Talk:Employee engagement/Archives/2012

Citation cannot be deleted
Dear All, I couldn't find the book referred on the first box of this article since the first edit box is created to edit the Studies box, not the above writing that have a citation remark. Can anyone tell me how to edit that one? Because I have a source from a book that is already in my hand (available book and author).

Thank you, ASP --- To edit the top section of the page, use the "edit this page" tab, rather than the 'edit' link on the right.

FGM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.114 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in the Origins section
Anybody home? This sentence looks like it was conflated from 2 or more previous sentences, and the end result is nonsense - When individuals are in Flow State little conscious control is necessary for their actions Employee Engagement as the extent to which workforce commitment, both emotional and intellectual, exists relative to accomplishing the work, mission, and vision of the organization. Whoever is minding this page clean it up a bit, eh? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Micro-sustainability
Added Micro-sustainability to see alsoUrbanRePlanner (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed it; you seem to be spamlinking. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Employee Engagement is not Work Engagement!
Work Engagement is a sub-dimension of Employee Engagement since it is only refers to task-oriented stimuli not the entire job elements. A group of employees can be engaged in a same way regardless the type of work or their jobs description. As a consequence of employee engagement program, employee emotional involvement due to internal branding or employee experience management (EEM) is not the result of work engagement while it is not totally depended to work characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh.abhari (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody take all this seriously except management consultants?
It strikes me as a massive wad of bumfodder, of the sort retailed by unscrupulous management consultants to clueless management (but then, I am being redundant). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! The jury's out, Orangemike. There certainly is gold in them hills. Maybe not as much as most would have you believe, and probably not in the places they typically send you looking, but big organizations are exceptionally good at stifling any animal spirits their new hires might bring with them. If they only stifle it a little less thoroughly, and a little less quickly, even this wad of bumfodder is capable of yielding a nugget or two of real benefit. Adhib (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Employees drive. but what drives the employees
An actively engaged employee has identified that their interests are the same as that or the employers.

An actively disengaged has personal desires that are opposite to the interests of their employer – the need to satisfy their own need for power and self-esteem. A business cannot afford any one in this segment

Inactive disengaged workers. Provide the core skills and effort to satisfy the transactional needs of the employer. These tend to be solid, loyal, and provide the bedrock to the employers success, freeing the actively engaged to move the business forward.

The actively disengaged workers only exist with employers who stifle creativity.

The most successful business will only have actively engaged and inactive disengaged employees, with a split that matches the transactional nature of the business.

Derrick Hudgell Essex UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.47.194 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese businesses seem to be doing OK without trying to engage employees and some successful western businesses export work to countries that pay ow wages and have no employee rights. Should this not be recognised in the article. Alnpete (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)