Professional Documents
Culture Documents
U.S. Report
Table of
Contents
Conclusion...... .....................................................................................................................................................................32
Our 2003 talent study — completed in April Tempting though it may be to view these
2003 and representing the views of more than findings with relief, employers face real risks in
35,000 employees in U.S. companies — updates responding with either complacency or inaction.
and expands a prior study completed just two Rational endurance may be good enough to
years earlier. (See page 33 for details about get an organization through a few difficult
the study and the respondent group.) Thus, it years. But it will not yield the level of workforce
provides both a snapshot of today’s workforce performance required for longer-term success.
and a comparison of how employees’ views
have — and haven’t — changed over one of Why? Because, as our data clearly show, rational
the most turbulent periods in recent times. endurance does not allow much room for true
engagement, which we define as employees’
In a nutshell, we found that the events of the willingness and ability to contribute to company
last two years have not taken the expected success. Another way to think about engage-
toll on employees’ work ethic and desire to ment is the extent to which employees put
help their company succeed. We believe discretionary effort into their work, in the form
the reason has a lot to do with enlightened of extra time, brainpower and energy. And by
self-interest. By helping their companies, this measure, a much more cautionary picture
employees are presumably trying to preserve emerges from our study.
their own job and financial security. In addition,
our respondents agree their employers have Rational Endurance Is Not Engagement
moved the needle slightly on some aspects A key focus of our research was measuring
of the work environment that matter to them, respondents’ level of engagement in their work
particularly around creating a far more visible (see page 6). Just under a fifth of our total
connection between their day-to-day work respondent group — a disturbingly small per-
and the organization’s larger goals. centage — are highly engaged, freely giving
that extra effort on an ongoing basis. An equal
number are disengaged, meaning they probably
2
©Towers Perrin 2003
have “checked out” from their work, as so programs, they still have a willing workforce
many employers fear. The remainder — roughly with a reasonably strong work ethic. While
two-thirds of our sample — are “moderately” employees certainly take issue with a number
engaged at best. of aspects of their work experience — and
exhibit some negative feelings about their jobs
Why does this matter? Because engagement (see page 17) — these negative emotions
remains the ultimate prize for employers. haven’t yet translated into widespread poor
Companies may use different names or define performance.
it slightly differently, but the endgame is the
same for everyone: discretionary effort. At a But employees’ willingness to deliver is neither
time when virtually every organization is strug- infinite nor self-renewing. And the flip side of
gling with cutbacks and financial pressure — the coin — diminishing cooperativeness and
trying to improve performance with fewer people engagement — is all about risk for the employer:
and dollars — having a critical mass of employees Risk that the moderately engaged will slide
who freely give that effort is of tremendous toward increasing disengagement. Risk that
value. resiliency will harden into recalcitrance. Risk
that job performance will erode over time, with
Think of it as the human power driving the serious consequences for financial results. Risk
financial and operational engine. The greater that, as the economy rebounds and the job
the power, the better the engine performs on market opens up, the less than fully engaged
multiple levels, all other things being equal. employees will seek other employment. And
Indeed, one of the most compelling elements finally, the ultimate risk of facing serious gaps
of our study is that this once largely intuitive in skills and talent in an environment where
belief — that highly engaged people do outper- people are arguably the last source of competi-
form others — now has a basis in fact. There tive advantage.
are clear links between our respondents’ level
of engagement, their focus on customers, and Viewed through this lens, our findings present
aspects of their organization’s financial and employers with both opportunity and challenge.
operational performance across a number of The opportunity lies with the small number of
areas (see page 18). highly engaged individuals, who can become
role models for their peers, helping build the
Challenge...Opportunity...and Risk kind of environment and work experience that
does engage greater numbers of people.
So what does this mean to the typical company
right now? In many ways, it’s a classic good
The challenge, by contrast, lies with the large
news/bad news situation. On the upside, despite
number of moderately engaged — whom we’ve
the hard choices employers have made in
termed the “massive middle.” Left to their own
reducing staff and cutting back on core reward
devices, these employees could easily slide
3
©Towers Perrin 2003
toward the wrong end of the engagement people happy, or even paying them more money.
scale, with serious consequences on produc- As important as pay and benefits are in attracting
tivity and morale. Indeed, the sheer size of and retaining people, they play a less important
this group — probably the single largest group role in engaging people in their work.
in any organization — means it will have a
disproportionate impact on the mood and morale What is on the engagement list are the things
of the workforce overall. Strengthening this that take time and commitment — such as
group’s level of engagement may be the most strong leadership, accountability, autonomy, a
critical task virtually every employer faces today. sense of control over one’s environment, a
sense of shared destiny, and opportunities for
Toward Greater Engagement: development and advancement. In the end,
Moving the Needle this study reminds us there are no substitutes
for these fundamentals.
The value of this study is that it helps identify
the nature and shape of this task, drawing on
The remainder of this report explores the
the views of one of the largest employee groups
elements of engagement in more detail, and
surveyed on this topic. It not only tells us what
compares them to the somewhat different mix
engagement looks like, but also how to build it —
of elements that attract and retain employees.
highlighting those variables that have the most
positive impact on behavior and performance.
4
©Towers Perrin 2003
Through our study, we’ve confirmed a definition of engagement that involves both
Defining emotional and rational factors relating to work and the overall work experience. The
Engagement: emotional factors tie to people’s personal satisfaction and the sense of inspiration and
What It affirmation they get from their work and from being part of their organization. A key
Looks Like item here, for instance, is having a strong sense of personal accomplishment from
one’s job. The rational factors, by contrast, generally relate to the relationship
between the individual and the broader corporation; for instance, the extent to which
employees understand their role, and their unit’s role, relative to company objectives.
5
©Towers Perrin 2003
the connection between the individual and the providing the personal sense of passion and mis-
broader organization are paying off, and helping sion that count so heavily in a rich and mean-
employees more clearly understand the mutual ingful work experience.
responsibility and accountability at the heart of
the employer/employee relationship.
