For many organisations, engagement efforts are made in earnest, where surveys are conducted, facilitators are brought in, engagement frameworks are created, and all efforts are made in good faith for improvement. Often times, these efforts work out well for a period of time. But then some sort of subtle shift occurs, where everyone becomes tired, the momentum wanes, and no one really knows why this change happened in the first place.
The truth of the matter tends to be far less exciting than a pivotal moment, as engagement starts to wane from little actions such as concerns going unaddressed, standards being unfairly applied to individuals, and processes that exist only in theory and not in reality. The reason why some workplaces sustain their engagement efforts and others fail comes down to more than just a good plan.
Why Consistency Matters More Than Big Gestures
When it comes to engagement initiatives, there is always an allure to approach the topic from the starting point of launching a campaign. You diagnose the issue, create a plan that will address it and then launch it with some measurement tools. This approach can be useful, yet it usually ignores the context in which engagement really happens.
The way employees feel about their job depends not on dramatic events, but rather on everyday routines. Whether their manager follows up regularly or shows interest only once in a while before an evaluation, whether they get instant feedback or postpone discussion until a review period – all these factors influence the process. Engagement builds up slowly through consistent actions during months, while occasional success is not enough.
The Value of Clear Expectations in Creating a Sense of Belonging
Expectations can seem obvious at times, but few members need clarity about their deliverables alone. Most will appreciate having clarity as to how to raise issues, the process of dealing with conflict in the workplace, and how behaviour is defined in terms of acceptable versus tolerable. Once there is clarity on these issues and a consistent application across the team, then an element of uncertainty is eliminated that few ever think about.
Consistently dealing with tough situations, no matter who it involves, says a lot about the team environment. When team leaders show consistency in such instances, it sends a powerful message. This speaks volumes in terms of fairness and something that resonates with many people. It also makes all the difference in making someone feel like a member of the team.
The Importance of a Supportive Framework for Daily Life
There is something about organisations that stay engaged; these are usually those that have figured out ways to handle themselves in difficult situations rather than just being able to notice that everything is running smoothly. They create systems where the managers are not forced to understand the difficulties associated with life on the job instinctively, but rather they are able to feel safe.
The aspect of the environment that organisations do not seem to take into account while managing people is another crucial factor in people management. When any kind of unacceptable behaviour becomes apparent, what comes to mind immediately is addressing this problem by confronting the offender. Yet, in reality, the very reason why there are such problems is because of the circumstances rather than vice versa. The best performing teams would first check what might have prompted certain actions before approaching anyone. This technique of evaluating environment and expectations before dealing with someone forms the very basis of positive behaviour support and is widely used in people management.
The Concept of Psychological Safety on a Day-to-Day Basis
Psychological safety has become a widely used concept, and there’s plenty of reason why it should be. In essence, as outlined by researcher Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School, psychological safety is the phenomenon whereby people have no reason to hold back for fear of embarrassment, punishment, and the like because they believe they will not face consequences for speaking up, voicing an opinion, admitting a lack of knowledge, or challenging an existing assumption.
The reality, however, that often doesn’t get enough attention is that psychological safety is something that cannot just be declared. In many ways, psychological safety emerges from a series of events that happen daily: How does the manager react when he hears something uncomfortable being said? Is the mistake an occasion for constructive criticism or blame? Is the individual who disagreed in the meeting heard, or was she dismissed quietly?
Leaders who react well in such situations build an environment where the team feels psychologically safe. Those who react poorly train their teams to remain silent.
The Hidden Cost of Inconsistency
Consistent behaviour in the workplace may not have any visible effect at first. People observe everything, even if they do not say so directly. People see the inconsistency in punishing someone while allowing a similar action by another. They also recognise the difference between the values mentioned in the intranet and what really happens in practice. However, people do not complain; instead, they file it away, adding their dissatisfaction to the list of reasons to reduce their commitment to work.
This kind of disengagement usually does not come out explicitly. People show less initiative, give shorter contributions to discussions, and focus only on doing the work required, nothing else. It may be easy to think that this disengagement comes from a lack of motivation. However, this might well be a reasonable reaction to inconsistency in the organisation.
Instead, the leader should ask themselves different questions. What company policies are inconsistently followed? Where do members of the teams experience differences between the declared corporate culture and reality? These are difficult questions, but the correct ones nonetheless.
Creating Sustainable Practices
Sustainable engagement can come not through intention but through system. No matter how well-intentioned one may be, good intentions won’t stop one-on-one meetings from getting cancelled in a rush of business activities. Systems will. In-built recognition within the rhythms of normal team operations is more sustainable than expecting managers to figure out the time and importance for themselves. Systematic onboarding makes sure that newcomers have a clear idea of the organisational culture right from the beginning.
The problem with systems is that they work when people know the reason behind them. If a process becomes a tedious bureaucratic exercise, people engage with it half-heartedly at best. If, on the other hand, the same process is done knowing fully well why, then things change. It’s pragmatic, not soft, to explain the reasoning.
Culture Is Built in Repetition
Engagement doesn’t get solved once and stay that way. It’s something that gets maintained or quietly lost through the ordinary rhythm of how people are treated week to week. The organisations that hold onto it tend to be the ones that have accepted this and built their practices accordingly, not just for the moments that feel significant but also for the ones that don’t.
That’s less exciting than a transformational program. But it’s more honest about how culture actually works, and it tends to produce something that lasts.
Guest writer
