Employee engagement: “a tool for control, not emancipation”?

One of the things that really attracted me to employee engagement, many years ago, was the prospect of challenging traditional, ‘command and control’ models with a more collective, mutually beneficial approach. But has the field failed to deliver on this promise?

I ask the question following a panel discussion at the launch of The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work earlier this week. One of the issues discussed was the role of employee engagement, with one panellist calling it “a tool for control rather than emancipation”.

Is that really what it has become?

I have to say I don’t believe this is anywhere near universally true: I have been privileged enough to see, work with and work for a number of organisations that have recognised the strength of plurality and shaped working practices around it.  

I see the benefits of that collective approach in companies of all types and sizes. It aids the organisation and it aids individuals.

However, based on this week’s discussion, there are clearly organisations in which employee engagement has been adopted – maybe subverted – to reinforce rather than redefine ‘command and control’. Giving it another name, if you will, rather than exploring new ways of working.

Over the years, I’ve heard various reservations leading to reticence on employee engagement. They have included venturing into the unknown, being concerned about ambiguity and/or a fear of “letting go”.

I’ve also talked to leaders and managers who have worked through such concerns with their people and come out the other side, with stronger organisations as a result.

I hope those who are not yet on board with this approach come to understand its benefits and work with their people to grasp them. Employee engagement, in its true sense, opens up many opportunities.