Employee Engagement and Employee Voice - Essay Example

Employee Engagement and Employee Voice Introduction Employee voice is simply employee participation and/or involvement in influencing organizational activities particularly corporate decision making. Organizations give employees a voice by involving them in formal and informal methods based on minimizing conflicts and improving communication on one hand and encouraging staff retention on the other. Many organizations do so by motivating and treating employees fairly (Purcell, 2009:21). Employee participation acts as a method of empowering and motivating employees, which results, to increased retention and productivity. Unlike other words like “High Commitment Management” and “High Performance Work Systems”, employee engagement is an attractive and a simple word with a clear meaning that makes it easier to understand. It is however, not that very much different from employee voice (Kinnie, 2005:40). They both talk about employee involvement and influence towards increasing an organization’s productivity and retention. Employee engagement incorporates attitude and commitment (Edwards, 2009:91). This paper will seek to explore and discuss the various debates surrounding the concepts of employee engagement and employee voice basing its arguments on their definitions and nature in relation to managing employee relationship. The nature of ‘employee engagement’ and ‘employee voice’ in relation to managing the employee relationship As stated, employee engagement is all about behavior and attitude. In this case, attitude refers to employee commitment towards his job while behavior is merely the action to corporate. In other words, behavior in employee engagement can be what people commonly refer to as the extra mile taken by employees to ensure that the organization’s decision-making process involves them (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:27). Analytical response to management consultants who happen to partake ‘employee engagement surveys’ it is true to say that engagement is mainly involves engagement with the organization an employee works for and engagement with the employer (Golan, 2007:29). Usually, those who measure employee engagement consider things like the time an employee wishes to stay with an employer, pride that he or she has for the firm that he works for, and their preparedness to exert extra pressure or effort on behalf of the firm (Redman and Snape, 2005:301). With reference to employee engagement and its definition, it is seeable that an employee’s commitment to a supervisor or a manager is more productive and a stronger link to recital compared to commitment towards an organization. This shows that it is not surprising to establish that some employees have multiple loyalties towards different things. In a number of situations some employees, in most cases professional workers such as lawyers or nurses, may appear ambivalent towards their boss but prove to be very passionate about their profession, team leader, customer, or co-workers (Kaufman, Beaumont, and Helfgott, 2003:48). One of the reliable cases that captures well this multi-faceted nature and behavior of employees in employee engagement practices is the Employee Engagement Consortium at Kingston University. The researchers stated that; the idea that every employee can make a substantial contribution towards the continuous improvement and successful functioning of all firm’s processes is the fundamental or rather primary concept of employee engagement (Purcell, 2009:44). Engagement is ideally about the creation of opportunities for workers in order to connect with their managers, co-workers, and the overall organization. It is also about creating an environment that motivates employees in view of wanting to build a relationship with what they do and care for doing a great job (Kinnie, 2005:61). This study notes the way in which it is evident that employee engagement enables workers to perform better compared to others, become less likely to leave their employer, and take less sick leaves (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:33). According to the researchers, employee engagement has three dimensions that distinguish various aspects of organizational management and working relationship. The first one is the intellectual engagement, which entails of the extent at which an organization absorbs its workers and methods that it uses to create an environment that makes the employees always think about ways in which they can improve their performance. Second is the affective engagement (Redman and Snape, 2005:305). This spectrum describes the extent at which certain people feel the positive energy and emotional interconnectedness with their experiences at work and with the company. Lastly, there is the social engagement, which explains the extent to which workers discuss with their social groups about improvements and changes related to work (Wilton and Wilton, 2011:74). In relation to managing the employee relationship, employee engagement resolves to provide dimensions that stimulate worker’s loyalty towards their employees, colleagues, and organization (Edwards, 2009:95). Reliable resources maintain that, people are different and have diverse tastes for things. As such, managing employee relationship with reference to facets of employee engagement is complex. Believably, not all people would like to work certain jobs and not all people want to associate with certain organizations (Kaufman, Beaumont, and Helfgott, 2003:60). This mixed behavior and attitude tends to lure the concept of employee engagement with regard to managing the employee relationship. Certainly, the concept brought forward by employee engagement talks about attitude and behavior being the biggest motivators towards organization, work, and colleagues (Purcell, 2009:59). In order to manage the employee relationship shared between and among employees, work, and organization, it is crucial to analyze the critical factors significantly linked to attitude, behavior, and positive commitment for most or every occupation. Based on the idea that employee engagement has everything to do with attitude, different researchers opine that the nature of employee engagement is divisive. According to the most authoritative employee examination –the 2004 WERS-, employee engagement does not only improve performance output, but also develops a sense of interconnectedness between and amid workers in an organization (Wunnava, 2004:79). However, bearing in mind that this is only possible through facilitated employee