"If you’re interested to learn more about how to reach The Promised Land, don’t hesitate to contact us for an inspiring talk, rebellious workshop, or practical support during your organization’s transformation."
These are management consultants. Their statistics are about as good as those from psychologists, except they are usually directly paid for getting particular outcomes with their statistics.
In this case, their case is that there is a major problem in every organisation ! And they can help ! For $xxxxx they'll "solve this problem" (with a one-time talk about it, in case you were wondering), and for $xxxxxx they'll give a workshop, which will surely allow any manager to prove to his director how engaged he is, while (hardly worth mentioning, really) also allowing him to go home earlier for a whole week and probably get a free, really fancy, dinner or two.
Keep this in mind when judging the value of what they're saying. Of course, I do think they have a point, but they're part of the problem, not the solution.
There was a survey I read which asked the question "would you prevent your employer from gaining a million dollar in profit if you personally got $500 out of it ?". Apparently 86% would, and a further 10% was undecided.
I once asked some outright, they explained that they are so busy helping clients they don't have any time to help themselves.
Successful consultants are parasites, they are like that fungus that takes over ants, forcing them to climb into the sun, before exploding them all over the field.
Hah citation?
I wonder what that survey would look like with a strong profit sharing setup?
> In that scenario, it's business performance affecting employee engagement.
All of the examples that you gave aren't really business performance, they all represent some combination of fraud or terrible behavior. Sure, it could be fraud hiding negative business results, but the fundamental issues in all of those are managerial misbehavior.
"The outcome of Gallup’s study clearly shows the strong correlation between employee engagement and business performance. "
Good, the author says it's a correlation.
But the supporting graphic is titled:
"Employee engagement affects key business outcomes"
Which implies causality.
I can easily image a company that runs through early success, growth and profitability and the sense of prestige that would bring to the employees. Absenteeism, accidents, defects could be low because employees are engaged: They are winning in the market, everyone's getting bonuses, their acquaintances say, 'oh, wow!' when they mention where they are working.
Then, turn that company down, with the same employees, and you'd have the opposite effect. A scandal such as a LendingClub, Uber, Theranos, that changes the fortune suddenly, over night, with the same employee base, and I'd not be surprised if absenteeism, accidents and defects surged.
In that scenario, it's business performance affecting employee engagement.