A LACK OF CLEAR LEADERSHIP is the likely cause of China’s low engagement levels.
These were the findings from ClarkMorgan’s 3rd quarter ‘Three Dimensions of an Organisation’ survey which focused on engagement, capacity and environment. The respondents consisted of 79 HR managers from China-based multinationals, located in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen.
The most revealing aspect of the survey was the lack of clarity around the corporate responsibility for ‘engagement’. 45.6% of respondents stated that the line manager was the most responsible for staff engagement, while only 10.1% of respondents believed employee engagement was the responsibility of the individual employee themselves.While report from BlessingWhite, Gallup and Hay Group state unanimously that Chinese engagement is appallingly low, and one of the lowest in the world, 84.8% of the HR managers surveyed stated that on average their staff were engaged.
[quote style=”boxed” float=”left”]Only 10.1% of respondents believed employee engagement was the responsibility of the individual employee themselves.[/quote]
The questions related to ‘capacity’ were the most divisive question in the ‘Three Dimensions of an Organisation’ survey was whether or not managers should possess the same skills regardless of the country in which they work. Just over half of respondents, at 55.7%, felt that managers should possess the same skills regardless of location. However, that left 44.3% of respondents stating that different skills were required in different countries.
This supports the results from the ClarkMorgan ‘China Leadership Inventory’ survey, which highlighted the top 20 qualities of leader that Chinese white collar employees prefer in their leader. Of the survey only four qualities were ranked similarly for managers in China and Australia.
With respect to an organisation’s ‘environment’ over 75% of respondents feel that their employees mostly or completely relate to the values of their organization. They also stated that training and coaching is still the most effective way to improve an employee’s behavior with only 2.5% of respondents believing that you can not change someone’s behavior.