. Appreciation
is the employee’s perception that the organization genuinely values his
or her work. people who feel appreciated for the work that they do are
more likely to be engaged with their organizations.
nearly 60 per cent (56 per cent) of respondents indicated they feel
appreciated for their work. This is the highest-rated area within the
acknowledgement and recognition factor. However, perception
differed depending on the size of the organization. (see Chart 36.)
8 Vilorio, “sTEm 101.”
Chart 36How Much Employees Feel Appreciated, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
64.4
77.8
48 51 42.6 52.5 58.2
Number of employees Overall sample (55.8)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 92
Employees in smaller organizations feel more appreciated for their
work. This may be due in part to small organizations’ direct line of sight.
Recognition from senior leaders can be more frequent and accessible
within a smaller organization due to fewer degrees of separation between
employees and leaders. Employees are also more likely to perceive
appreciation from customers and other business partners. Employees in
mid-sized organizations feel the least appreciated for their work. These
organizations may be too small to invest in formal recognition programs9
yet too large to rely on the type of ad hoc recognition experienced by
employees in smaller organizations. To improve engagement, carefully
designed recognition programs that accommodate the constraints of
mid-sized organizations are needed.
Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition
The acknowledgment and recognition factor has a greater impact
on some groups of employees than others. Acknowledgment and
recognition has a positive impact on engagement for those with very
short or very long tenures, for older employees, and for those working
for smaller employers. (see charts 37 and 38.)
Higher than average negative impact was reported by federal
government employees and those working in very large organizations.
Feedback has a positive impact and appears to be very important
for new employees (less than one year tenure). Acknowledging
their achievements, and thereby implicitly communicating that
their contributions have made a difference, is highly engaging.
This also appears to be important for those with longer tenure or
within smaller organizations. It may be that line of sight is closer
for employees in small firms. organizations with large workforces
should consider acknowledgement and recognition in their employee
engagement strategy.
9 Garr, The State of Employee Recognition in 2012, 33–34.
The acknowledgement and recognition factor has a greater impact on some groups of employees than others.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 7 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 93
Chart 37Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.9 30.2 37.6 23.4
8.5 31.8 36.4 23.3
20.0 22.5 32.5 25.0
8.2 34.7 30.6 26.5
7.7 25.6 43.6 23.1
7.1 28.6 42.9 21.4
7.4 25.9 55.6 11.1
4.1 32.7 36.7 26.5
6.8 24.7 37.0 31.5
3.7 18.5 48.1 29.6
12.0 16.0 52.0 20.0
3.9 35.3 41.2 19.6
9.3 48.1 27.8 14.8
8.2 29.5 42.6 19.7
14.3 26.5 36.7 22.4
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 94
Chart 38Impact of Acknowledgement and Recognition, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.9 30.2 37.6 23.4
32.0 40.0 28.0
7.0 30.2 41.9 20.9
9.7 23.6 41.7 25.0
9.0 34.0 32.0 25.0
11.7 31.5 36.0 20.7
20.8 45.8 33.3
6.1 24.5 42.9 26.5
9.1 29.5 36.4 25.0
10.7 33.3 28.6 27.4
12.8 32.1 42.3 12.8
9.3 25.6 44.2 20.9
3.4 27.6 37.9 31.0
10.2 36.7 34.7 18.4
9.3 37.3 33.3 20.0
12.1 29.0 36.4 22.4
7.2 30.4 40.0 22.4
7.5 24.7 40.9 26.9
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 7 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 95
Management Practices for Fostering a Culture of Recognition
Acknowledgement and recognition is a key factor within our employee
engagement model. The process of giving and receiving recognition
has been democratized through the use of social media and newer
management practices, including the following:
Going social. The same technology used for social networking
sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook can be used to foster a
culture of recognition. By using a simple, convenient platform,
all employees, regardless of their level of responsibility, can participate
in acknowledging and recognizing their fellow colleagues.10
Democratizing recognition. Through the use of new technology,
traditional models of recognition can be modified. (see “Recognition
From All, For All.”) Employees with less responsibility can acknowledge
the work of managers or anyone else within the organization.
Embedding organizational values when recognizing employees.
publicly acknowledging the achievements of employees offers an
opportunity to reinforce the organization’s core values. Recognition
from senior leaders should include reference to these values.
Valuing frequency over formality. Rather than saving
acknowledgement for formalized occasions or annual performance
reviews, consider recognizing employees’ work regularly and whenever
it is warranted. High-performing employees crave recognition for their
accomplishments and having them wait for a formal review may hinder
their engagement.
10 pang and Cameron, Technology Overview for Employee Recognition and Rewards Software.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 96
Recognition From All, For All
Traditionally, acknowledgement and recognition was given by a manager
and received by an employee. However, the process of acknowledging
and recognizing employees has become democratized through the use
of enterprise software.
md Financial management has adopted a corporate-wide employee
recognition software to enhance its internal Bravo! program. The software
allows for vertical, peer-to-peer, and team recognition using a social media
platform. Human Resources is able to capture key metrics, including most-
recognized employees, highest participation among managers, and what
employees are getting recognized for. Anyone in the organization can
acknowledge another’s work and be acknowledged themselves.
Geosoft uses a similar software. Employees can log in to a centralized
system and provide feedback to managers regarding the exceptional work
of others. Employees are also encouraged to nominate each other for an
annual outstanding achievement award. Both the organization and the software
empower any employee, not just management, to acknowledge the work of
their colleagues.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 8
Relationships With Co-workers
Chapter summary
• Relationships with co-workers can be both personal and professional.
• Teamwork and information sharing form the basis of good relationships with co-workers.
• Relationships serve as a driver for engagement across several, very different industries and service areas.
• A flatter organizational structure and office space conducive to teamwork are key characteristics of organizations with good internal staff relations that contribute to high overall engagement.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 98
The relationships that employees form with their colleagues is an important aspect of engagement.1 It is similar to, yet distinct from, the relationship that employees have with their immediate managers. “Relationships with co-workers” is among the smaller factors, composing roughly 11 per cent of our employee engagement model. Its importance also varies across different sectors and for different employee categories. (See Exhibit 8.)
Team dynamics can be a powerful driver of engagement—especially
engagement related to attachments to the organization. This chapter
examines the concepts of teamwork and information sharing and their
relationship with employee engagement.
