How good are you at identifying disengaged employees? This infographic from Office Vibe shows you how to identify the main traits.
Disengaged employees show obvious signs such as complaining constantly but did you know that employees never asking questions (and so never wanting to learn new things) can also be a sign of disengagement?
But crucially, disengaged employees don’t support the company culture and don’t understand how much of a role it plays in the business success.
How many disengaged workers can you identify in your organisation?
Eek! Apparently I’m halfwat to being a bad employee!
And here was me thinking I’m a disabled introvert. Apparently if I find a job I’m fully engaged with, all those problems will go away…
so being independent is bad ? that means I can’t go off and sort a problem, or work on a project without holding hands with someone ? I think way too much time is spent identifying disengaged employees versus the trying to correct the root causes why employees stop trying or caring.
The strap line at the bottom of the ‘info graphic’ (does just putting text around a drab picture make it an info graphic?) might be better the other way around, i.e. “…a good company culture engages employees in supportive behaviour”. I found this poster a little nauseating and sounding like some kind of propaganda poster from a country at war. “How to spot the enemy within!” Yes, there are sometimes a few individuals in an organisation who fundamentally do not want to be and should not be there. But the vast majority in an organisation that are disengaged are disengaged as a consequence of the relationship between them and their manager and/or the leadership of the organisation. Of course it is much easier to demonise a section of the workforce than it is to take responsibility for improving the culture.
Since when is a disengaged employee a bad employee?
Disengaged employees may be perfectly good employees under any other circumstances. More focus should be given to the route cause of the problem rather than ‘let go’.
TERRIBLE ARTICLE. I hope to never have a manager with this perspective.
The premise which underlies these points is wrong. Cause and effect is mixed up here. Leaders and managers presumably recruited staff with these attributes in the first place and since nobody sets out to recruit a bad employee what is it that organisations and their managers do which demotivate their people? Employee engagement research is now very well established. Paolo makes an excellent point.
What is your definition of a good employee… A proactive Doormat? This is utter rubbish; according to this it would be impossible to find a good employee. Everyone is distracted at times, lacks enthusiasm in some areas and occasionally criticise or gossip. Also one should take the initiative but avoid being independent? Instead of this nonsense, it would be more helpful to educate employers on how to create work environments where positive employee traits are nurtured.
Very interesting infographic. Will there be another one that gives a what you can do to help turn these traits around?
Instead of Independent, I would replace with Isolated.
I’m not sure the author of this article understands the difference between ‘personality’ and ‘attitude’.
Disengagement is an attitude, and exhibits itself through a set of behaviours. A disengaged attitude can normally be changed by altering the context (moving to a new manager/team, altering work methods, changing lifestyle, leaving company etc); but a personality is pretty much fixed for life.
In my opinion this ‘infographic’ is inaccurate and misleading. As per the previous comment, what they are mostly describing is not personality traits it is behaviours. Some may be indicative of social dis-engagement which could happen to any employee for a variety of reasons. Some of the statements are also contradictory – you don’t want people to be independent but you do want them to show initiative? Doesn’t the required behaviour depend on the person’s job role and the various challenges that have to be met by the circumstances and dynamics of the role? These sort of ‘soundbitey’ statements should only ever serve as a basis for critical discussion