Somehow, I’ve gotten myself into a bind by promising a write-up on what I perceive to be the linkage between employee acquisition, retention, satisfaction, and engagement. I’ve mentioned it here and here, but have not really had the time to put this all on paper.
First off, let’s start with a very simple pictorial and move through the elements from there.
I’ve called it a productivity continuum simply because I could not think of anything better. As with my post on the employee engagement study featured by Regina and Neville, we should understand that there is linkage between these concepts/activities and distinction as well. Here are a couple more links: About.com: Job seach is about the money and a BLR thing that hints at satisfaction and engagement. We also know that antecedents for each of these employee measures change as we move right and down along the continuum.
As we move right, we find that cash outlays for direct employee benefit become less important. Major/Primary drivers for talent management:
Employee Acquisition: Cash Compensation, Benefits
Employee Retention: Total Compensation, Work-life balance
As we move down towards optimization, we find that cash is no longer important, but instead the cultural factors take over. Cash is still important because you need it to retain the employee, but it is not a factor in engagement. Major/Primary drivers for talent optimization:
Employee Satisfaction: Work culture, stress, ability to impact work
Employee Engagement: Culture, job design, ability to impact customer, management.
So while each of these are antecedents to each other, they all also have separate and distinct requirements that feed them. Well, I think that’s enough strategy theory from me for one day.
8 responses to “Talent optimization and engagement”
promise doesn’t receive a payoff in the real day-to-day work experience. David’s idea of “voluntary alignment” is what I would call engagement. Employees who are engaged feel a stronger tie to their work and their employer. Repeating myself from a previous post , we find that cash outlays for direct employee benefit are very important for recruiting, but not as important for retention. They key factor here, is if you can move employees into the satsified and engaged range, you are not as at risk for employee
need not to think about minimizing the interaction – but to increase the quality of that interaction. Part to of this series tomorrow. Related Posts: GG and DD define “engagement” Employer branding, talent and engagement Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Talent optimization and engagement Commitment vs. Engagement Towers Perrin, November 15, 2005. “ Largest Single Study of the Workforce Worldwide Shows That Employee Engagement Levels Pose a Threat to Corporate Performance Globally.“ Retrieved December 11, 2005 from
– Human Resources Strategy and Human Resources Technology systematicHR, Double Dubs, Human Resources, HR, Strategy, Employee Engagement, Talent Management, HRO, Outsourcing, HR Strategy, HR Technology, Technology, HR Blog, Human Resources Blog systematicHR – Human Resources Strategy and Human Resources Technology … systematicHR, Double Dubs, Human Resources, HR, Strategy, Employee Engagement, Talent Management, HRO, Outsourcing, HR Strategy, HR Technology, Technology, HR Blog, Human Resources Blog Harvard Training – Human Resources Strategy
[…] David’s idea of “voluntary alignment” is what I would call engagement. Employees who are engaged feel a stronger tie to their work and their employer. Repeating myself from a previous post, we find that cash outlays for direct employee benefit are very important for recruiting, but not as important for retention. They key factor here, is if you can move employees into the satsified and engaged range, you are not as at risk for employee attrition because employees now want to work for the company for reasons other than compensation. […]
[…] Talent optimization and engagement – June 15, 2005 […]
[…] If you were reading systematicHR last year, you’ve seen at least a couple of posts on the differences between commitment and engagement. I have always maintained that attraction was a factor of total rewards, but that retention was a factor of commitment and engagement. These last two are more difficult to define. Commitment refers to your ability to build an employer brand that employees relate to. Engagement is the your ability to provide both work and a work experience that employees find meaningful and fulfilling. […]
[…] Talent optimization and engagement | Systematichr […]
[…] are important for attracting employees, they're not as high on the list for keeping them. Instead, another study suggests employees who stay at a company are interested in things […]