I'd be the first to admit that I don't use LinkedIn effectively, in part because I am not job hunting and in part because the ways they characterize relationships never quite fits, so it makes it clunky to me. That said, I still get leads to articles that are sometimes relevant, and this one is good enough to share on this forum https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-engagement-isnt-getting-better-gallup-shares-mark-c-crowley (doesn't appear that you need to be a member of LinkedIn to read it).
Why should a group emphasizing women (and diversity) in entomology, and by extension, science care about employee engagement (measure of productivity and thus profits in the broad sense)? Because unless you are working in a vacuum, one of their major findings about the value of perks will give you a clue about the kind of workplace and/or learning environment you want to find or create for those working with you (hint: one that embraces flex-time).
One of the things that bothered me about this article, however, is in the list of talents of high-performing managers: in two of the five talents, the descriptors use "natural(ly)," intimating that these cannot be learned. He later quotes, however:
“They share, teach, coach, support, and appreciate their employees,” Harter told me. Regardless of what’s on their plate, they invest the time to know their people personally, what motivates them – their career dreams and aspirations. And “this kind of nurturing is the undercurrent of all five talents.”
We all want to be appreciated and grow...at least this is my assumption. What do you think?