A Question of Intensity
Plumbing deeper into the more emotional This last point goes a long way toward explaining
aspects of working, though, the picture changes why, despite the reasonably strong agreement
a bit. Just under two-thirds of our group scores on a number of the engagement factors,
agreed their company is a good place to work, we have only a small group of highly engaged
and even fewer — just half — agreed their respondents. Exhibit 2 provides the evidence,
company inspires them to do their best work. showing how the total group breaks down
This is where we see the impact of employees’ according to employees’ levels of agreement
dissatisfaction with various aspects of their with the core engagement factors. Here are
work experience; notably, overwhelming work- the important points to note:
loads, distant and noncommunicative senior
■ The highly engaged — just 17% of the sample
leadership (who fail to present a clear picture of
— are those who gave the highest scores to
future success) and the lack of developmental
all the engagement factors.
opportunities.
■ The disengaged — 19% of the sample —
The lower scores for elements of emotional are those who gave the lowest scores to all
engagement also pose some risk for employers. the factors.
In this period of rational endurance — when ■ The remaining “massive middle” had relatively
both companies and employees are collectively lower agreement scores and more disagree-
hunkered down to get the job done — engage- ment scores across the board. They were
ment based largely or only on rational factors quite positive in some areas, but had mixed
may be adequate. But as the economy rebounds (neutral to negative) views on a variety of
and choices open up for people, many are likely the engagement elements, particularly the
to consider moving to another employer. At emotional ones.
that point, emotional engagement may be the
only thing helping retain those people most
critical to the business. Exhibit 2
Current Employee Engagement
6
©Towers Perrin 2003
Significantly, this pattern held up across a range
Exhibit 3
Engagement Across Job Levels of demographic segments in the study, from job
Senior Director/ Supervisor/ level (Exhibit 3) to industry category (Exhibit 4).
executive manager foreman In each case, though, there was one important
4% 10% exception to the pattern that’s worth noting,
15% 18%
25% because it further underscores the importance
43% 53% of a sense of inspiration, challenge and authority
65% 67% in generating engagement.
7
©Towers Perrin 2003
■ Among industries, engagement is substan- Indeed, the fact that the sector is traditionally
tially higher in the nonprofit sector than in not a high-paying one, relative to the others
every other sector we looked at (Exhibit 4). we studied, may be our best reminder that it
Again, this is logical, given that people tend isn’t possible to “buy” engagement in the con-
to be drawn to this sector from a sense of ventional sense (through better than average
mission and passion, rather than from any monetary rewards).
prospect of high pay or wealth accumulation.
8
©Towers Perrin 2003
Driving Defining engagement is a crucial step in the process, of course — laying the foundation
for forward progress. But the real value comes in determining what creates engagement.
Engagement: Through statistical analysis, that’s exactly what we’ve been able to do in our study —
What It identifying a set of workplace attributes that, in combination, are critical to building
Takes high engagement.
9
©Towers Perrin 2003
■ The traditional monetary rewards in the total strong leadership, even stronger day-to-day
mix — pay and benefits — don’t appear here management, and practices and programs that
at all. This doesn’t mean they’re not important align with and support the desired culture.
to employees. As we’ll explore in detail later,
they play a very significant role in attracting Below, we’ve chosen to focus on the first five
people to a company and some role in retain- of these engagement drivers because they
ing people. But they have a relatively minor collectively have the most impact on engage-
role, at best, in driving engagement itself. ment and, hence, represent a critical focal
point for employers in strengthening current
■ Two of the elements in the “engagement
levels of engagement.
top 10” — the first and last, respectively —
have to do with senior management. Simply
put, it’s impossible to underestimate the role #1. Senior Management’s Interest in
leadership plays in building an engaged Employees’ Well-Being
workforce. Considering this is the most important driver of
■ The nature of people’s work matters a lot. The engagement, employers should be disturbed
desire for challenge on the job is the second- by respondents’ weak vote of confidence here.
most influential factor in driving engagement Asked whether their senior management exhib-
— a finding consistent with the data from ited such interest, only 42% of our respondents
our study of the emotional climate of the agreed it was true (Exhibit 5). A third disagreed,
workplace (page 17). Being able to do some- while the remainder were mixed, suggesting
thing interesting and meaningful helps feed they felt too distanced from senior management
that important need for a sense of personal to even make the judgment call.
inspiration and accomplishment, leading to
pride in one’s work and one’s company. Exhibit 6, which shows how respondents feel
about various aspects of their company’s lead-
■ Control over one’s environment is a clear ership, suggests some of the reasons for this
theme, seen in items like decision-making
authority, input into relevant decisions and Exhibit 6
resources to get the job done. Employees Employee Views About Leadership
% of employees rating leadership
need to believe that some authority and
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
autonomy come along with the increased
55 27 18
responsibility and risk they are being asked Management is taking steps to ensure company’s
long-term success
to bear in various ways in the workplace.
48 30 22
Management supports new ideas and ways
Ultimately, all of these elements come down of doing things
47 27 27
to the kind of culture and work environment a Management has integrity
company creates and nourishes over time. As
we noted earlier, it isn’t possible to build such 45 28 27
Management communicates clear vision
an environment overnight. It takes commitment, for long-term success
consistency, trust in employees’ judgment, 37 27 35
Management communicates openly and honestly
Favorably Mixed Unfavorably
Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding
10
©Towers Perrin 2003
mixed view. While our respondents are reason-
#2. Challenging Work
ably positive about their management’s business
Just over half of our respondents (53%) agreed
savvy (with more than half agreeing their
their company provides challenge in their work.
management is taking steps to ensure the
But a third were mixed — indicating perhaps
company’s success), they are less sanguine on
that challenging work is not consistently avail-
most other measures of leadership effective-
able — and the rest claimed to lack sufficient
ness. Note, in particular, the relatively lower
challenge (Exhibit 5).
favorability scores for management’s commu-
nication abilities, both in terms of articulating a
Clearly, employers’ ability to build challenge
vision for the future and in being honest and
into a job varies dramatically, depending on the
forthright in dealings with the workforce.
nature of both the work and the workers. Indeed,
given the size and breadth of jobs represented
Effective employee communication is a peren-
in our sample, the fact that more than half of
nial challenge for organizations, especially large,
the respondents said they have challenge in
complex ones. In our work with clients, we’ve
their work seems to be a surprisingly positive
found that it’s a learned skill, and one that
finding. After all, how many jobs by their very
traditionally hasn’t been emphasized among
nature involve repetitive, mundane activity?
