I was just asked "How should we digitize tracking employee engagement to reduce the management burden?"
There is a dangerously flawed assumption in this question that engagement can be digitized.
Companies are ultimately reflections of their owners. You should consider what it is about your core values which influence your culture which influences your operations which influences the daily workflow, which influences how people are treated, and consequently, how they feel about working there. People want to be proud of their work and company.
Yesterday I spoke with a senior construction executive with a reasonable and serious frustration about being contacted by recruiters, sending his resume and information, and never hearing from those recruiters again. Of course, we all know he is not alone. Recruiters are notorious for ghosting people and complaining when candidates or client’s do the same.
The beginning of any employment is inherently an evaluation period and some companies embrace this with a probationary time, trial period, or some such language. The intent being to communicate the extra scrutiny the employee will experience to establish trust, learn the company, and contribute acceptably. By making the period explicit it reinforces the need for the person to be on their best behavior which theoretically enhances retention.
Employees; Career growth is built on trust, not job hopping.
Don't think that job changes are the only way to address pay and responsibility stagnation in your role.
Build the trust of your leaders and then ask for more responsibility and pay. Laziness expressed as job hopping is a shortcut to nowhere.
There is a lot of pandering, click-baiting, bad advice on LinkedIn for job seekers which discourages personal responsibility and discernment and instead suggests corporate discrimination (of many sorts) is the root of job-seeker woes. Oleg Vishnepolsky and Liz Ryan are notable viral examples. Their posts attract thousands of comments and likes.
We’ve all heard about firms who proudly flog candidates through an intense, convoluted, and long interview process. Their intentions are to be understandable rigorous. These firms have often experienced the pain of a bad hire and have swung far to the other extreme and now conduct numerous interviews, often over five.