involvement in corporate decision is imperative. Generally, employee engagement in an organization brings forth employee trust particularly in management and this observation is significant for every occupation (Turner, 2003:50). This is so because, if an employer finds it necessary to entrust an employee with some of the activities or places that the management finds secretive and out of bounds to the junior employees, it creates a sense of responsibility, which is imminent in developing employee trust (Boxall, Purcell, and Wright, 2006:86). Significantly, with employee engagement comes along satisfaction with the work one does. Trust in management and satisfaction with work done are the primary building blocks for of employee engagement since they employees find them very significant for all occupations and increase the level of involvement in decision-making (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:46). Results obtained from the research showed that, not all employees derive satisfaction from what they do and just a few of fully engage in many organizational activities (Bennett and Kaufman, 2007:98). Explanation for this observation depicted that, to obtain a data that explains the differences in employee engagement could prove to be a thing of distraction or chimera as some workers may be fully engaged in one or two aspects of their work but less engaged in others yet very committed and effective (Redman and Snape, 2005:309). Therefore, to manage their relationship with reference to their engagement, the levels of engagement should be either very high or favorable to all employees in an organization (Bennett and Kaufman, 2007:103). Most important, pointing at factors leading to disengagement or simply low level of employee engagement is pragmatic as they can help reveal some significant causes of failure among different departments (Purcell, 2009:81). Such factors also help show the basic elements leading to failure in employment practice and policy. It is agreeable, for instance, that in organizations where people work with the feeling of job insecurity, high stress associated with very little inflexibility and autonomy, and in areas where people work with short task cycles employees tend to have lower levels of engagement. All of these factors make it clear that there is the need for “better jobs” specially brought in place by better job design (Kinnie, 2005:78). Likewise, the research pointed out that low levels of employee engagement are also rampant in areas where there is perceived unfairness in rewarding, in organizations where there is harassment and bullying, and in places that make employees believe that they are stuck with their job positions thus cut off from the open communication system. Such situations replicate certain implications for the line of manager behavior (Edwards, 2009:97). Thus, managing the relationship between employee engagement and employee relationship becomes exceptional with the need to consider employee voice in the decision making process (Albrecht, 2010:126). Since the nature of employee voice and employee engagement, intertwine in a way or two, managing their relationship can be intellectual when considering the likelihood of employee involvement in communication of employee ideas, employee involvement in corporate decision making, and employee satisfaction (Kaufman, Beaumont, and Helfgott, 2003:81). Employee voice As of now, the widely used term in the academic and practitioner literature on industrial relations and Human Resource Management in the recent years is employee voice. It is noteworthy that books based on WERS Surveys resolved to devote their effort in questioning whether employees’ voice does or does not exist anymore (Armstrong, 2012:65). In the issue included on the Industrial Participation Association (IPA), Geoff Armstrong from the CIPD mentioned that historically, voice described collective bargaining (Golan, 2007:56). Additionally, he suggested that this selected that inculcated a joint regulation ended up being a straitjacket deterring the very items that all organizations required in order for them to win and maintain customers. Even though Armstrong acknowledged that management is extensively to blame for that, he also suggested that the shift towards direct involvement of employees reflected a huge desire aimed at improving organization performance (Wunnava, 2004:102). In another argument by Margaret a professor at TGWU, collective voice acts as the only tool that a lone voice cannot achieve. Collective voice resolves to civilize and humanize a workplace since is the representation that indicates a foundation for partnership relationship, which results to positive and beneficial outcomes for an organization (Redman and Snape, 2005:313). In another survey, observations proved that the more ways an organization provides employees with an opportunity to voice out their ideas is more important and has significant results than the amount paid to an employee (Tsui and Lai, 2009:91). At this point, it is apparent that the literature has many meanings that seek to define the term employee voice and it contains quite a number of different reasons that can underpin an aspiration for collective voice as opposed to lone voice (Turner, 2003:87). Hirschman’s classic study of the African Railway in 1970 is the best-known application of the term voice. Despite the observation shows that his study describes how organizations respond to failure or decline, many other applications aimed at the same purpose have come along. The study of Medoff and Freeman (1984) argues that it is congruent for both an employee and an employer to have an established voice mechanism. Analysis of the study reveled that this observation has two sides (Boxall, Freeman, and Haynes, 2007:75). On the one side, there is the consensual image in which participation and involvement could result to increased productivity and improved quality. On the other end, there is the conflict image in which that similar participation and involvement could end up bringing problems that could otherwise explode leaving the relationship shared by an employer with his employees torn into pieces (Purcell, 2009:95). As Benson’s study (2000) notes, trade unions appear as the only legitimate voices for most employees since they seem to provide an independent voice. In such a context, most of the literature on industrial relations views articulation for grievances on a collective or an individual basis since it is the only component of voice (Boxall, Freeman, and Haynes, 2007:96). In a colorful context put into writing