1 Anitha, “determinants of Employee Engagement,” 316.
Exhibit 8The Relationships With Co-workers Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
RelationshipsWith Co-workers
In my work group,people work like they
are part of a team.
In my work group,people share
information willingly.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 8 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 99
Teamwork
The ability to work in teams is crucial for today’s employee. While
teamwork has always been important, the increase in project-based
work2 and technology-enabled communications has made working in
teams an essential skill for workers in all fields.
Like other areas within our model, perception is the key when it comes
to teamwork. To what degree do people perceive a strong sense of
teamwork among their co-workers? A stronger sense of teamwork
has been linked to increased employee engagement,3 and employees
are more willing to exert discretionary effort when they feel others are
working with them to accomplish goals.
nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) of respondents feel that their colleagues
work like they are part of a team. This figure differs greatly when looked
at by organizational size. (see Chart 39.)
2 project management Institute, Project Management Talent Gap Report.
3 Alfes and others, Creating an Engaged Workforce, 3.
Chart 39Perception of Teamwork, by Number of Employees(percentage of respondents; n = 389)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
1–49 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–1,499 1,500–5,000 Over 5,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
63
88.9
72 58.8 53.7 63.9 68.4
Number of employees Overall sample (65.3)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 100
Two key findings can be drawn from these data. First, the level of
teamwork is not directly correlated with an organization’s size. These
results show that, in fact, those in the largest organizations (more than
5,000 employees) have a higher approval of their teamwork than those
working for companies of 1 to 49 employees. The many benefits that
come from smaller teams,4 therefore, are not necessarily realized in the
smallest of organizations.
second, there is a significant difference in employees’ perception of
teamwork within the two smaller organizational groups. perception
of teamwork in organizations of 50 to 99 people is nearly 90 per
cent—almost 30 per cent higher than those in organizations of 1 to
49 employees. This result is too significant to occur by chance. It could
be that employees in the very smallest organizations may not have
sizable work groups or teams. Given the proportion of people who
work for smaller organizations, these companies should explore ways
of increasing teamwork that are specific to their organization’s size and
work environment.
Information Sharing
The sharing of information among colleagues is the second key
area within this factor. Information sharing is an important enabler
of communication throughout the organization. Co-workers who
share information willingly are better positioned to build their working
relationships and enhance their personal relationships.
overall, about two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents agree that
people in their work groups share information willingly. This is among
the highest scoring questions within our employee engagement model.
However, not all groups perceive it at the same level. (see Chart 40.)
4 Hoegl, “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork.”
Those in the largest organizations have a higher approval of their teamwork.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 8 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 101
Two main findings can be drawn from these data. First, there is not
a great difference between executives, managers, and non-technical
professionals. It is important to note that this does not imply that people
perceive that information is shared willingly between different levels
(i.e., between executives and professionals). That type of communication
is desired more for transparency, whereas the area being evaluated here
is more around teamwork.
second, technical professionals and those working in trades, clerical,
support, service, and production fields perceive a lower level of
information sharing. For those working in the latter groups, in particular,
open-ended comments showed teamwork as the second-strongest
source of pride in the organization (behind only recognition). An active
approach to sharing information within work groups can improve
engagement through enhanced communication and teamwork.
Chart 40People Share Information Willingly, by Level of Responsibility(percentage of respondents; n = 389)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Executive Management Professional—non-technical
Professional—technical
Trades, clerical,support, service,and production
0
20
40
60
80
100
8072.1 76
63.9 55.9
Level of responsibility Overall sample (67.3)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 102
Where Personal Relationships With Co-workers Impact Engagement
The positive impact that personal relationships with co-workers
has on engagement has somewhat less variation by individual and
organizational demographics groups than most other factors. (see
charts 41 and 42.)
Chart 41Impact of Relationship With Co-workers, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Empoyees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10.4 27.2 40.4 22.1
11.9 27.8 36.9 23.3
7.5 22.5 45.0 25.0
12.2 28.6 36.7 22.4
7.7 30.8 35.9 25.6
7.1 35.7 35.7 21.4
7.4 18.5 59.3 14.8
10.2 26.5 46.9 16.3
8.2 28.8 41.1 21.9
40.7 40.7 18.5
12.0 20.0 44.0 24.0
9.8 35.3 41.2 13.7
18.5 27.8 33.3 20.4
13.1 23.0 47.5 16.4
9.2 22.4 39.8 28.6
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 8 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 103
personal relationships have a higher-than-average “positive” impact
on engagement among people working in very large organizations, as
well as among those with very short and longer tenure. By job category,
it has the highest positive impact for employees in trades, clerical,
support, service, and production.
Chart 42Impact of Relationship With Co-workers, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10.4 27.2 40.4 22.1
4.0 32.0 40.0 24.0
4.7 33.7 39.5 22.1
15.3 25.0 44.4 15.3
7.0 25.0 46.0 22.0
15.3 27.0 31.5 26.1
8.3 33.3 29.2 29.2
14.3 28.6 44.9 12.2
18.2 15.9 36.4 29.5
10.7 26.2 40.5 22.6
1.3 33.3 51.3 14.1
9.3 30.2 39.5 20.9
17.2 27.6 24.1 31.0
12.2 24.5 34.7 28.6
12.0 22.7 42.7 22.7
7.5 29.0 43.9 19.6
12.0 30.4 31.2 26.4
10.8 25.8 45.2 18.3
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 104
Management Practices to Encourage Personal Relationships With Co-workers
personal relationships with co-workers is a smaller but significant factor
in our employee engagement model. There are several strategies
organizations can use to encourage these personal relationships for
increased engagement.
Provide opportunities to network. personal networks have always
been important—and they don’t always consider their “colleagues”
as exclusively those they work with at the same organization.
Encourage team-building events, conference attendance, and
mentorship opportunities.
Flatten organizational structures from a teamwork perspective.
Allow employees to approach and work with people from middle and
upper levels of the organization. doing so will encourage information
sharing and a broader sense of teamwork. There is a limit to the
capacity of vertical teamwork within larger organizations, but maximizing
these opportunities will help engage employees through strengthened
relationships with co-workers. (see “open to Teamwork.”)
Open to Teamwork
The structure and internal policy of an organization can go a long way in
promoting the sharing of ideas and collaboration. northleaf Capital’s flat
organizational structure allows the organization to operate as a cohesive team
where the sharing of knowledge and information across all departments is highly
encouraged and respected. A transparent top-down communication and open
door policy from senior management provides and reinforces a one-team culture
that is supportive, challenging, and engaging.