managers moving up through the ranks. In
addition, many organizations confuse commu-
But even taking this into account, there are
nication with information, concentrating on
certain things employers can do to help promote
disseminating basic facts rather than providing
a more stimulating and challenging environment
context, commentary and two-way dialogue. In
for almost everyone. In our experience, these
our experience, employees want to know what
can include encouraging people to take initiative,
management thinks and believes and how it
being open to change, tolerating uncertainty,
plans to act. And they also want vehicles to
coaching and developing people’s skills, and
give their input. It’s part of the environment of
holding people accountable for their performance.
mutual trust, accountability and responsibility
Arguably, in fact, these elements are even more
that’s important in engaging people and winning
important in environments where the work
discretionary effort.
itself is relatively routine — providing some
counterbalance to the otherwise “disengaging”
Equally damaging, we’ve found, is a culture
quality of the work.
characterized by perceived gaps between
leadership’s words and its actions. A common
In many organizations, the absence or presence
example is trumpeting a strong performance
of elements like these depend on the person-
orientation, but then paying people with little
ality, skill and beliefs of the frontline supervisor
regard to meaningful performance distinctions,
or manager. He or she generally sets the tone
or failing to connect incentive pay to measurable
and feel for a unit, taking cues from leadership
organizational or personal outcomes. Nothing
and the prevailing culture. So we asked our
destroys trust and engagement more over
respondents how their immediate managers
time than inconsistency — or worse, outright
were doing on a range of relevant attributes and
contradiction — between words and actions.
11
©Towers Perrin 2003
we analyzed their responses in the context of
Exhibit 7
our engagement data. Exhibits 7 and 8 tell the Manager Effectiveness and the
story — a mixed one at best. Impact on Engagement
% of employees rating manager
Exhibit 7 shows respondents’ overall ratings Overall Quality of Supervision
for managerial quality, as well as their ratings for 43% 33% 24%
the 10 managerial behaviors that have the
most influence on engagement. Some points Manager Behaviors Having the Most
Significant Impact on Employee Engagement
to consider: (in descending order of importance)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
59 24 16
■ Forty-three percent of our respondents rated
Supporting teamwork
their managers favorably in terms of overall
quality of supervision. While this is hardly a 58 22 20
Acting with honesty and integrity
ringing endorsement of managerial effec-
tiveness, that figure actually represents a 50 25 24
Encouraging/empowering people
slight improvement from our prior survey to take initiative
two years ago, when just 38% had favorable 50 26 24
views about supervisory quality. It suggests Having valuable experience/expertise
12
©Towers Perrin 2003
people a chance to provide input — providing
Exhibit 8
a forum for opinions — is not only part of
Building More Challenge Into the Work
Environment — How Managers Are Doing building more challenge and stimulation into
% of employees rating manager the work environment, but also a part of
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% involving people to enhance engagement
51 26 24 and a sense of accountability. The workplace
Being open to and supportive of change
is no different from other areas in our lives.
46 26 27 We all want to control as much of our personal
Communicating clearly and openly
situations as we can, and supporting that
45 29 25 need to the extent feasible should be an
Holding people accountable for performance
increasingly important focus for employers.
43 28 30
Recognizing and rewarding good performance
42 32 26
#3. Decision-Making Authority
Tolerating uncertainty and ambiguity Control is, in fact, at the heart of the third most
important driver of engagement: freedom to
37 30 33
Coaching and developing employees’ skills make decisions relating to one’s job. Interestingly,
this is an area where employers are faring
37 26 37
Consulting employees before making decisions reasonably well overall. Just under two-thirds
that affect them
(61%) of the respondents agreed they have
Favorably Mixed Unfavorably an appropriate amount of decision-making
Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding
authority to do their job well (Exhibit 5). But a
fifth disagreed. The rest were mixed, suggesting
than ensuring employees build and maintain
that their ability to make decisions could be
the skills required to get the job done and
occasional at best, depending on the manager
done well? If that focus isn’t coming from
or task at hand.
the frontline managers who have the most
direct view of people’s abilities, from where
The relatively higher score respondents gave
else will it come?
their companies on this key aspect of engage-
■ Consulting employees before making decisions ment may well stem from an increased focus
that affect them. This actually garnered the on the broad notion of empowerment, which
biggest negative score across the range of took root in the late 80s to early 90s as com-
manager behaviors, with 37% rating their mand-and-control organization models began
manager as poor or very poor at taking their to look both antiquated and inefficient. While
views into account. the term itself has now become something of
Given today’s fast pace and need for rapid a cliché, our data suggest the intent behind the
decisions, having the time to talk to people word may finally be taking hold in companies
about an issue may be more of a luxury than as something more than a slogan.
a practical reality for many managers. And
sometimes, consultation just isn’t possible
for business or other reasons. Still, giving
13
©Towers Perrin 2003
It is impossible to underestimate the importance In a fluid business environment, nothing slows
of this element of the overall work experience, down a person’s efficiency and effectiveness
especially today, when companies are increas- more than having to get approval for every
ingly asking employees to shoulder greater action, and nothing stifles initiative more than
responsibility (and risk) in areas as diverse as continually being second-guessed.
training, career management, retirement plan-
ning, and management and use of health care. #4. Customer Focus
Respondents gave their companies top marks
In our consulting work, we’ve consistently
on this engagement driver, with fully three-
found that people are much more willing to
quarters agreeing their company cares a great
accept increased risk if they perceive they also
deal about customer satisfaction, and only 9%
have control over decisions relating to that risk
disagreeing (Exhibit 5).
— as well as relevant information and tools to
make good decisions. Essentially, this comes
Why is a strong customer orientation so
down to an employer’s responsibility to provide
important to employees and to capturing their
employees with information. To the extent a
discretionary effort? We think it comes down
company consistently keeps employees fully
to their pragmatism and core business savvy.
informed, it provides the necessary foundation
Employees know their companies are in busi-
for employees to behave responsibly and
ness to serve customers and that financial
accept accountability for making their own
performance depends on doing that well. So
decisions.
they care whether their company is performing
well in this area. Working for a good competitor
So along with decision-making authority must
in the customer arena helps ensure their own
come clear communication and education as
future and gives them the sense of confidence
well as decision-making tools and support. In
that comes from association with a winner.
addition, responsibility and autonomy have to
be seen as a core and consistent part of the
Still, they are also realists, as Exhibit 9 (page 15)
environment. Giving employees responsibility
shows. While 59% gave their companies high
in some areas, but pulling them back in others
marks for serving customers well, far fewer felt
(relating to their jobs or dealings with customers,
as positively about financial results, indicating
for instance) can send mixed messages and
they are very aware of the toll the recession
ultimately defeat attempts to create more
has had on most companies in the last few years.
accountability across the workforce.