by McCabe and Lewin in their 1992 survey, the presence of employee voice in an organization broadens their ability to express complains and/or grievances within a working context to the management (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:52). Through employee voice involvement, it becomes easier and possible for the management to find it worthwhile to include employees in the decision making process of an organization. This, on the other end, results to improved performance, enhanced management of employee voice and employee engagement, and sets in place a platform for distinguishing mandated voice and plainly expressed voice (Edwards, 2009:111). Further, employee voice facilitates the relationship between an employee and work, colleagues, management, and the overall organization. This aspect contributes to legislation and co-determination among employees, which is essential for realizing substantial development towards a common goal as employees’ view what they do and where they work as something and place they need to hold to for as long they can (Turner, 2003:90). Intensive studies into employee engagement and employee voice shows that these factors are manageable via both collective and mandatory voices (Kinnie, 2005:83). Both collective and mandatory voice are cognitive tools that ensure that employees do not turn a blind eye on procedures followed when submitting workers’ grievances and bargains and determination as well as legislation requirements. In managing the employee relationship, the definitions, as well as descriptions handed down by different case studies and researches narrate that employee voice is very useful since it reveals individual dissatisfaction, expresses organization collectiveness, and is a form of contribution towards management decision-making (Golan, 2007:83). Processes of promoting the concepts of employee engagement and employee voice Now it is seeable that the concepts of employee engagement and employee voice almost advocate for the same things, it is also understandable that processes that are capable of promoting them are almost similar (Kaufman, Beaumont, and Helfgott, 2003:96). One of the processes in which an organization can apply in order to promote employee engagement and employee voice is the use of improved communication policies. As noted, it is suitable for an employee and an employer to keep a communication mechanism. The same case applies to big organizations where researchers assert that even organizations that have a large pool of employees have to keep a systemic communication mechanism (Redman and Snape, 2005:319). Specifically, a systemic communication mechanism enables employees to air out their concerns, grievances, ideas, and raise questions regarding any burning issues between and among themselves and the organization (Wunnava, 2004:114). Such a platform is substantial as it improves performance, leads to sound decision making, and restores balance between employees, management, employers, and the organization. Strategic integration is yet another process that an organization can use in order to promote the concepts of employee engagement and employee voice. Studies maintain that, the notions given to strategic integration are predominant and distinctive in the human resource management literature (Purcell, 2009:101). Ironically, presence of strategic integration is not only vital in promoting the concepts of employee voice and employee engagement, it is also prime in the stressing of the importance of strategic human resource management. Hence, strategy integration has the patentability to promote employee engagement and employee voice since it incorporates superior human resource planning skills (Edwards, 2009:113). With superior skills in human resource planning, employee engagement improves since the management sets out platforms that cater for employee needs, ideas, and complaints among others. In addition, strategy integration considers people’s typical and apparent importance of their involvement in decision-making. Hence, strategy integration promotes employee voice through corresponding to the need to have a channel for airing out grievances, needs, and contributions (Golan, 2007:93). Essentially, strategic integration of superior planning administers functional involvement wherein it promotes employee voice through setting in place identifiable pro-active systems which encourages employee voice. The Warwick Company Level survey in UK indicated that, strategic integration of superior planning promotes employee voice and employee engagement by having transparent and influential ways of voicing out any issues to management (Boxall, Purcell, and Wright, 2006:98). Fundamentally, it becomes easier for managers to integrate strategic and powerful concepts capable of suggesting significant reflection of employee engagement and employee voice rather than the antithetical unencumbered believes brought forward by trade unions (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:77). Exploration of the meaning and usage of employee voice and employee engagement with organizations Ways in which different organizations employ the usage of employee engagement and employee voice depict the many various ways in which they understand these terms. In order to bring forth the exploration of the meaning and usage of employee voice and employee engagement with reference to different organizations, it is worthwhile to understand what drives organizations’ understanding and usage of such concepts. With regard to many organizations, drivers of employee engagement are variable (Bennett and Kaufman, 2007:116). A report by The McLeod set out four broad drivers or enablers that are very critical in gaining employee engagement (Kinnie, 2005:99). They include leadership, managers’ engagement, employee voice, and integrity. According to the report, organizations that find leadership holding a key and a strong narrative for providing a shared but clear vision for the organizational development employee engagement becomes the heart of activities in such an organization (Turner, 2003:123). This is so because, in such organizations, advocates for employee engagement seek to push organizations to bear in mind that it is needful for employees to conform with not only the main function of the firm that they work for, but how their personal roles contribute towards the organization’s vision as well (Redman and Snape, 2005:322). Apart from leadership, engaging managers provides or offers clarity for what to expect from individual staff members. It involves a bit of