After a period of rapid growth, the company proactively focused on identifying
and bridging knowledge and communication gaps. Cross-training, inclusive work
sessions, and ensuring employees have an understanding of how different roles
(i.e., financial services and operations) contribute to the organization’s success
were positive exercises for all areas of the business.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 8 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 105
Design workspace conducive to teamwork. The physical work
environment is key in facilitating collaborative teamwork,5 and new
designs in open concept office space are becoming the norm. (see
“Remodelling Corus Quay.”)
Remodelling Corus Quay
Corus Entertainment is an integrated media and content company with
operations in both radio and television. With a focus on kids and family
programming, Corus owns such recognizable brands as The Cartoon network,
nickelodeon (Canada), TELEToon, yTV, W network, disney Channel, oWn:
The oprah Winfrey network, and ABC spark.
Through a biannual survey, Corus has identified several drivers of employee
engagement. The organization has defined engagement, in part, by pride in
the company and affinity with its key core values. one of the strongest drivers
is teamwork. In an industry that is based heavily on creative work, the ability
to work collaboratively is essential. The construction of a new building has had
the single greatest effect on employee collaboration. In 2010, the company’s
headquarters in Toronto, known as Corus Quay, were completely remodelled.
open concept design, impromptu meeting spaces, and an abundance of
natural light have all had a strong influence on teamwork. To inject a little fun,
Corus constructed a three-storey slide where employees exit into an employee
lounge area.
Another area of focus for the company is professional growth. Using an
extensive curriculum known as Corus U, certain professional development
strategies are segmented by level of responsibility. The first, known as
presidents Council, is a development stream tailored to senior leaders. The
second, the Accelerator program, targets younger emerging leaders with
12 months of training and development geared to leadership development.
The third is the mentorship program, which is designed to help others learn
about jobs they may find of interest through a mentor.
5 Augustin and Brand, Impact of the Physical Environment on Knowledge Worker Performance.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 106
At Corus, a focus on employee engagement is driven by the belief that engaged
employees help deliver superior business results. The organization establishes
accountability among senior lenders for core values and rewards positive
behaviour—encouraging engagement from the top down as well as from the
bottom up.
An organization does not need to completely remodel its interior space
to see results. Flexible workspaces, functional meeting areas, and
an abundance of natural light have helped organizations with high
engagement foster relationships among employees at work. (see
“spatial Factors of Engagement.”)
Spatial Factors of Engagement
In 2011, md Financial management’s head office, located in ottawa, suffered a
devastating fire that rendered the building unfit for employees. The organization
found opportunity in misfortune. The building’s interior was completely renovated
and remodelled. noise-reducing white noise was created throughout the
building; corner offices for executives were abandoned in favour of collaborative
workspaces; and the entire building was designed to create an environment
conducive to teamwork and collaboration.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 9
Autonomy
Chapter summary
• A focus on outcomes and the rise of “intrapreneurship” are driving employees’ desire for greater workplace autonomy.
• “Autonomy” is a key driver of engagement for jobs with a high degree of knowledge work (i.e., education and not-for-profit sectors).
• Flexible/remote work options and a focus on outcomes over process are creating an environment for employees to assume greater autonomy over their work.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 108
The nature of work is changing. Enabled by technology and fuelled by the growing concept of “intrapreneurship,”1 employees’ ability to manage and conduct their own work is becoming an important element of engagement.2,3
“Autonomy” is one of the smaller, but significant, factors in our employee
engagement model. It accounts for 10 per cent of the overall model
and includes two main areas: having control over how work gets done
and having a say in setting performance goals and objectives. (see
Exhibit 9.)
1 Kraus, “The state-of-the-Art of Corporate Entrepreneurship Research.”
2 mathis, “strategies for Employee Engagement,” 36.
3 Towers perrin, Working Today, 14–15.
Exhibit 9The Autonomy Factor
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Autonomy
I have controlover how my
work gets done.
I have a say insetting my performancegoals and objectives.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 9 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 109
In this chapter, we explore these two critical elements of employee
engagement. How they differ across demographic groups and
sectors and how organizations are encouraging an autonomous work
environment will lead to a clearer understanding of good practices.
Controlling How Work Gets Done
Employees are more engaged with their work when they can control how
it is done. The ability to control one’s environment is one of the reasons
more senior employees have higher engagement. Even though employee
performance outcomes may be set at the managerial or even the
executive level, employees will develop a heightened sense of ownership
if they have input into how the work is carried out. This includes things
like flexible work arrangements4 as well as the freedom to adapt how
work is done, shifting the focus to outcomes from things like face time.
The availability of telework, flex-time, and part-time scheduling options
have been linked to higher employee engagement.5
over 70 per cent (72 per cent) of respondents in our sample said that
they have control over how their work gets done—the higher of the
two areas within the autonomy factor and the third-highest-rated area
within our employee engagement model. The degree of control that
employees have over their work differs most by sector. (see Chart 43.)
people working for universities, hospitals, school boards, and not-for-
profit organizations perceive the greatest control over how their work is
done. Two of these groups are related to education—a field involving
a high degree of knowledge work, independence, and research.
With research comes the freedom to design and conduct projects as
researchers see fit—an ethical necessity in many cases.
Employees working for the federal and municipal governments have
the least control over their work. public service workers have a lesser
degree of freedom due to policy constraints, the political nature of
4 WorldatWork, Survey on Workplace Flexibility 2013, 30.
5 Ibid., 9.
Employees are more engaged with their work when they can control how it is done.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 110
decision-making, and a higher overlay of bureaucracy or internal
processes governing their work. For the public sector, the challenge is
to find a way to allow employees within segments where autonomy is an
important driver to have greater control over how their work is done while
at the same time complying with the internal process.
Input in Setting Performance Objectives
Employees generally want to have a say in setting their performance
objectives and are more engaged when they work with their managers
to set these goals.6 Bestowing performance objectives upon employees
from above without consultation gives the impression that they are
unable to influence their own expectations, thereby reducing the
perception of autonomy. This creates a feeling of powerlessness and
reliance on others.
