Using Commitment and Ownership to Enhance Engagement

One of the many links I followed on Twitter today took me to a very interesting piece by Terrence Seamon. The article is called “Engagement: A New Lens on Performance Review”. What I like about it is a) it’s a short and simple read and b) it ties engagement, productivity and performance together neatly. Here’s a brief extract and you can click here for the article on Terrence’s blog. Good work.

If a business leader hears about employee engagement and sees the potential in it to raise his organization’s productivity and profitability, how would he link it to his annual performance management process?

Commitment – Essentially, employee engagement comes down to commitment: How committed is the employee to the organization? Let’s cut to the quick on this and say: Employee commitment is directly related to the degree of commitment they feel from the organization. So, if you want high performance from employees, demonstrate your commitment to them. This can take a variety of forms. In the context of performance review, one thing you can do is “turn the tables” and ask the employee for feedback. Ask: How are we doing? What can we do to provide you with better support this year? What are your goals that we can help you with?

Ownership – Some employees are already highly engaged. If you could “pop the lid” on their psyches and peer inside, what would you see? One of the things you’d notice is that they have the attitude of an owner. They take ownership of the things they do. They don’t need much supervision. And they don’t need your feedback either in most cases. In fact, they are their own toughest critics most of the time.

Common Causes of Project Failure

Spotted an interesting report primarily aimed at managing and delivering projects across Government. But hey, why should they have all the learning eh? Strikes me that this is a lot about trying to do too much. Headlines discussed include:

1. Lack of clear links between the project and the organisation’s key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success.
2. Lack of clear senior management and Ministerial ownership and leadership.
3. Lack of effective engagement with stakeholders.
4. Lack of skills and proven approach to project management and risk management.
5. Too little attention to breaking development and implementation into manageable steps.
6. Evaluation of proposals driven by initial price rather than long-term value for money (especially securing delivery of
business benefits).
7. Lack of understanding of, and contact with the supply industry at senior levels in the organisation.
8. Lack of effective project team integration between clients, the supplier team and the supply chain.

You can download the full report from here.