A Shift to Hybrid Remote In-Person Work Post-Pandemic Will Increase Managers' Employee Engagement

This is the third in a series of posts on employee engagement defined in the Global Measures of Court Performance as the percent of employees who, as measured by a court-wide survey, are passionate about their job, committed to the mission of the court and, as a result, put discretionary effort into their work. In the first post on March 24th, I reviewed the findings in Gallup’s 2019 pioneering book, It’s the Manager, , by Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, and Jim Harter, Chief Scientist. Based on a decade of study of tens of millions of interviews of employees and managers across 160 countries, their study revealed “the most profound, distinct,  and clarifying finding” in Gallup’s 80-year history of studying the workplace: Managers who develop engaged employees did not merely influence the results of their teams, including higher productivity, lower turnover, greater safety, better profitability, and higher quality – they accounted for an astounding 70% of this  success. No other factor even came close.

Before Covid-19 only one in twenty Americans worked remotely from home; by the spring of 2020 that number jumped to twelve out of twenty. The shift to a “hybrid world of work,” working from home at least part of the time seems here to stay. As reported in a special report on the future of work by The Economist (April 10, 2021), while employees are working longer hours, they report higher levels of productivity and happiness. “Covid-19 may be the best thing that ever happened to employee engagement,” contends Josh Bersin, an analyst cited in the WSJ special report.

An intriguing reason for the increase in employee engagement in the remote workplace is the blurring of home and office. Employees want to know that they are not merely automatons in the corporate machine. They want their supervisors to care about them as persons with stresses and joys outside of the office. As Gallup’s Jim Clifton and Jim Harter have noted, it is hard to manufacture caring about someone in an impersonal office environment. But remote work has forced bosses and supervisors to experience their employees in their homes and in their lives outside of the office. Over the course of the last year, like most of us, I have experienced many instances with sights of children, a family dog, or cat, invading the meeting space, or a noisy leaf blower or a doorbell ringing forcing someone in the meeting to excuse herself or himself to close a window or answer the door. These diversions are usually met with understanding and even humor, reminding even the most demanding managers that employees are people first.

British managers responding to a survey cited in an article by Alexandra Samuel in the Wall Street Journal (“Working From Home Has Changed Employees: Bosses Will Need to Adapt,” June 14, 2021) said that their management style has changed during the Covid-19 pandemic. One said that he is “able to support my] team better now that I have an insight into their personal circumstances. I am probably more accommodating than before but [this] has not negatively impacted the team.”

Copyright CourtMetrics 2021. All rights reserved.


Comments

  1. Unknown1:32 PM

    A complete set of employee engagement tools to connect, collaborate, understand, measure & optimize engagement for a superior employee experience. https://www.peoplehum.com/employee-engagement-software

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tictoks6:56 AM

    Many thanks for this excellent information. Visit our website to get the best employee monitoring software
    best garage management software
    best employee location tracking system
    Best SEO Services
    Garage Management software

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more