6 Gallup, State of the American Manager, 20.
Chart 43Sense of Control Over How Work Gets Done, by Sector(percentage of respondents; n = 394)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
University/hospital/
schoolboard
Not-for-profitorganization
Provincialgovernmentdepartment/
agency
Crowncorporation
Privatesector
corporation
Municipalgovernment
Federalgovernmentdepartment/
agency
0
20
40
60
80
10083.7
76.9 73.5 71.4 70.5 63.0 62.5
Sector Overall sample (71.8)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 9 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 111
overall, 59 per cent of respondents to our survey indicated that
they have a say in setting their performance objectives. Looking at
demographic trends, gender emerges as a key variable. (see Chart 44.)
Women are more likely than men to feel they have a say in setting
their performance goals and objectives. A closer examination of the
data indicates this result may be due to the types of roles that men
and women are likely to assume. According to our data, men are more
likely to work in the skilled trades and private sector. Women, on the
other hand, are more likely to work in the education and not-for-profit
sectors—areas with a greater degree of autonomy. Regardless of
demographics, there is still a significant difference between men and
women, and organizations need to better understand these differences
in order to involve employees in setting goals and objectives to the
extent that it is possible and perceived as meaningful.
Chart 44Perception of Input In Setting Goals and Objectives, by Gender(percentage of respondents; n = 400)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
100
26 21
53
18 17.5
64.5
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 112
Impact of Autonomy on Engagement
Autonomy has the highest positive impact on engagement for employees
in the not-for-profit and provincial government sectors, followed by the
university, hospital, and school boards category. (see charts 45 and 46.)
These are sectors that employ a high proportion of professionals and
knowledge workers who have high levels of independence and personal
discretion. Autonomy is clearly valued by these employees. Lack of
Chart 45Impact of Employees’ Level of Autonomy in Their Work, by Demographic Group(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
5,000+
1,500 to 5,000
500 to 1,499
200 to 499
100 to 199
50 to 99
1 to 49
Number of Employees
University/hospital/school board
Municipal government
Crown corporation
Not-for-profit organization
Provincial government department/agency
Federal government department/agency
Private sector corporation
Industry Sector
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.9 26.6 42.4 22.1
8.5 28.4 43.2 19.9
10.0 32.5 45.0 12.5
12.2 22.4 34.7 30.6
5.1 17.9 46.2 30.8
14.3 21.4 50.0 14.3
11.1 40.7 33.3 14.8
6.1 20.4 44.9 28.6
4.1 27.4 42.6 26.0
3.7 29.6 37.0 29.6
4.0 24.0 44.0 28.0
2.0 33.3 51.0 13.7
7.4 27.8 35.2 29.6
11.5 24.6 42.6 21.3
18.4 21.4 42.9 17.3
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 9 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 113
autonomy appears to have a more negative or somewhat negative
impact in the municipal sector. patterns in other demographic categories
are not distinct.
Chart 46Impact of Employees’ Level of Autonomy in Their Work, by Demographic Group (cont’d)(per cent)
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
55+
45−54
35−44
18−34
Employee Age
25 years or longer
20 years to < 25 years
15 years to < 20 years
10 years to < 15 years
5 years to < 10 years
3 years to < 5 years
1 year to < 3 years
< 1 year
Employee Tenure
Trades, clerical, support, service, and production
Professional−non-technical
Professional−technical
Management
Executives
Employee Level
Overall sample
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8.9 26.6 42.4 22.1
20.0 44.0 36.0
8.1 23.3 48.8 19.8
8.3 26.4 38.9 26.4
12.0 23.0 41.0 24.0
9.0 32.4 40.5 18.0
4.2 33.3 29.2 33.3
6.1 32.7 42.9 18.4
11.4 18.2 47.7 22.7
15.5 21.4 35.7 27.4
5.1 33.3 43.6 17.9
9.3 25.6 46.5 18.6
10.3 24.1 58.6 6.9
6.1 22.4 40.8 30.6
9.3 24.0 46.7 20.0
9.3 30.8 36.4 23.4
10.4 24.8 41.6 23.2
6.5 24.7 47.3 21.5
Negative impact
Somewhat negative impact
Somewhat positive impact
Positive impact
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 114
Management Practices to Encourage an Autonomous Working Environment
Autonomy is among the smaller, but significant, factors in our
employee engagement model. There are several ways organizations
can encourage an autonomous working environment, most of which
touch on job design:
Include employees in setting goals and objectives. Employees’
involvement in setting their goals and objectives supports an engaging
work environment. Inclusion is crucial when establishing formal goals
set by the organization, such as those decided upon through the formal
performance management process.
Allow for flexible work arrangements. Technology has evolved to
enable employees in many occupational areas to work off-site—and
employers should do the same. If possible, allow employees to work
from home or on a modified schedule. (see “The new office Is
Anywhere.”) such arrangements have shown many benefits7,8 and
can increase engagement and productivity and encourage a healthy
work-life balance.
The New Office Is Anywhere
Empowering employees to choose where they work has been a growing trend.
organizations are looking to influence engagement by empowering employees
to work when and where they wish. At Geosoft, almost all employees work
from home at least one day a week. The director of HR, for example, usually
works from home four days a week. one employee from Eastern Europe was
able to work from her home country during the summer when her kids were off
from school.
7 Richman, noble, and Johnson, When the Workplace Is Many Places, 16.
8 Bloom and others, “does Working From Home Work?” 207.
Inclusion is crucial when establishing formal goals set by the organization.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 9 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 115
After md Financial management’s fire incident, there was an extensive period
when people were forced to work off-site. over the course of a year, the
organization helped employees set up functional home offices. Upon reopening
the head office, both managers and employees were comfortable with work-
at-home and alternative work arrangements—and employee engagement has
never been higher.
Manage outcomes, not process. “manager surveillance,” akin to
micromanagement, can serve to disengage employees.9 By focusing
on outcomes, employees are empowered to determine how they are
achieved. (see “productivity over process.”) While certain organizational
processes need to be followed, relaxing those that inhibit people from
performing to the best of their ability will create a sense of ownership
over their work and boost engagement.
Productivity Over Process
organizations in our report that focus on outcomes over process are
experiencing high levels of employee engagement. md Financial management
encourages managers to focus on results—not process or face time. This
requires a high level of trust between manager and employee. managers need
to provide extra clarity around expectations and deliverables, and it is up to
employees to achieve these objectives.
similarly, managers at Geosoft are encouraged to take a hands-off approach
to management. In the company’s experience, new managers tend to be a
little more micro—usually driven by a desire to ensure the work is up to their
own standards. managers are coached to remove the “how” from their style of
management, instead focusing on the “what” in terms of outcomes.
