Every bright-eyed young adult goes into the workforce expecting to find some job they’ll enjoy. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs. The modern workforce is facing an epidemic of lack of engagement, reminding us of the days we spent bored in school. When the people working for a company are lifeless, the business will feel the consequences through negative PR and negative gross profitability (Coman). This needs to change. I have had several jobs that I did not like, and never want to have another bad job again. It is possible for the entire white collar industry to shift from a terrible necessity to an enjoyable experience. I understand that I am fighting an established corporate culture, but as a disruptive innovation completely changes the shape of business, a disruption of the center of business will revive it. People work best when they work with passion. 

Defining worker empowerment starts with understanding both the worker as an individual, and the environment they work in; both contribute to employee engagement. The unique characteristics of each person cover what they are being asked to do, personal interests and purposes, and their skills. The environment is defined by the relationship between the worker and the company, relationships with coworkers and managers, schedules, and autonomy. As a company established mostly anywhere on the planet, basic employee compensation is required. Surprisingly, studies have shown that paying people more money to complete a task of moderate complexity resulted in less motivation (Popova). So what then? Daniel Pink, writer of several motivational business books, has a solution to this. He says to pay people enough so they don’t worry about money. What people really need is autonomy, the ability to choose their own schedules and lives; mastery, becoming better at something; and purpose, a reason greater than themselves (Popova). As a continuation on those ideas, workers also need a good work environment so they can focus on one thing at a time and take breaks. 

I have had several jobs that fitted into the “never again” category: dishwasher, South Carolina summer yard worker, and overnight stocker. Now I work in Information Technology at the Darla Moore School of Business, but it took 3 jobs I did not enjoy to get there. For others it took many more or many less to get to that place. Some never got there and are working their tails off doing something they hate. But to define what makes the job terrible or unpleasant or unfulfilling helps address a solution to the problem. 

In terms of autonomy, mastery, purpose, breaks, and focus, my work history is severely lacking in all categories. I first worked as a dishwasher. It was hectic, overwhelming, and a place nobody wanted to be. Autonomy meant nothing, I wasn’t getting any better at anything, I had no purpose there. I took no breaks, and I had too many tasks to do. My second job was as a yard worker, working in the South Carolina summer heat. It was much like the first job in pace, and I did not perform well there. The only difference was that the owners were more caring and knew I was better suited someplace else. I had a single task to do, only one way to really do it, although the job didn’t fulfill any mastery or purpose. The third job I ever worked was an overnight stocker for Walmart, probably one of the worst employers ever. It was in the middle of the night, it was repetitive and it was dull. Autonomy in this job didn’t mean much, I was taking a class during my lunch breaks, so I was getting better at something, but I had no purpose there. The breaks should have been more plentiful, as we were working through the night. All of these former positions had both bad environments and bad work that wasn’t suited for me. I was performing well, or at least moderately well, but I was dying for something better (Popova, Schwartz)

A poll by consulting firm Towers Watson in 2012 discovered that providing and facilitating the basic needs of periodic resting, personal value for their work, singular focus, and purpose had major positive effects on both the workers and business. Business measures its success in employee engagement, or work passion, and employees feel the benefits of health, focus, less stress, and increased creativity. When employees take a break every hour and a half, they have 30% higher focus, 50% increase in creative ability, and 46% better personal health than those who take none. Being encouraged by a superior to take these breaks doubles employee personal health, and increases company loyalty by 100%. Being encouraged to take breaks certainly would take the stress out of skiving off to do the same. Feeling value from a supervisor improves employee trust and safety the most out of all the variables. It also made employees 130% more loyal to the company, and 67% more engaged. Even without prioritization, the focused workers were 50% more engaged, but prioritized workers were 140% more engaged. Last but not least, having purpose is the most impactful variable at work. The purposeful employees were 170% happier with their jobs, and 140% more engaged. Unfortunately, there seems a disconnect when investment comes to these variables. Why not have an engaged workforce, with the benefits of increased profitability, customer ratings, less burnouts, less theft, and lower workplace injuries (Schwartz)? This isn’t something companies have always done, but beginning to realize the problem is the first step in solving it. 

If you have a goal, you need to know where you want to end up. This goal for work is called “flow”.  First coined by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, flow is complete focus in one’s work, to the point where all of your focus is in the work, none is left for yourself. People experiencing flow feel themselves move automatically and are intrinsically motivated. To experience flow, you need to be both skilled and challenged in whatever subject you are currently undertaking. An imbalance makes the work either boring or too hard, but it is easy to shift back the balance to flow (Ted.com).