For instance, just 42% agreed their companies’
overall financial performance was above average
Finally, of course, decision-making authority ties
compared to others in the industry. This repre-
closely to the ability to build more challenge
sents a full 10 percentage point drop from our
into the work environment, since being in control
prior April 2001 study, when 52% felt their
of decisions enhances the satisfaction and
companies were above average in overall
excitement of work on so many levels.
financial results.
14
©Towers Perrin 2003
burdened with older, less efficient systems to
Exhibit 9
handle increasingly demanding workloads, they
Employee Views About Company
Performance may well think their companies are simply
% of employees rating company managing costs badly relative to the competition,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% making poor decisions about where and what
59 32 9 to cut, and shortchanging future growth and
Serving customers
competitiveness.
49 36 15
Adapting to changing customer
and market demands
42 41 16 #5. Career Advancement Opportunities
Overall financial performance
Respondents gave their companies the lowest
39 44 17 scores by far on this engagement driver. Just a
Revenue growth third of the respondents agreed their career
39 43 18 opportunities were excellent, while an equal
Profitability number disagreed and the remainder were
46
mixed (Exhibit 5).
34 21
Managing costs
Above average Average Below average This indictment of career opportunity came
(based on view of company compared to industry competitors)
through in two related survey items as well:
% of employees rating company ■ Communicating career opportunities. Just
45 30 25
35% agreed their companies did that well,
Providing leading-edge technology
while 32% disagreed.
Excellent/good Fair Poor/very poor
Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding ■ Advancing high performers in the organization.
Only 31% were positive about this aspect of
Perhaps even more significant, less than half their organization, while 36% were not.
(45%) rated their company favorably in providing
Given companies’ economic belt-tightening
leading-edge technology to support work
over the last two years, job advancement —
processes and activities. This, too, is an area
indeed, job movement at all — has probably
where we saw a relatively sharp decline in
been limited at best (other than job elimina-
employee confidence since our April 2001
tions). So to some extent, our respondents’
study, when 58% of those respondents gave
views may simply be a sign of the times — in
their companies a favorable rating on the
keeping with their recognition that it’s harder
technology side.
today to find another, and especially better, job
than it was two years ago.
This decline could well be attributable to cuts
in spending on new technology and upgrades,
which many companies made in the last 18
months as part of broader cost management
efforts. It could also explain why, despite all
the attention on cost reduction, just a third felt
their companies were ahead of competitors in
controlling costs. To the extent employees feel
15
©Towers Perrin 2003
Still, we have a far more mobile workforce What all this says is that employees still
than was true a generation ago. Almost two- remain as or more committed to their work
thirds (63%) of the respondents agreed there’s than to a particular employer, all other things
no appropriate amount of time to stay with a being equal. In tough times, they will stay the
company — a number that hasn’t changed at course with a company — if for no other reason
all in the past two years. than they have to. But if they don’t see the
potential for opportunity — particularly in the
What’s more, as Exhibit 10 shows, roughly 57% treatment of the best and brightest within
remain open to moving to another company, their companies — they are likely to bolt when
whether passively (expressing willingness to they can.
“consider” another job) or actively (looking for
another job or about to make a job shift). Even In marked contrast, as we’ll explore next, highly
more interesting, considering what’s happened engaged employees — who presumably see
in the labor market since April 2001, we found such opportunity to a far greater degree than
virtually no differences in response patterns others — are far less likely to bolt than are
around mobility across the two studies. their less engaged brethren. So as competition
for talent heats up again over the next few
Exhibit 10 years, the question for employers is this:
Trends in Employee Mobility Which employees, or employee groups, are
2003 most critical to the organization, and how can
3%
7% you create a work experience that marries
2001
4% their commitment to their work and their
10% 7%
advancement with an equal commitment to
37% 8%
37% your organization?
44%
44%
16
©Towers Perrin 2003
Emotional Attachment in the Workplace — Keeping Negative Emotions in Check
During the period we were gathering course, is that most employees ■ Having control. Employees want
data for our 2003 Talent Report, we are keeping these negative emo- to control their own destiny as
launched a related study with 1,100 tions in check and maintaining much as possible; control feeds
employees from similarly sized their professionalism. The ques- both competence and confidence.
companies that focused specifically tion, as we’ve noted, is how long Employees feel in control when
on quantifying people’s emotional this will last. they have a measure of power
connection to work. (See Working over how they do their work. Even
■ Respondents’ ideal work experi-
Today: Exploring Employees’ when workloads are heavy, being
ence was grounded in reality —
Emotional Connections to Their Jobs, able to control the flow and pace
actually, a vastly improved variation
available on towersperrin.com.) of their work can relieve pressure
on their current situation — and
on employees, as can a feeling
focused on four key areas:
We used a unique tool called they can turn to managers for
ResonanceTM to obtain completely ■ Feeling confident about what resources and support when they
unstructured and open-ended views they do. People need to feel need it.
on how people felt about their pride, optimism and certainty
■ Feeling part of a work “com-
current and ideal work experiences. about what they do, how they do
munity.” People’s positive emotions
What we found from this effort not it and, to a lesser but still impor-
are strongly influenced by the
only mirrors the results of our talent tant degree, who they do it for.
people they work with day to day,
study, but also builds on it by paint- Strong leadership, effective day-
by collaboration, teamwork and
ing a vivid picture of the elements to-day management and a strong
shared goals, and by a sense of a
that can create the most positive sense of connection with a win-
purpose in work (beyond just a
work experience an individual could ning organization that consistently
paycheck). Generating a sense of
imagine. And significantly, those delivers the best to its customers
community is perhaps the most
elements track closely to the drivers go a long way toward helping
difficult challenge, especially in a
of engagement discussed in this build this feeling in employees.
culture where loyalties are divided
report. ■ Feeling competent at their or morale is low. However, estab-
work. Being good at a job bolsters lishing a two-way communication
Here’s an overview of the results: confidence and ensures both the program that emphasizes the goals
■ Roughly 40% of respondents had organization and the employee of the organization and the roles
negative emotions about their cur- achieve individual and collective employees should play is a good
rent work experience. The reasons goals. Training and development first step.
come down to excessive work- programs, mentor/coach relation-
loads, lack of faith in management ships and regular feedback from
(its competence in driving the managers not only engender com-
company forward, not its integrity), petence, but help a company build
anxiety about job security, lack of the skills and behaviors that meet
challenge in their work, and insuf- specific business objectives.
ficient recognition for the level of
contribution and effort provided.