9 Jensen and Raver, “When self-management and surveillance Collide.”
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca.
CHAPTER 10
Conclusion
Chapter summary
• At a time of increased employee mobility, decreased employee loyalty, and a focus on maximizing the value of human capital, an engaged workforce can be the key to unlocking greater retention, higher performance, and superior business outcomes.
• Leadership—at both the management and executive levels—has the greatest impact on employee engagement.
• Employee demographics play a large role in determining employee engagement levels, and strategies should be developed with the preferences of key job families and demographics in mind.
• organizations with highly engaged employees are addressing the workplace factors in The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model.
• Investing in leadership training, encouraging personal and professional growth, and interesting work that allows employees some flexibility and control over how work gets done are among strategies and practices that foster engagement.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 10 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 117
Employee engagement is among the most important people metrics that organizations can measure. What began as an attempt to measure how happy people were with their jobs has developed into a robust, scientifically driven, multi-million dollar industry. At a time of increased employee mobility, decreased employee loyalty, and a focus on maximizing the value of human capital, an engaged workforce can be the key to unlocking greater retention, higher performance, and superior business outcomes.
The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model has
helped establish a set of factors that influence engagement. nurturing
a work environment and practices that positively “nudge” these factors
will increase engagement. Through detailed analysis, we have confirmed
that the factors presented in this model apply to employees in various
positions, industries, and sectors. While some factors may have a
greater influence for certain segments of employees, each of the seven
factors influences engagement to some degree for all. The following are
the main findings from our research:
• Senior leaders are a growing factor in engagement. While senior
leaders have always played a significant role in employee engagement,
their influence relative to middle management has increased.
• Only about a quarter of employees are engaged. By investing
in management and workplace practices that positively nudge the
seven factors influencing engagement, Canadian organizations
will improve employee retention, performance, and other important
business outcomes.
• Demographics play a substantial role in determining the
importance of workplace factors. not all employees are influenced
equally by the same workplace factors. For example, what is an
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 118
influential factor for educators may not be as influential for health care
workers. Technical and non-technical professionals exhibit significant
differences in strengths of different engagement drivers.
• The direct measures of engagement are each influenced by
different workplace factors. Questions to do with pride, sense of
accomplishment, and intention to leave all have different drivers from
the employee engagement model, which means they are driven by
different characteristics of the work environment.
Related to these findings, and informed by organizational strategies
from our case studies, are the following overall good practices identified
through our research:
• Invest in leadership training. This includes leadership development for
all levels of management, from supervisors to CEos. Understand where
each level of management can play a role, such as in recognition, work
design, or involvement in decision-making, and target training toward
these areas.
• Decentralize accountability for employee engagement. Engagement
strategies are most successful when Human Resources is not the
only part of the business held accountable for results. Build formal
accountability for engagement into performance plans for leaders at
the Vp and middle-management levels.
• Strive to make work interesting and challenging. managers, in
collaboration with their direct reports, should find ways to make work
more interesting and challenging. Find out where employees’ interests
and ambitions lie and try to design work that can add some of these
elements into their established responsibilities.
• Encourage personal and professional growth. people want to feel a
sense of forward progression with their careers. When individuals believe
they are growing, they become more engaged with their organizations.
• Foster an autonomous work environment. Where possible, allow
employees the flexibility to choose how and where their work is done.
Flexible work arrangements and input into decisions that affect their
work become possible when clear outcomes are established.
people want to feel a sense of forward progression with their careers.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Chapter 10 | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 119
• Make acknowledgement and recognition a priority. Enterprise
software has made it possible for employees at any level to recognize
the contributions of their colleagues. Anecdotal reports from
organizations suggest that using this technology has noticeable effects
on culture. Employee engagement can be influenced by incorporating
this technology as part of a broader recognition strategy.
We have clarified the importance of different workplace factors affecting
engagement. The increasing importance of senior leaders should cause
organizations to re-evaluate their relative influence related to employees’
sense of pride in and willingness to recommend their organizations. If
attrition and turnover are of greatest concern, lack of professional growth
opportunities may be a factor. And, that feeling of accomplishment that is
so closely linked to engagement can be achieved by increasing the level
of interest and challenge in employees’ work.
The current state of employee engagement presents many challenges
for organizations. Engagement has remained stubbornly low for over five
years, and Canada’s sluggish economy has added an uncertain external
dynamic to organizations’ efforts to boost engagement. only those
with a serious commitment to and sound understanding of employee
engagement will reap its full rewards.
Tell us how we’re doing—rate this publication.
www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?did=7924
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 120
APPENDIX A
Bibliography
Abraham, susan. “Job satisfaction as an Antecedent to Employee
Engagement.” SIES Journal of Management 8, no. 2 (2012): 27–36.
Adp Research Institute. Employee Satisfaction vs. Employee
Engagement: Are They the Same Thing? Adp Research Institute, 2012.
Alfes, Kerstin, Catherine Truss, Emma C. soane, Chris Rees, and mark
Gatenby. Creating an Engaged Workforce. London: Chartered Institute
of personnel and development, 2010.
Amabile, Teresa, and steven Kramer. The Progress Principle. Boston:
Harvard Business press, 2011.
Anitha, J. “determinants of Employee Engagement and Their Impact
on Employee performance.” International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 63, no. 3 (2014): 308–23.
Aon Hewitt. 2013 Trends in Global Employee Engagement: Report
Highlights. Lincolnshire: Aon Hewitt, 2013.
—. 2014 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Lincolnshire:
Aon Hewitt, 2014.
—. 2015 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Lincolnshire:
Aon Hewitt, 2015.
—. The Multiplier Effect: Insights Into How Senior Leaders Drive
Employee Engagement Higher. Lincolnshire: Aon Hewitt, 2012.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Ronald H. Humphrey. “Emotion in the Workplace:
A Reappraisal.” Human Relations 48, no. 2 (1995): 97–125.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 121
Appendix A | The Conference Board of Canada
Augustin, sally, and Jay L. Brand. Impact of the Physical Environment
on Knowledge Worker Performance. Holland: Haworth, 2011.
BlessingWhite. Employee Engagement Report 2011. princeton:
BlessingWhite, 2011.
—. Employee Engagement Research Update. princeton:
BlessingWhite, 2013.
