{"id":17633,"date":"2018-12-19T15:51:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-19T15:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hnews.hult.edu\/?p=17633"},"modified":"2023-01-31T15:13:07","modified_gmt":"2023-01-31T15:13:07","slug":"new-study-reveals-the-truth-about-worker-engagement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hult.edu\/blog\/new-study-reveals-the-truth-about-worker-engagement\/","title":{"rendered":"New study reveals the truth about worker engagement"},"content":{"rendered":"

The largest ever U.K. study of barriers to team engagement challenges conventional thinking about the way engagement is measured and suggests that teams are often nowhere near as engaged as their organizations think they are.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The joint Engage for Success\/Ashridge Executive Education<\/a>\/Oracle study shows that only a quarter of U.K. teams are giving their best at work, while almost a third (32 percent) are actively disengaged<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The findings suggest that the engagement surveys typically relied upon by organizations may not be an accurate reflection because in reality teams are not simply either engaged or disengaged.\u00a0 In fact, team engagement comes in \u2018shades of grey\u2019, with teams either just \u2018satisfied\u2019 or presenting an illusion of engagement<\/strong> because that is what the organization wants to hear.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“The study lifts the lid on barriers to team engagement in a new way and reveals a complex picture.” – Dr. Amy Armstrong, Ashridge Executive Education at Hult<\/p>\n

\n<\/blockquote>\n

The report, \u2018Shades of Grey: An exploratory study of engagement in work teams\u2019<\/a>, is based on a study of 195 participants from 28 teams across seven industry sectors.\u00a0 Organizations in the study varied from SMEs to UK-based multi-nationals, from sectors ranging from <\/span>Government and aviation to chemicals and healthcare.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zones of engagement<\/h3>\n

From the study, researchers identified four zones of engagement:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Zone of Disengagement\u00a0<\/strong>(32 percent), teams are inward-looking, there are cliques<\/strong> and high levels of mistrust<\/strong> and team members describe themselves as over-worked<\/strong>, stressed or burnt out.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Zone of Contentment\u00a0<\/strong>(21 percent) team members do the minimum amount of work<\/strong> required and do not seek stretch or challenge.\u00a0 14 percent of teams initially perceived by their organizations to be highly engaged actually fell into this \u2018contented\u2019 category.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Zone of Pseudo-Engagement\u00a0<\/strong>(21 percent) team members play the system to serve their own needs<\/strong>, stretching workload to fill time, for example, and giving managers the illusion they are engaged because that is what they want to hear.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Zone of Engagement\u00a0<\/strong>(25 percent), teams are proactive and solution-focused.\u00a0 There is a positive atmosphere, a high degree of connectivity and team members support each other<\/strong> personally and professionally.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Factors for engagement<\/h3>\n

The report also emphasizes the vital role team leaders play<\/strong> as the makers or breakers of engagement.\u00a0 It shows that the three most important factors for team engagement<\/strong>, regardless of which zone a team is located in, are:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n