What our talent study shows, of
17
©Towers Perrin 2003
Measuring If engagement was once little more than a theoretical concept, that time is long gone.
Not only can we now define it clearly and measure its existence and intensity, but we
Engagement: can also demonstrate its value to an organization in concrete terms. A key part of our
Why It research process was collecting financial data on the public companies for which many
Matters of our respondents work.
This additional information allowed us to compare Our expectation was that we’d find distinct differ-
(for a portion of the total survey sample) people’s ences in company performance based on people’s
responses to our engagement, customer focus level of engagement. And in fact, that’s precisely
and mobility questions with their employer’s what we found.
actual financial performance. We measured these
relationships using a set of publicly available Exhibit 11 draws on our Linkage Framework
company financial metrics, and we controlled for (page 8) to show the strength of the direct and
industry sector performance to adequately indirect relationships among company programs,
reflect differences across industries in market employee behavior, customer focus and financial
demand, growth rates and cost structures. results. While it’s important to recognize that there
Exhibit 11
Linking Employee Engagement to Financial Performance
Employee Attitudes Customer Impact Financial Results
Senior management
interest
Decision-making
authority
Career advancement
Company reputation
Sales, general and
as employer Turnover
administrative
intention
expense
Teamwork/
collaboration
Resources
Decision-making
input Positive relationship
Negative relationship
Conceptual relationship
Senior management
vision
18
©Towers Perrin 2003
are many variables that affect business outcomes, Basically, what we’re seeing here is the power
our analysis nonetheless shows a clear relation- of discretionary effort on multiple levels. In a
ship between increased engagement, improved service business, for instance, the relationship is
retention of talent and better financial perfor- readily apparent: An engaged employee focuses
mance. Here’s how to understand this picture. on customer service, giving the customer a
reason to return to the store or business and
On the extreme left are the 10 workplace buy more goods and services. Such employees
attributes that, as we’ve seen, help drive build customer loyalty and retention over time.
employee engagement. The stronger these But even in a business where there is little direct
attributes are in the workplace, the stronger the contact between employees and customers,
level of employee engagement. As engagement engaged employees can still indirectly affect
rises, we see two important outcomes: a decline revenue growth; for instance, by supporting other
in the likelihood of leaving the company and a employees who do have direct contact or by
stronger orientation around meeting customer pioneering an innovation that boosts sales.
needs. Put simply, the more highly engaged
employees are, the more likely they are to put Exhibits 12 through 14 look a bit more closely at
customers at the heart of what they do and the relationships that support this model:
how they think about their jobs, and the less
Exhibit 12 shows the relationship between respon-
likely they are to leave their company.
dents’ engagement scores and their responses
to a set of questions measuring the degree of
The right side of the picture addresses financial
their organization’s customer focus. As the slope
results where, not surprisingly, there’s a relation-
of the graph clearly demonstrates, higher engage-
ship between customer focus and revenue
growth (as well as one between engagement
Exhibit 12
itself and revenue growth). There’s also an inverse
Engagement and Customer Focus
relationship between engagement and the cost
High
of goods sold (COGS). In other words, we found
Customer focus score
sales, general and administrative expense (SG&A). Note: This graph plots the linear regression equation that
explains the correlation between two variables: Respondents’
SG&A, in turn, along with COGS and revenue engagement scores and their mean score on three survey
growth, are key mathematical components of questions assessing the degree of customer focus in their
organization (using a five-point scale).
operating margin — a significant bottom-line
measure of a business’s financial health.
19
©Towers Perrin 2003
ment scores relate to higher scores on the cus- point is that highly engaged employees tend to
tomer focus questions. Specifically, more work for companies where COGS fell below
engaged employees agree that their company: the industry average, while the least engaged
employees tend to work for companies where
■ Cares deeply about customer satisfaction
COGS surpassed the industry average.
■ Has a strong ability to serve customers
(compared to competitors) In each of these cases, the directional evidence
■ Can adapt rapidly to shifts in the market. is clear and compelling: Companies with higher
employee engagement outperform those with
Conversely, disengaged or only moderately
engaged employees have far more misgivings Exhibit 13
about their company in terms of these mea- Engagement and Revenue Growth
sector average
Exhibit 13 shows the relationship between
respondents’ engagement scores and their
-1.0
company’s one-year revenue growth relative to
average revenue growth for their respective
Dow Jones industry sector. The compelling -2.0
Low High
finding here is that the more engaged an Engagement index score
employee, the more likely his or her employer Note: This graph plots the linear regression equation that
explains the correlation between two variables: Respondents’
is to exceed (versus fall behind) the industry engagement scores and their companies’ revenue growth, as
average in one-year revenue growth. Put measured by the percentage point difference between company
revenue growth and the overall Dow Jones market sector
another way, our highly engaged employees growth average for the relevant industry.
tend, on average, to work for companies that
had revenue growth at least one percentage Exhibit 14
point above the average for their industry. Engagement and Cost of Goods Sold
Conversely, our least engaged employees tend 5.0
difference between company COGS
2.0
industry average for the year (putting these
1.0
companies at the lower end of the perfor-
0.0
mance spectrum on a relative basis). -1.0
-2.0
Exhibit 14 demonstrates the inverse relation- -3.0
Low High
ship we saw earlier between employee Engagement index score
engagement and a company’s cost of goods Note: This graph plots the linear regression equation that
explains the correlation between two variables: Respondents’
sold, compared to the Dow Jones industry engagement scores and their companies’ cost of goods sold,
sector average for that measure. Here, the as measured by the percentage point difference between com-
pany COGS and the overall Dow Jones market sector COGS
average for the relevant industry.
