Some companies make a considerable investment in employee engagement: conducting surveys to measure it, identifying the issues that affect it, and taking action to raise it. To them it’s as important as their investment in things such as talent acquisition, advertising or R&D – the life blood of their business. And they constantly measure their return on all those investments. 

Nowadays there’s no shortage of statistics or case studies which prove the links between engagement and a whole range of business performance metrics. Nevertheless, there are still many companies who see an engagement survey as a cost rather than an investment. 

Very often it’s because they haven’t really analysed how it could link to and drive performance in their own business, and even act as a catalyst for change. Rather they see surveys as essentially HR activities which provide feedback on employees’ attitudes and feelings and input into people policies and practices. 

That doesn’t mean those surveys are without merit. They can be very useful. In many cases the engagement survey focuses on a consistent set of issues from year to year and provides a useful measure of progress over time. And companies which act on the feedback tend see a consistent rise in survey scores and engagement levels. This can support employer branding initiatives and help to promote the company as a great place to work. 

However, there are often limitations to this approach. Rising survey scores are not always reflected in improvements in business performance.  And rising engagement levels do not necessarily mean that attitudes and opinions are properly aligned with the needs of the business. So perhaps we should ask the question: is the survey making as big a contribution to business success as it could be? 

On the other hand companies which see engagement as an investment rather than a cost also attach importance to tracking progress over time and building their employer brand. But they go beyond that. They tend to use surveys more strategically. As part of their strategic thinking they appraise their current position and decide where they want to be in three or five years’ time. They determine the systems, processes, attitudes and behaviours that will underpin success in that future landscape. They then use the survey to measure the extent to which attitudes and opinions are in line with the new requirements rather than the old. In other words they use the survey to measure the gap between where the company is now and where it wants to be. The survey identifies what needs to be done to close the gap and guides managers in focusing on priority issues. 

This approach has certain key characteristics: it focuses primarily on the needs of the business and on linking employee metrics with key business outcomes; it is forward looking and aims at aligning employee attitudes and behaviours with the future needs of the business; it’s a process rather than an event and although it’s driven by HR it’s owned by the whole company: an investment for the business rather than a cost to HR. 

The alternative approach is rather different: it’s primary focus is on people issues and comparing the present with the past. As a consequence its impact on business performance is rather more limited. It’s typically an event rather than an ongoing process. It is driven by HR, and is seen as a cost to be borne by the hard-pressed HR budget. 

Which approach does your company take?