Bloom, nicholas, James Liang, John Roberts, and Zhichun Jenny
ying. “does Working From Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese
Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, no. 1 (2015):
165–218.
Brett, Joan F., and Leanne E. Atwater. “360° Feedback: Accuracy,
Reactions, and perceptions of Usefulness.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 86, no. 5 (2001): 930–42.
Buckingham, marcus, and Curt Coffman. First, Break All the Rules:
What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. new york:
simon & schuster, 1999.
Byrne, Zinta s. Understanding Employee Engagement: Theory,
Research, and Practice. new york: Routledge, 2015.
Christian, michael s., Adela s. Garza, and Jerel E. slaughter.
“Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of Its Relations
With Task and Contextual performance.” Personnel Psychology 64, no. 1
(2011): 89–136.
Cone. The Millennial Generation: Pro-Social and Empowered to Change
the World. Boston: Cone Inc., 2006.
Forum. Driving Business Results by Building Trust. Boston: Forum
Corporation, 2013.
Gallup. State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for
Leaders. Washington: Gallup, 2015.
Garr, stacia sherman. The State of Employee Recognition in 2012.
oakland: deloitte, 2012.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 122
Gebauer, Julie, and don Lowman. Closing the Engagement Gap:
How Great Companies Unlock Employee Potential for Superior Results.
new york: portfolio, 2008.
Gibbons, John. Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research
and Its Implications. new york: The Conference Board Inc., 2006.
Gibbons, John, and Russell schutt. A Global Barometer for Measuring
Employee Engagement. new york: The Conference Board Inc., 2009.
Gourlay, stephen, Kerstin Alfes, Elaine Bull, sunitha narendran, Georgy
petrov, and Amanda shantz. Locus of Engagement: Understanding
What Employees Connect With at Work. Wimbledon: Chartered Institute
of personnel and development, 2011.
Gross, Rob. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee
Engagement: Making the Connection. Toronto: mandrake, 2010.
Hackbarth, natalie, dan Harris, and Hilary Wright. 2015 Employee
Engagement Trends Report. omaha: Quantum Workplace, 2015.
Hackbarth, natalie, david Weisser, and Hilary Wright. 2014 Employee
Engagement Trends Report. omaha: Quantum Workplace, 2014.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. oldham. “motivation Through the
design of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 16, no. 2 (1976): 250–79.
Harter, James K., Frank L. schmidt, sangeeta Agrawal, and stephanie
K. plowman. The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and
Organizational Outcomes: 2012 Q12 Meta-Analysis. Washington: Gallup
Inc., 2013.
Harvard Business Review Analytic services. Frontline Managers: Are
They Given the Leadership Tools to Succeed? Boston: Harvard Business
school publishing, 2014.
Hawkins, naoko, Jane Vellone, and Ruth Wright. Workplace Preferences
of Millennials and Gen X: Attracting and Retaining the 2020 Workforce.
ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2014.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 123
Appendix A | The Conference Board of Canada
Herzberg, Frederick. “one more Time: How do you motivate
Employees?” Harvard Business Review 46, no. 1 (1968): 53–62.
Hoegl, martin. “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork: How to Keep project
Teams small.” Business Horizons 48 (2005): 209–14.
Hoppock, Robert. Job Satisfaction. new york: Harper, 1935.
IBm. The Value of Training. Armonk, ny: IBm, 2014.
Ipsos Loyalty. Build a Better Workplace: Employee Engagement Edition.
Toronto: Ipsos, 2012.
Jensen, Jaclyn m., and Jana L. Raver. “When self-management and
surveillance Collide: Consequences for Employees’ organizational
Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behaviors.” Group &
Organization Management 37, no. 3 (2012): 308–46.
Kahn, William. “psychological Conditions of personal Engagement and
disengagement at Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 4
(1990): 692–724.
Kowske, Brenda. Employee Engagement: Market Review, Buyer’s Guide
and Provider Profiles. oakland: Bersin by deloitte, 2012.
Kraus, sascha. “The state-of-the-Art of Corporate Entrepreneurship
Research: A Citation Analysis.” International Journal of Strategic
Management 11, no. 1 (2011).
Latham, Gary p. “The motivational Benefits of Goal-setting.” Academy
of Management Executive 18, no. 4 (2004): 126–29.
Lewis, Gregory B., and sue A. Frank. “Who Wants to Work for the
Government?” Public Administration Review 62, no. 4 (2002): 395–404.
Locke, Edwin A. “The nature and Causes of Job satisfaction.” In
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. marvin d.
dunnette, 1297–1349. Chicago: Rand mcnally, 1976.
Loegl, martin. “smaller Teams—Better Teamwork: How to Keep project
Teams small.” Business Horizons 48 (2005): 209–14.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 124
martin, Heidi, Ruth Wright, and Allison Cowan. Human Resources
Trends and Metrics: HR Measurement Benchmarking, Third Edition.
ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2014.
mathis, Terry L. “strategies for Employee Engagement.” Industry Week
262, no. 11 (2013): 34–36.
miller, Thomas W., Bruce C. ogilvie, and Janet Branch. “sport
psychology Consultation: The Influence of Gender on Learning style.”
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 60, no. 3 (2008):
279–85.
nakamura, Jeanne, and mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. “Flow Theory and
Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, eds. s.
Lopez and C.R. snyder, 195–206. oxford: oxford University press, 2009.
net Impact. Undergraduate Perspectives: The Business of Changing the
World. san Francisco: net Impact, 2010.
n-gen people performance Inc. Career Expectations: n-gen Generational
Index Report. Toronto: n-gen people performance Inc., 2009.
orgambidez-Ramos, Alejandro, yolanda Borrego-Alés, and Isabel
mendoza-sierra. “Role stress and Work Engagement as Antecedents of
Job satisfaction in spanish Workers.” Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management 7, no. 1 (2014): 360–72.
pang, Chris, and yvette Cameron. Technology Overview for Employee
Recognition and Rewards Software. stamford: Gartner, 2015.
pett, marjorie A., nancy R. Lackey, and John J. sullivan. Making
Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument
Development in Health Care Research. Thousand oaks: sage, 2003.
pink, daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.
new york: Riverhead Books, 2009.
project management Institute. Project Management Talent Gap Report.
newtown square: project management Institute, 2013.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 125
Appendix A | The Conference Board of Canada
Rayton, Bruce, Tanith dodge, and Gillian d’Analeze. Employee
Engagement: The Evidence. Bath: Engage for success, 2012.