20
©Towers Perrin 2003
lower employee engagement, relative to industry gaged. Thus, moving employees from a state
benchmarks. Whether that’s because they of moderate to high engagement makes them
attract more engaged people as a consequence almost twice as likely to want to stay with the
of their superior performance, or whether their company and invest discretionary effort, all
superior performance comes from the discre- other things being equal. And while high
tionary effort of their engaged people is, in the engagement doesn’t guarantee retention (fully
end, almost moot. What’s clear is that the two a quarter of this group are still open to an
are intertwined, and together work to create a interesting opportunity), it does increase the
“virtuous circle” of enhanced performance. chances of retaining the very people who are
probably going to be most attractive in a
Engagement and Retention competitive talent market.
21
©Towers Perrin 2003
Despite our focus on the nontraditional (i.e., nonmonetary) elements of the work
Attraction experience, there’s no question that pay and benefits remain critical to our respondents
and and to employees broadly. Think of these as the first line of defense; the needed-to-play
Retention: elements in managing the workforce. A company can’t get into the game — successfully
Building attracting or retaining people — without relevant and reasonably competitive pay and
the Right benefit programs. Only to the extent those programs meet both the company’s and
employees’ needs can an organization focus on the more intangible, needed-to-win
Foundation elements so influential to engagement and discretionary effort.
Employers need the full portfolio of traditional No single reward element — or even single
and nontraditional rewards, designed in the combination of reward elements — can effec-
context of their business and people strategies. tively do all three. Let’s take a closer look.
But what our study demonstrates so clearly
is that they need to emphasize different ■ Attracting people. This is where pay and
rewards at different stages in the employment benefits predominate. Five of the 10 most
relationship. influential recruitment factors fall into these
two categories — including the top four in
the mix. Interestingly, this mix has changed
Different Goals...Different Drivers a bit since our April 2001 study, underscoring
As we did for the drivers of engagement, we the impact of the external environment in
analyzed our data to isolate the specific elements shaping people’s needs.
of the work experience most important to
recruiting and retaining employees. Exhibit 16 Competitive health care benefits and base
(page 23) shows the results — and contrasts pay held their top spots in both studies, which
the top 10 drivers of attraction and retention is not likely to surprise anyone. But in April
with the list we’ve already explored for 2001, before the Internet bubble burst,
engagement. opportunities for career advancement ranked
third on the list, followed by work/life balance
What’s immediately apparent are the differ- and raises linked to individual performance.
ences across these three areas. While there Today, after 18 months of recession, down-
are some overlaps, particularly in retention and sizing, and sharp cuts in merit increases and
engagement, different reward elements take bonuses, advancement opportunities are
on greater or lesser importance, depending somewhat less important — coming into the
on the objective. Knowing what counts to mix only after the financial basics are in place.
employees — and when — can make all the Work/life balance, however, remains a very
difference in structuring a total rewards program strong factor in both studies — likely a
that brings in the right people, keeps them reflection of the demanding workloads
and secures their discretionary effort over time. employees continue to carry (today, more by
necessity than choice).
22
©Towers Perrin 2003
Exhibit 16
What It Takes to Attract, Retain and Engage
Top 10 Elements That Attract Employees
Pay Benefits
2 Competitive base pay 1 Competitive health care benefits
8 Pay raises linked to individual performance 3 Work/life balance
4 Competitive retirement benefits
23
©Towers Perrin 2003
Among the important nonmonetary elements reflecting the need to master new Internet-
in the mix, career advancement and work related skills for the hot job market in the
challenge remain critical, which is consistent “new economy.” Today, by contrast, the focus
with their importance in the overall work on skills has dropped down in importance,
experience. Equally critical are the kind of replaced by the need to ensure some kind of
people one works with and the kind of advancement on the job.
company one works for, factors that are
What’s also more important today is managerial
presumably related, since company reputation
effectiveness, particularly in setting clear goals
helps draw the best talent, while that talent,
and inspiring people, both of which hark back
in turn, helps build the company’s reputation.
to people’s need for both “the will” and “the
Both factors point to the importance of work-
way” in giving discretionary effort. Indeed, it’s
ing for an organization perceived to be a
impossible to underestimate the importance of
winner on a number of fronts.
the manager’s role overall, especially, as we’ve
seen, in creating a positive work environment
■ Retaining people. Pay and benefits remain
and building more challenge into people’s jobs.
somewhat important in retention, but clearly
to a lesser extent. In a sense, what we’re
seeing here is the difference between the The Reward Story
needed-to-play and needed-to-win reward
So how well are employers doing in creating
elements. Assuming an employee perceives
reward packages that meet employees’ varying
that his or her pay and benefits are competi-
needs? Exhibit 17 begins to tell the story. It
tive and adequate in the context of the job
shows how respondents rated the four key
and competitive realities,
other things — notably
Exhibit 17
advancement, talented How Rewards Stack Up Overall
coworkers and the overall % of employees rating reward elements
work environment — matter Pay Retirement Health care
far more in deciding to stay
with a company. But if pay or 21%
31% 29% 26% 34%
benefits are seen as inade- 40%
quate or out of line with
40% 41% 40%
effort or competitive reality,
that will then become a major
factor in pushing people to Learning Work
opportunities environment
look for other situations.
24
©Towers Perrin 2003
components of their total rewards program —
Exhibit 18
pay, benefits, learning and development, and Employee Views of Pay and Benefits
work environment — relative to what they might % of employees rating company plan
expect at another company at which they Compensation
could work. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
26 25 49
Bonuses tied to company performance
The good news is that the number of respon-
dents rating any of these reward elements as 25 27 48
Annual pay increases tied to individual
below average was generally between a fifth performance
to slightly less than a third. The bad news is 24 26 50
Bonus goals that are challenging but achievable
that the number rating their rewards as above
average wasn’t much higher. For the most part, 21 23 57
Bonuses tied to individual performance
employees see their rewards as solidly average.
Benefits
In the current economy, this clearly hasn’t proved 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
57 26 17
to be a big concern. Employees are staying put Health benefits with access to quality providers
because they have to. And they likely know,
55 27 17
from online research, conversations with friends Health benefits that are easy to use
and other sources, that pay increases have
leveled off in the last two years and that many 53 27 20
Affordable health care benefits
companies are cutting back on bonuses and
benefits and shifting more cost to employees. 51 28 21
Health benefits that are a good value
They probably see little difference between for the cost
their situation and those of friends or colleagues 45 28 27
Sufficient choice in health plans
elsewhere.