Child Psychologist David Eklind defines flow as the combination of work, play, and love. Work is being modified by the world, play is modifying the world yourself, and love is a drive, a desire, a passion. The three together make flow. Both definitions include a sense of deep enjoyment from the task at hand, and that is something I do not want lost in the current standard of work. Work can and should be enjoyed by all. Not to make life stress-free – that is impossible – but to reduce stress (3).

Companies who make the shift into better employee engagement truly reap the rewards of increased profitability and notoriety, as well as better customer relations. You’ve probably heard of these successful companies- Facebook and Google are thrown around a lot as the marriage of work happiness of financial success, but there are other non-tech companies that do this: 3M, a manufacturing company, Bain and Company, a consulting firm, Clorox, a chemical manufacturer, and In-N-Out Burger, a fast food chain. Unsurprisingly, these companies have several reported similarities by people who work there - a positive, intelligent, and helpful atmosphere, good work-life balance, personal purpose, and progression being cited as reasons why the company’s so great to work for (Ward). 

But one must also face the dark side of the question- how will companies fail if they don’t engage their employees? Remember Radio Shack? They filed for bankruptcy in 2015, and have closed down half their stores since then, ceasing to be the giant they once were. Although the company is still around, employee life for Radio Shack has not improved from its terrible pay and retail pressure. Who remembers Dish, that “budget” TV provider? It’s not doing too well either, due to poor employee work-life balance, long hours, and poor morale. Because of this, the company’s stock has dropped 83% from 2015 to 2016 (Comen).

The last question is how to implement these changes. No single practice will solve every employee need, but some solutions will overlap. First, check the current state of employee engagement within the company. It may seem strange at first for the higher-ups to be asking what the employees want, who may question their intentions. Stay transparent and persistent, to help these people work better. Learn all you can about the employees’ passions, skills, and hopes and dreams – their “work passions”. Then, put them where they can work best. Set up a non-mandatory training program to help employees find their work passions so that a better job can be tailored to them. If anyone is found who is completely satisfied with their current position, let them know where to find Human Resources if they need anything, and leave them alone. (David) In short, make the work environment a place the workers can use their full selves. Communications and Marketing company Peppercomm has been doing this spectacularly- they have built entire projects based on someone’s passion for philanthropy, there’s a coffee shop run by the company’s data scientist, and one supervisor’s skill with freestyle rap has helped the company communicate in new ways. Because of this, Peppercomm was declared the best place to work in New York City by Crain’s New York Business in 2012 (Ford). 

Another way to change corporate culture is to become “sustainable”, which is making the company’s end goals more than monetary. When employees can get behind a good mission- being environmentally friendly, philanthropic work, and for the greater good of humanity, they will know they are working for a good cause (Glavas 14). But it is also important to remember that not all people are the same, so the methods used to engage and reward them may not always be the same. For one employee, learning an instrument may be meaningful, and for another, the ability to leave work early is something more desirable. For those people who align with the company’s goals and missions, stock may be more meaningful than days off, because they want to see the company do well (David 80). 

Though what I have previously discussed are steps to take for a successful organization, it will all fail if it isn’t fully embraced by the leaders. All of management will seem hypocrites, and any attempts at employee engagement will fail (Schwartz).  In his book Engaged Leadership, Clint Swindall explains the key to employee engagement: a leader with integrity with directional, motivational, and organizational skill. Directional leadership has a vision clearly communicated to all so everyone, at all levels, can buy in. Motivational leadership focuses on what motivates the employees, rewards them for doing well, and helps keep work-life balance. Make sure to remain fair. Organizational leadership makes sure the right people are in the right positions, and their work is meaningful. It also sets up a system for continuation of success once you leave (165- 218). 

Although work passions can be a source of great company gain, companies must remember to not use these strategies to exploit their employees. Even though the workforce may be enjoying themselves immensely at work, there is only so much work the human body can exert. Another pitfall is when employees pretend to have work passion, which only causes more stress (David 84). This is not the point; the point is to have a better working, passionate workforce. It is the company’s duty to facilitate worker happiness. There are companies that have done this well, and we know who they are: Google, Facebook, and In-N-Out Burger (Ward). Others who fail to engage their workforce fail, and are forgotten. These are the sad tales of Radioshack, Dish, and Kmart (Coman). Please don’t become them. Although this change may seem difficult, it is an imperative change that needs to be made in order for business to continue in the future. 
