The results of Towers Perrin 2003 talent study (representing the views of more than 35,000 employees in U.S. companies) found that just under a fifth of the total respondent group are “highly engaged” – freely giving extra effort on an ongoing basis. They found just as many who were “checked out” or disengaged, leaving roughly two-thirds in the “moderately engaged” category.

Here are excerpts of thoughts from the study’s Executive Summary.

“So what does this mean to the typical company right now? In many ways, it’s a classic good news/bad news situation. On the upside, despite the hard choices employers have made in reducing staff and cutting back on core reward programs, they still have a willing workforce with a reasonably strong work ethic. While employees certainly take issue with a number of aspects of their work experience – and exhibit some negative feelings about their jobs – those negative emotions haven’t yet translated into widespread poor performance.

But employees’ willingness to deliver is neither infinite nor self-renewing…Viewed through this lens, findings present employers with both opportunity and challenge. The opportunity lies with the small number of highly engaged individuals, who can become role models for their peers, helping build the kind of environment and work experience that does engage greater numbers of people.

The challenge, by contrast, lies with the large number of moderately engaged – “massive middle.”…Indeed the sheer size of this group – probably the single largest group in any organization – means it will have a disproportionate impact on the mood and morale of the workforce overall. Strengthening this group’s level of engagement may be the most critical task virtually every employer faces today.

Building engagement is a process that never ends. And it rests on the foundation of a meaningful and emotionally enriching work experience. It is not about making people happy or even paying them more money…What is on the engagement list are the things that take time and commitment – such as strong leadership, accountability, autonomy, a sense of control over one’s environment, a sense of shared destiny, and opportunities for development and advancement. In the end, this study reminds us there are no substitutes for these fundamentals.”

Two areas that stood out in the study findings were:

• Just under two-thirds of the respondents were mixed to negative on Managers’ ability to coach and develop employees’ skills, and
• Consulting employees before making decisions that affect them received poor or very poor ratings by 37% of the survey respondents.

On a more positive note, the study reported that engagement is “substantially higher” in the nonprofit sector than in every other section, concluding that “it isn’t possible to ‘buy’ engagement in the conventional sense (through better than average monetary rewards).”

The study points us to a significant focus on applying excellent leadership skill and ability to the massive middle to increase and benefit from an engaged workforce. While a non-profit may experience a smaller “massive middle” than two-thirds of the workforce, even half remains a significant number.

A final message: “Many organizations confuse communication with information, concentrating on disseminating basic facts rather than providing context, commentary, and two-way dialogue.” Communication takes time, time reserved on the busy calendars. Taking the time, at least according to this study, contributes to an “environment of mutual trust, accountability and responsibility important to engaging people and winning discretionary effort.” At the same time, “Nothing destroys trust and engagement more over time than inconsistency – or worse, outright contradiction – between words and actions.”

No one said it would be easy.