44 29 28
But that brings us right back to the issue of risk. Retirement benefits that will help meet
retirement savings goals
As the labor market eases, distinctions in these
Favorably Mixed Unfavorably
areas will become increasingly important. Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding
Then, being average won’t be good enough for
employers — particularly in recruiting or retain- terms of paying for performance and setting
ing the in-demand talent who always have the realistic bonus goals.
most job options and, hence, bargaining power. While complaints about pay are something
So what will it take to surpass average? of a perennial theme for employees, negative
views have actually increased, albeit slightly,
Exhibit 18 drills down into specifics a bit more, since our last study, particularly regarding
highlighting respondents’ views about what is the connection between pay and performance.
and isn’t working for them in the core pay and In other words, our respondents are more,
benefit arena. Among the noteworthy points: not less, cynical about that connection, and
■ Respondents were most negative about pay are less positive about the extent to which
issues. Close to or more than half of our
respondents didn’t rate their company well in
25
©Towers Perrin 2003
either their base pay or bonuses adequately But this view also appears to reflect some
reflect their individual performance. This is a improvements employees see in health care
potentially very troublesome say/do gap. If plan design and management. Specifically,
management is focusing on the importance our data show that certain attributes of a plan
of high performance, but failing to make have a lot to do with perceptions of overall
meaningful distinctions when providing raises competitiveness. In particular, five factors
and bonuses, the message not only gets influence the extent to which employees view
lost, but can actually disengage employees. their plan as better or worse than average:
That such a gap does exist at many companies ■ Affordability of the benefits. Do people feel
comes through in another troubling statistic they can bear the costs of their deductibles
from our study: 49% don’t believe their and copayments? And are these costs
company rewards top performers more than generally in line with what they know friends
average performers. This disturbingly high are paying at other, similar companies?
percentage — which actually increased
■ Perceived value for money. Overall, given
slightly since our April 2001 study — appears
their total level of contribution, do people
to be a fairly broad indictment of the true
feel they’re at least getting good value?
state of pay for performance today. And it’s a
perception that’s likely to be quite problematic ■ Access to quality providers. Is there sufficient
for employers who today, more than ever, access to doctors and hospitals that are
need to use their limited compensation perceived to be good?
budgets to best effect for the company and ■ Sufficient choice in their plans. Are there
its most critical employees. multiple plans and features from which to
choose (for instance, both a point-of-service
■ Respondents were most positive about their plan and an HMO)?
health care benefits, relatively speaking. Fully
■ Ease of management. Are there complex
40% of our respondents said their health care
claim forms, referral requirements, Web
benefits were above average, while another
enrollment elements? The easier a plan is to
40% judged them average. This was a some-
manage, the more likely an employee will
what surprising finding, given employers’
feel reasonably good about it.
multiyear campaign to change the way they
deliver health benefits, first moving to Note that with one exception (choice), half
managed care and now, increasingly, looking or more of the respondents agreed their
at consumer-driven approaches. plans delivered on these attributes (Exhibit 18,
page 25). This finding underscores the impor-
To some extent, of course, this view is prob-
tance of focusing on these attributes in both
ably another example of our respondents’
designing and communicating health care
pragmatism. They know cost shifting is
pervasive and they may well feel that things
are not much different (or even slightly better)
at their firm than elsewhere.
26
©Towers Perrin 2003
Exhibit 19
How Employee Education Influences Views About Heath Care Benefits
% of employees with favorable view
My company provides health care benefits My company provides affordable health
that are a good value for the money care benefits
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
62 63
39 41
programs today. While each single attribute This shows, once again, that there is no sub-
can influence employee perceptions, the stitute for communication, no matter what
combination appears to have a very strong the issue. The more a company informs and
impact on positive views about a plan, even educates — about health care, retirement,
in the current climate. performance, the business, financial results
— the more likely employees are to be posi-
Our data also revealed that education has an
tive and on board.
important influence on perceptions about
health care. As Exhibit 19 shows, respon-
Even with an improving economy, cost pres-
dents who said they understood why their
sures are not likely to abate any time soon,
companies asked them to share health care
and most companies will continue to control or
costs were far more likely to feel positive
reduce fixed payroll expense. In so doing, our
about the various plan attributes shown above
data suggest they need to employ both art and
and, in turn, far more positive overall about
science to channel limited dollars in ways that
their programs.
best equip them to attract, retain and engage
the people most critical to their long-term
success.
27
©Towers Perrin 2003
Managing an organization and its people pose unique challenges today. Consider
Putting It what’s occurred just in the two years between our two talent studies: A sharp rise in
All Together: terrorism worldwide. A major attack on our own soil. U.S. involvement in two wars.
An HR Increased outbreaks of fighting elsewhere. Growing tensions among nations about the
Agenda for best way to address terrorism. Continued economic uncertainty. A stock market that
the Future took back a decade’s worth of profit and remains volatile in the midst of recovery.
Entire companies — even industries — teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.
28
©Towers Perrin 2003
case, good managers still need some very of its size. The stimulation of the work ulti-
specific things from their companies — and mately compensates for the amount of the
their leadership. They need to know precisely work, helping dissipate negative feelings
what’s expected of them as people managers. about workload itself.
They need support and training in delivering
What does it take to create more stimulation
against those expectations. And they need
and challenge in a job? As we’ve seen, that
to be held accountable for their performance
can, and often has to, go beyond the bound-
in the same way they need to hold employees
aries of an individual job. It rests on shaping
in their units accountable for their specific
a culture that gives people a reasonable
objectives.
amount of autonomy, allows them to take
Ultimately, managing people should become some risks and is open to new ideas.
as important an objective to an organization
As for career advancement, there’s no ques-
as managing operations, inventory or budgets.
tion it’s more difficult today, when so many
This is a message that has to flow down from
companies have flatter organizational struc-
the top and take root in the fabric of the
tures. In part, companies need to redefine
organization.
advancement, focusing less on traditional
■ Seek creative ways to make jobs more spans of control and reporting relationships
challenging and improve opportunities for than on elements like skill mastery, team
advancement. If employers were to focus leadership, special assignments and so on.
on just two areas in workforce management, But it’s also a function of strong performance
these would arguably provide the most return management programs that help people set
on their investment. They are the only two clear goals, assess progress against those
elements that show up as key drivers across goals, understand gaps in skills and how to
all three aspects of the employment relation- close them, and what their longer-term
ship, from attraction through engagement. opportunities might be.
