Rigid frameworks or flexible approaches? The debate on employee engagement measurement in organisational contexts

Abstract

Purpose

This strategic commentary aims to examine the benefits and drawbacks of rigid frameworks versus flexible approaches to measuring employee engagement, arguing for a hybrid model that incorporates the best of both to better correspond with organisational subtleties and strategic goals.

Design/methodology/approach

This study compares the standardised, benchmarking capabilities of inflexible frameworks such as Gallup’s Q12 to the adaptability and customisation potential of flexible approaches. It emphasises the creation and implementation of a hybrid methodology that preserves the integrity of engagement measurement while also incorporating organisational-specific insights.

Findings

Despite their different benefits, rigid frameworks may neglect distinct organisational cultures, whereas completely flexible techniques may suffer with measuring consistency. A hybrid model, which combines core standardised questions and unique items, provides a balanced solution for improving the relevance, actionability and reliability of engagement data across dynamic organisational landscapes.

Originality/value

The discussion culminates with the proposal of a hybrid measurement strategy as a strategic innovation in human resource management. By combining scientific rigour and contextual sensitivity, this model provides a nuanced roadmap for organisations looking to thoroughly understand and effectively negotiate the complexity of employee engagement in an evolving work environment.

Citation

Conlon, R.T. (2024), "Rigid frameworks or flexible approaches? The debate on employee engagement measurement in organisational contexts", Strategic HR Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 141-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-03-2024-0019