stretching, training, and much appreciation for individual performance. In simple terms, it involves the facet of showing concern and fairness and respect for the employee’s health, role, and efficiency, and ensures that work designing is effective and efficient (Golan, 2007:105). In such circumstances, organizations that fall under this category understand the usage of employee engagement and employee voice as concepts for facilitating fair treatment and equal offer of opportunities for every employee (Armstrong, 2012:85). Integrity is yet another multifaceted exploration applied by organizations to when trying to understand the meaning and usage of employee engagement and employee voice. Under this spectrum, most organizations espouse values, which have certain behavioral norms (Edwards, 2009:115). In such organizations, employees believe that, cases where a gap exists between and among employees, the management, and the entire organization the gap shows the degree of distrust between these entities (Wilton and Wilton, 2011:159). In other cases where there is no gap, the level of trust is high. In these organizations, engagement is understandable when an employee finds the stated values being sensitive and practiced by colleagues and leadership hence the likelihood to develop a sense of trust is imminent as such values constitutes to powerful employee engagement and employee voice (Turner, 2003:134). The links between employee voice and employee engagement and organisational success Availability of an empowered employee engagement provides a basis for an effective employee voice where employees are able to make an organization sought out their views, have their views listened and accounted for, and make a difference. The relations hip between employee voice and employee engagement is tacit as in the case of employee voice, workers become capable to challenge the actions and policies of an organization when and where appropriate as well as speak out their minds (Purcell, 2009:128). Similarly, employee engagement develops and permeates sense of involvement, satisfaction, likening, and value for what an employee does thereby deriving a sense of partnership. In relation, employee engagement creates sensibility and credibility for work, performance, and retrenchment while employee voice forms a feeling of fairness as through the set communication channels, employees are listened and heard then considered (Boxall, Purcell, and Wright, 2006:126). The business case for employee voice and employee engagement Employee engagement and employee voice are critical in business activities. Most businesses understand that employee engagement takes place when employees in a business understand the business’ goals, are proud to take charge in their part as a sign of fulfilling the set vision, and commit themselves to function at their level best when carrying out tasks on behalf of the business (Kinnie, 2005:116). Engaged employees are a business’ best advocates and they always enjoy sticking around. For that reason, businesses revolve around employee engagement as it creates a win-win situation since it gets a more productive workforce willing to work even beyond their limits in order to deliver satisfactory results. On the other side, employees get an occupation that they value, interest them, and develop talent as well as receiving rewards and fair recognition (Buchanan, Fitzgerald, and Ketley, 2007:100). Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has shown that the foundation of employee engagement is commitment, behavior, and attitude. Organizations are able to build employee engagement through establishing employee commitment and developing attachment as they have positive benefits for the employees and organization as well (Redman and Snape, 2005:328). As seen, attaining employee engagement and employee voice does not require expensive or sophisticated investment in different or new ways of functioning or working but it really requires wholehearted support and convincing from the senior managers via their strategic vision and leadership. Note that, this call is familiar agenda (Kaufman, Beaumont, and Helfgott, 2003:150). Nevertheless, it has an attention that the power of the message in addition to call for action at organizational, secretarial, and government levels fail to diminish even after its repetition. Bibliography Albrecht, S. L. 2010. Handbook of employee engagement: perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers. Armstrong, M. 2012. Armstrong's handbook of management and leadership: developing effective people skills for better leadership and management. London: Kogan Page. Bennett, J. T. and Kaufman, B. E. 2007. What do unions do?: a twenty-year perspective. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Boxall, P. F., Freeman, R. B., and Haynes, P. 2007. What workers say: employee voice in the Anglo-American workplace. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Boxall, P. F., Purcell, J., and Wright, P. 2006. The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L. and Ketley, D. 2007. The Sustainability and Spread of Organizational Change. Abingdon: Routledge. Edwards. C. 2009. ‘HR, perceived organizational support and organizational identification: an analysis after organizational formation’. Human Resource Management Journal Vol. 19 (1) pp 91-115. Golan, P. 2007. Employee representation in non-union firms. London: SAGE Kaufman, B. E., Beaumont, R. A., and Helfgott, R. B. 2003. Industrial relations to human resources and beyond: the evolving process of employee relations management. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Kinnie, N., et al 2005. ‘Satisfaction with HR practices and commitment to the organization: Why one size does not fit all’. Human Resource Management Journal 15, (4) pp 9-29. Purcell, J., et al 2009. People Management and Performance. London: Routledge. Redman, T. and Snape, E. 2005. ‘Unpacking commitment: multiple loyalties and employee behaviour’ Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 (2), pp 301-28. Tsui, A. P. Y. and Lai, K. T. 2009. Professional practices of human resource management in Hong Kong linking HRM to organizational success. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Turner, P. 2003. Organisational communication: the role of the HR professional. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Wilton, N. and Wilton, N. 2011. An introduction to human resource management. London: SAGE. Wunnava, P. V. 2004. The changing role of unions: new forms of representation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Read More