At a time when so many people are strug- ■ Give employees education and tools to
gling with excess work — doing the same or increase their business savvy. Remember
more work with less help — there is a special our respondents’ focus on decision-making
urgency to making work seem more challeng- authority and customer service. Both were
ing and stimulating. Simply put, it can mitigate among the top drivers of engagement.
the negative impact of a demanding work- Viewed in tandem, these elements speak to
load. One of the most interesting findings in employees’ need and desire to have more
our study of the emotional climate of the of a personal connection to, and impact on,
workplace (page 17) was that people who are the business and its customers and con-
stimulated and inspired by what they do (typ- tribute materially to results.
ically, more senior executives) tend to focus
less attention on their workload, regardless
29
©Towers Perrin 2003
This is obviously easier in some roles than It personalizes information and decision making
others, particularly in service-based busi- for individuals, letting employees play what-if
nesses where employees can have a great scenarios with differing benefit plan types
deal of direct customer contact. A number of and financial outcomes to make better deci-
companies have built reputations for being sions about purchasing health care coverage
both great employers and great service or planning for retirement. The Web can also
organizations by empowering employees to be an important tool to do self-assessments
make their own, on-the-spot decisions about about skills and career focus, and pursue the
how best to address customer needs. training necessary for career advancement.
But there are other ways to help people feel ■ Invest total reward dollars for maximum
they’re part of and contributing to the busi- return on investment. Over the past
ness. Both our data and our consulting work decade, more and more companies have
with clients repeatedly show the importance begun viewing their reward programs as an
of a clear line of sight for employees between aggregated investment pool that they can
what they do and how it affects the organi- mix and remix in different ways, depending
zation and its financial results. This is, in fact, on workforce needs and issues and financial
an area where companies have improved pressures. They can identify employee pref-
over the past two years, according to our erences among reward options and create
respondents. programs that let employees trade current
for deferred pay, salary for bonuses, bonuses
The challenge now will be to expand this
for benefits, benefits for cash, and so on.
focus, using new tools and approaches to
strengthen the link across more job functions Down the road lies perhaps the ultimate
and give people a greater sense of connection goal: A totally customized, flexible approach
to customers and the bottom line, even where that puts all the risk and responsibility in
their direct customer contact may be limited. employees’ hands by giving them a total sum
In the end, this can also help foster a greater of money — commensurate with their skills,
sense of job stimulation and challenge across experience, function and level — to allocate
an organization. in whatever way best suits their needs across
an array of employer-provided or -sponsored
■ Ensure that employees have the right
programs.
information and education to become
informed consumers of the full range of Until then, it’s important for employers to
workforce “goods and services” available understand that limited dollars do not need
to them. As we’ve noted, employees need to limit their return on reward investments.
information to feel comfortable and in control Advances in technology have ushered in an era
when shouldering increased responsibility of Web-based modeling and decision tools
and risk in various aspects of their work
lives. More companies are now turning to
the Web to address this need. It is an effective
vehicle both for pushing information to people
and pulling requests and data from them.
30
©Towers Perrin 2003
that quantify the impact of shifting dollars new tools, like our Linkage Framework
from one reward area to another, not only in (pages 8 and 18), now allow employers to
terms of program design and management, quantify the relationship between employee
but also in terms of employee engagement, and customer behaviors and financial out-
retention and a host of other measures. comes, and drive behavior in ways that lead
directly to the right outcomes. Through
A growing number of companies are using
linkage analysis, employers can also identify
such approaches, including our own Total
levels of employee engagement and quantify
Rewards OptimizationSM tool, to test different
the impact of different levels on a range of
reward portfolios and determine precisely
financial measures.
how far they can go in cutting back or
redesigning plans without negatively affect- Demographic and staffing modelers help
ing employee engagement and productivity. identify, early on, the changing profile of a
It’s a critical first step in allocating financial workforce, including the potential loss of large
and other resources for maximum value, par- numbers of skilled workers to retirement,
ticularly when there are severe constraints and the associated effect of lost skills and
on those resources. experience.
■ Measure, measure, measure. The HR These and other measurement tools allow
function has been among the slowest to companies to plan and manage staffing and
quantify its impact on an organization, in part turnover far more efficiently and over a far
because so much of its work relating to longer period — helping deliver an HR strategy
employee performance and engagement has in line with a long-term business strategy.
been impossible to measure. While HR has
long looked at things like turnover, head
count, recruitment costs and training costs,
the notion of determining a true return on
investment in people has remained elusive.
Today, the situation is very different and few Our study reaffirms the importance of these
organizations have the financial wherewithal to elements. And it tells us how and why they
solve workforce issues with money even if work. Now, we need to recommit to using
they wanted to. So it’s a welcome reminder, them and staying the course over time.
assuming we needed one, that money is only
part of the answer — and a relatively small
part when it comes to discretionary effort.
32
©Towers Perrin 2003
The Towers Perrin Talent Report presents the results of a biennial study that tracks the
About Our views and attitudes of employees to understand the elements of the work experience
Survey that drive attraction, retention and engagement.
4% Senior management
16% Director/manager
8% Supervisor/foreman
22% Professional/technical
16% Nonmanagement
salaried
Respondent demographics: Gender
34% Nonmanagement
North America hourly
Canada
33
©Towers Perrin 2003
Respondent demographics: Respondent demographics: Industry
U.S. regions 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15%
10
15
Business/professional services
10
8
Heavy manufacturing
9
20% 7
Retail
8
13
High tech/telecom
8
Respondent demographics: 5
Company revenues Other health care
6
U.S. 7
Consumer products
51% Under $50m 6
6
9% $50m to under $100m Transportation (e.g., railroad, airlines)
11% $100m to under $500m 6
5
7% $500m to under $1b Finance/banking
22% $1b or more 5
6
Government
5
Canada 3
Hospital
58% Under $50m 4
5
8% $50m to under $100m Education
12% $100m to under $500m 4
4
6% $500m to under $1b Hospitality (e.g., restaurants, hotels)
4
16% $1b or more 2
Insurance
3
4
Media (e.g., television, newspapers)
3
2
Utilities
2
1
Pharmaceuticals
1
2
Energy (e.g., oil, gas)
1
1
Nonprofit
U.S. Canada
Excludes those choosing “other”
34
©Towers Perrin 2003