Richman, Amy, Karen noble, and Arlene Johnson. When the Workplace
Is Many Places: The Extent and Nature of Off-Site Work Today.
Watertown: WFd Consulting Inc., 2002.
Robinson, dilys, sarah perryman, and sue Hayday. The Drivers
of Employee Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment
studies, 2004.
Royal, mark, and Juran yoon. “Engagement and Enablement: The Key
to Higher Levels of Individual and organizational performance.” Journal
of Compensation and Benefits 25, no. 5 (2009): 13–19.
Ryan, Richard m., and Edward L. deci. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic
motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.” Contemporary
Educational Psychology 25 (2000): 54–67.
saks, Alan m. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
Engagement.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, no. 7 (2006):
600–19.
saks, Alan m., and Jamie A. Gruman. “What do We Really Know About
Employee Engagement?” Human Resource Development Quarterly 25,
no. 2 (2014): 155–82.
schaufeli, Wilmar B., marisa salanova, Vicente González-Romá, and
Arnold B. Bakker. “The measurement of Engagement and Burnout:
A Two-sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of
Happiness Studies 3, no. 1 (2002): 71–92.
society for Human Resource management. 2012 Employee Job
Satisfaction and Engagement: How Employees Are Dealing
With Uncertainty. Alexandria: society for Human Resource
management, 2012.
Thomas, Christopher. A New Measurement Scale for Employee
Engagement: Scale Development, Pilot Test, and Replication. deKalb:
Academy of management Annual meeting proceedings, 2007.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 126
TInypulse. 2013 TINYpulse Employee Engagement Survey. 2013.
http://tinyserver.info/resources/employee-engagement-survey-2013
(accessed February 22, 2016).
Towers perrin. Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee
Engagement. new york: Towers perrin, 2003.
Towers Watson. Turbocharging Employee Engagement: The Power
of Recognition From Managers. new york: Towers Watson, 2010.
Vilorio, dennis. “sTEm 101: Intro to Tomorrow’s Jobs.” Occupational
Outlook Quarterly 58, no. 1 (2014): 2–12.
Wellins, Richard s., paul Bernthal, and mark phelps. Employee
Engagement: The Key to Realizing Competitive Advantage. pittsburgh:
development dimensions International, 2005.
WorldatWork. Survey on Workplace Flexibility 2013. scottsdale:
WorldatWork, 2013.
Wright, Ruth. Measuring What Matters: People Drive Value. ottawa:
The Conference Board of Canada, 2004.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Appendix B | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 127
APPENDIX B
Detailed Methodology
The research design used in this report incorporated both quantitative
and qualitative methodologies. This appendix provides additional
detail on the specific methodologies used to design the employee
questionnaire; obtain the employee sample; create The Conference
Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement model; identify the direct
measures of engagement; and perform the executive interviews for the
case studies.
Employee Questionnaire
The employee questionnaire was created in order to collect data on
workplace perceptions of Canadian employees. First, a literature review
was conducted on over 100 pieces of research that identified workplace
drivers of employee engagement. These drivers were then categorized
based on workplace areas such as professional growth, autonomy, and
professional relationships. The resulting group of categories formed the
theoretical factor model that would be used to ground the creation of the
questionnaire and factor analysis.
Key terms related to each of these factors were identified and used
to create survey questions. The question structure of Talentmap’s
employee engagement questionnaire was used to help guide the writing
of these questions. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 128
employees’ perceptions with each of the workplace areas. Individual and
organizational demographic questions were included in order to perform
aggregated data analysis.
Sampling
A random sample of 400 people from a panel of Canadian employees
served as the response base for the research. A representative cross-
section of employees from various industries, lengths of service, and
other key variables was sampled for and achieved.
Direct Measures of Engagement
The scale comprising four direct measures of engagement yielded
strong internal consistency with a Chronbach’s α of 0.825. The strongest
workplace drivers for three of the four direct measures were determined
using the pearson correlation coefficient. “At the moment, I do not
plan on leaving my organization” was the only measure that used the
spearman rho coefficient due to issues with normality.
Factor Modelling
A confirmatory factor analysis was used to create The Conference Board
of Canada’s Employee Engagement model. Twenty-five of the original
33 variables were included in the final model. The Kaiser-meyer-olkin
measure of sampling Adequacy was 0.930. The approximate chi-square
value for Bartlett’s Test of sphericity showed significant relationships
among the variables in the factor analysis (X2 = 19334.492, n = 400,
p < 0.001). Factors were extracted using principal components and
rotated using the varimax method. Factor scores were saved as
variables using the regression method. These factor scores were divided
into quartiles, and the top quartile among all factor scores was used to
indicate that a factor had a “high impact” on that specific group of cases.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 129
Appendix B | The Conference Board of Canada
Qualitative Interviews
The six in-depth interview participants were selected from Talentmap’s
benchmark database. Four organizations with sustained high
engagement scores and two with a trended increase in engagement
scores were selected to participate. one-hour interviews with each
of the six participants focused on strategy, measurement, practices,
and outcomes related to employee engagement. The interviews were
recorded to improve the quality of the analysis. Within-case and cross-
case analysis identified themes related to good practices.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmployEE EngagEmEntleveraging the Science to Inspire great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 130
APPENDIX C
Survey Respondent Profiletable 1The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)
Number Percentage*
Length of service
< 1 year 24 6.0
1 year to < 3 years 49 12.3
3 years to < 5 years 44 11.0
5 years to < 10 years 84 21.0
10 years to < 15 years 78 19.5
15 years to < 20 years 43 10.8
20 years to < 25 years 29 7.2
25 years + 49 12.3
Total 400 100
Number of employees
1–49 73 18.8
50–99 27 6.9
100–199 25 6.4
200–499 51 13.1
500–1,499 54 13.9
1,500–5,000 61 15.7
> 5,000 98 25.2
Total 400 100
(continued …)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 131
appendix C | the Conference Board of Canada
Number Percentage*
Region
maritimes 46 11.5
Quebec 14 3.5
ontario 186 46.5
prairies 90 22.5
British Columbia 61 15.3
