Welcome readers to another one of my blog entries, if you like what you’ve read, then hit the like button, and comment if you want to chime in with anything that can create a conversation in the comment section. Do all those good things that make a page grow. Also, you can support me by following my blog site. This way you’ll be notified when my next blog is published. I am because we are; that’s Ubuntu. As always, peace and keep it real.
“If there is one word in the English language that will clue you in on whether your employees are engaged, that word would probably be “we.” Why? Because engaged employees don’t say “they.” Engaged employees say “we.” – Ron Johnson
Any workplace can potentially become a labyrinth, and the language we use to describe ourselves as employees often swings between being a “dedicated team player” (We) and an apathetic “zombie” (They). These “zombies” hurt themselves in the sense that they stagnated their progress within an organization by creating rifts between them and their colleagues.
In general, the workplace needs efficiency, consistency, and a heavy dose of responsibility to ensure that the entire team maintains the company’s mission of success. Normally, companies evaluate employee engagement by administering surveys, but this strategy usually results in disregard and dissent. Companies should instead listen intently to their employees’ concerns and the words they use to describe their involvement in the company. Words, particularly “we” indicate a level of closeness and engagement that is bereft in employees who constantly use “they” which creates separation and distance between them and the company. Regarding that, the next time you’re explaining your job to an interviewer, a new acquaintance, or whatever the case may be, pay close attention to the words you use to convey your thoughts. Are your words inclusive or divisive? With that being said, I will explain the differences between “We” and “They” employees, the disengagement issues that can arise in the workplace when “they” employees fail to collaborate effectively and consistently, and how the detrimental cost of disengagement can negatively impact an organization’s success.
“We vs They”
Attention! I want all the “They” employees to gather around and take heed to this message because I want my message to not only be emphatic but also comprehensible. WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. It does not matter what position you hold; all employees are integral to a company’s success. If you do not feel that your contributions are being acknowledged or valued, you can easily develop a “they” disposition as an employee. Moreover, employees who fall into a “they” disposition will establish emotional distance from their coworkers, managers, and the company itself. Once “they” employees separate themselves professionally and socially from the company, the company suffers. Unless the “they” employees recognize their underperformance and acknowledge their disengagement, it will become an arduous task for them to transition to being “we” employees who embrace cohesion and collaboration. Employees who have developed a team-first “we” mindset are determined to see themselves prospering with the company. With this in mind, leaders recognize them as steadfast and thriving contributors who uphold a workplace culture that fosters excellence and influences team morale. However, there is no guarantee that every employee will cooperate with this objective.
UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND THE DANGERS OF “THEY” EMPLOYEES
It is unfair to blame all “they” employees for feeling underappreciated and frustrated in their workplace, should they not be exempted from being held accountable? Moreover, “they” employees might be less likely to effectively collaborate with colleagues, which benefits the organization. In addition, “we” employees are dedicated to bringing the best version of their professional selves to the workplace, but this becomes cumbersome when coworkers partially complete an objective or fail. To further illustrate my point, “they” employees are equivalent to having group members on a school project who put in enough effort in hopes of the group getting an A. Whereas, “we” employees are always doing their best to ensure everyone is communicating effectively and holding one another accountable so deadlines are met. Not to mention, “they” employees can develop a tendency to refuse to take responsibility for their lack of productivity and complain about problems in the workplace instead of brainstorming with their team on ways to find solutions.
THE COST OF DISENGAGEMENT
If an organization wants to establish a stronger brand and business, it needs to emphasize the importance of having an excited team of employees who look forward to helping the organization flourish. However, when employees begin to refer to their colleagues or the organization as “they” then chances are that the business has an employee engagement problem. Additionally, there is a strong chance that disengaged employees can cause difficulties and possibly sabotage an organization’s goal of achieving branding exposure if they cannot gain recognition for their efforts. To prevent this from worsening, the disengagement problem must be localized to a single individual (Micro). If there is a lack of productivity, then the likelihood is that the team is not working efficiently and the organization needs a complete employee engagement intervention (Marco) so that management can address urgent matters without making it seem daunting. In other words, management can temporarily change monotonous team meetings to social gatherings so that both become more engaging. This way, employees and management can ease into a more serious setting. For example, to provide a comfortable setting, a company can hold an annual Christmas party where employees eat, drink, socialize, and dance away the company’s dime, or perhaps a Labor Day party outside of work. There is no guarantee that this strategy will be successful. Nevertheless, it is a sensible start in terms of mitigating conflicts and finding common ground so that employees can unify without feeling pressured.
In summary, to cultivate a thriving and prosperous workplace environment, management must listen intently to their employees, as this attentive approach will help them uncover any discrepancies in engagement levels. Additionally, this approach empowers leadership to address emerging issues and change the disposition of discontented employees from describing their position and company as “they” or a jaded bunch. By and large, as with retaining loyal customers, management should retain employees in interactive ways where employees can openly express grievances in the workplace. From that point onward, loyalty has a place to develop, and those “they” employees can move toward turning a new leaf and influence others to become “we” employees a.k.a reliable team players.
Works Cited
Johnson, Ron. “Fast Company | Business News, Innovation, Technology, Work Life …” Fast Company, 2 Aug. 2024, http://www.fastcompany.com/91165648/employee-engagement-team-building.
Real Free - Flowing Words 