territories 3 0.8
Total 400 100
Functional area
administration 46 11.5
Finance 24 6.0
Human resources 13 3.3
Information technology 21 5.3
legal 3 0.8
occupational health, safety, and wellness 8 2.0
operations 93 23.3
Sales 19 4.8
marketing 9 2.3
Customer relations 27 6.8
Research and development 30 7.5
Education 28 7.0
Engineering 14 3.5
Communications 7 1.8
Health care 16 4.0
policy 7 1.8
other 35 8.8
Total 400 100
table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmployEE EngagEmEntleveraging the Science to Inspire great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 132
table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)
Number Percentage*
Sector
private sector corporation 176 44.0
Federal government department/agency 40 10.0
provincial government department/agency 49 12.3
not-for-profit organization 39 9.8
Crown corporation 14 3.5
municipal government 27 6.8
University/hospitals/school board 49 12.3
other 6 1.5
Total 400 100
Gender
male 200 50.0
Female 200 50.0
Total 400 100
Age
18–34 75 18.8
35–44 107 26.8
45–54 125 31.3
55+ 93 23.3
Total 400 100
(continued …)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 133
appendix C | the Conference Board of Canada
Number Percentage*
Level of responsibility
Executive 25 6.3
management 86 21.5
professional—technical 72 18.0
professional—non-technical 100 25.0
trades, clerical, support, service, and production
111 27.8
other 6 1.5
Total 400 100
Industry
natural resources, excluding oil and gas 8 2.0
oil and gas 12 3.0
manufacturing 27 6.8
Food, beverage, and tobacco products 11 2.8
Chemical, pharmaceutical, and allied products 3 0.8
Construction 17 4.3
High technology 10 2.5
Communications and telecommunications 15 3.8
transportation and utilities 17 4.3
Finance and insurance 10 2.5
Real estate 6 1.5
(continued …)
table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 134
Table 1 (cont’d)The Conference Board of Canada Employee Engagement Survey Respondent Profile(n = 400)
Number Percentage*
Wholesale trade 9 2.3
Retail trade 21 5.3
Education 49 12.3
Health 31 7.8
Government 88 22.0
not-for-profit 23 5.8
services—accommodation, food, personal 5 1.3
services—professional, scientific, technical 20 5.0
other 18 4.5
Total 400 100
*Some percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Appendix d | The Conference Board of Canada
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 135
APPENDIX D
TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile Table 1 TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile (per cent)
Percentage*
Age (n = 119,306)
Under 25 4.9
25–34 24.5
35–44 29.4
45–54 27.9
55+ 13.3
Length of service (n = 106,806)
Under 1 year 15.0
1–3 years 21.2
3–5 years 14.3
5–10 years 21.3
over 10 years 28.1
Level of responsibility (n = 70,591)
senior executive 4.8
manager 17.8
Individual contributor 77.4
(continued …)
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 136
Table 1 TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile (per cent)
Percentage*
Organization size (n = 167,286)
small 8.8
medium 21.0
Large 70.3
Industry (n = 167,286)
Airport authority 1.2
Association (not-for-profit) 6.4
Biotech & pharmaceuticals 5.8
Construction/construction products 0.1
Consumer products & retail 7.9
Education 1.3
Energy sector 5.2
Financial services 16.8
Government & regulatory authorities 4.8
Government, federal/national 0.8
Government, municipal/local 10.1
Health care 5.6
Industrial products 4.3
psF (p.Eng, consultants, lawyers) 9.2
sports, entertainment/media, & communication 3.3
Technology 14.9
Transportation, distribution, & logistics 0.9
other 1.4
(continued …)
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 137
Appendix d | The Conference Board of Canada
Table 1TalentMap Benchmark Respondent Profile(per cent)
Percentage*
Region (n = 162,633)
maritimes 0.1
Quebec 3.3
ontario 58.2
prairies 29.6
British Columbia 8.8
Sector (n = 167,286)
private 67.0
public 27.1
nGo 5.9
*Certain demographics may not have been collected for all respondents. Only valid percentage figures are displayed.Source: TalentMap.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
EmpLoyEE EnGAGEmEnTLeveraging the science to Inspire Great performance
Find Conference Board research at www.e-library.ca. 138
APPENDIX E
Detailed Employee Engagement Model
Exhibit 1The Conference Board of Canada’s Employee Engagement Model: Detailed
Senior leaders have putforth a compelling
vision for our organization.
Senior leaders setambitious but realistic
goals.
Senior leaders clearlycommunicate the objectives
for our organization.
I trust oursenior leaders.
Confidence inSenior Leadership
Senior leaders followthrough with their
commitments.
I have confidence thatour senior leaders can
achieve our goals.
My managervalues my
opinions and ideas.
My managerprovides me with
constructive feedback.
My manager includesme in decisions
that affect my work.
RelationshipWith Manager
My managerfollows through with
his/her commitments.
Most of mywork is challenging.
The work Ido is meaningful.
There is enoughvariety in the
work that I do.
Interesting andChallenging Work
I find mywork interesting.
My career goalscan be achieved
within this organization.
I can see a clearcareer path for me
within this organization.
Professional andPersonal Growth
I have opportunities togrow professionally
within this organization.
My work contributionsto the organization
are recognized.
My accomplishmentsare acknowledged
by leaders and peers.
Overall, I feelappreciated for
the work that I do.
Acknowledgement andRecognition
The work Ido is not taken
for granted.
In my work group,people share
information willingly.
RelationshipsWith Co-workers
In my work group,people work like they
are part of a team.
I have a say insetting my performancegoals and objectives.
Autonomy
I have controlover how my
work gets done.
Source: The Conference Board of Canada.
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.
About The Conference Board of Canada
We are:
• The foremost independent, not-for-profit, applied research organization in Canada.
• Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests.• Funded exclusively through the fees we charge for services to the
private and public sectors.• Experts in running conferences but also at conducting, publishing,
and disseminating research; helping people network; developing individual leadership skills; and building organizational capacity.
• Specialists in economic trends, as well as organizational performance and public policy issues.
• Not a government department or agency, although we are often hired to provide services for all levels of government.
• Independent from, but affiliated with, The Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.
© The Conference Board of Canada. All rights reserved. Please contact cboc.ca/ip with questions or concerns about the use of this material.
255 smyth Road, ottawa on
K1H 8m7 Canada
Tel. 613-526-3280
Fax 613-526-4857
Inquiries 1-866-711-2262
conferenceboard.ca
Insights. Understanding. Impact.
pUBLICATIon 7924 | 7925
pRICE: $1,295
For the exclusive use of William Pullen, [email protected], University of Ottawa.