Employee Engagement in Strategic Management - Term Paper Example

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BY COLLEGE PRESENTED TO Employee Engagement Introduction Employee engagement refers to the commitment that employees portray to the organisation and its objectives (Krose, 2012). Research indicates that engaged employees may result in a 6% increase in the net profit margins, and engaged companies may have over five times more shareholder returns over a five year period compared to non-engaged companies (Krose, 2012). Therefore, for Grant Pharmaceuticals to realise the best potential of its employees, there is a need to adhere to employee engagement strategies, which would motivate the employees to go the extra mile towards meeting the organisational goals. Discussion An important milestone in strategic human resource management has to involve proper integration of “strategies, people, processes and systems towards achieving the organisational desired goals” (Binder 2006, 12). Moreover, Shuck and Herd (2012) asserted the need for emotional intelligence as one of the leadership competencies in achieving employee engagement towards organisational goals by ensuring employee satisfaction and commitment. An important aspect in the implementation of organisational strategy is that employees need to understand not only how they impact the organisational strategy but also the progress of the organisation towards its goals (Grey, 2013). In other words, considering employees’ behaviours are shaped by organisational strategic policies, ensuring active participation of employees in designing policies as an engagement plan would motivate employees towards meeting the organisational goals as explained by the goal setting theory. Under the goal setting theory, goals have been found to have a significant impact on employee behaviour and performance in organisations, and gaols setting is a credible way to ensure employee motivation as part of the engagement process (Locke & Lotham, 2002). Besides goal setting being a motivational factor, research has established significant relationships between “goal setting and organisational profitability” (Rauch 2007, 6).This theory might imply that the input of employees in the smoking ban policy in Grant Pharmaceuticals as a goal and policy would act as a motivation to employees. Employees will feel as part of the organisation and that their opinions in policy formulation counts, a strategic way to improve employee engagement in the organisation. For effective engagement in the company, all employees have to develop a perception of equality in the company. According to the equity theory, for people to be motivated towards productivity, there has to be a general perception of equitability (Al-Zawahreh and Al-Madi, 2012). As such employee engagement is a positive attitude among employees towards an organisation and its values. This might suggest that, the use of the feedback of a few supervisors to design strategies that affect the entire organisation will result in the perception of inequality and will affect engagement strategies in the organisation. Hong and Waheed (2011) in a study of Malaysian retailing sector observed that, under Fredrick Herzberg’s two factor theory, people derive greater motivation from achievements, responsibility, recognition and development. This could suggest that, if the management used the views of the employees, the employees could feel they own the final decision and as part of the entire organisation, a recognition that motivates employees develop a positive attitude towards an organisation and its goals. This view was supported by Christopher (2005) who asserted that motivation is a result of expectations to the future, while employee satisfaction involves a consequence of past events. As such, both satisfaction and motivation are essential parts of a successful engagement strategy without which employees may not perform towards attaining the organisational goals. According to Vroom’s expectation theory, people are motivated to act towards attaining specified goals if they have grounded belief in the course, and an understanding that their efforts would be of critical importance in achieving the end (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). This theory might suggest that, by participating in policy making in the pharmaceutical company, employees would derive a higher degree of motivation, which fuels their efforts towards attaining the organisational goals. Therefore, Grant Pharmaceuticals failed in ensuring equality and inclusiveness thereby affecting effective engagement; the employees do not own the policy and hence may not believe in it. Recommendations Therefore, proper engagement policies are only possible in a company where employees are motivated and satisfied. Though employee engagement is much more than satisfaction and motivation, the two concepts help in aligning the focus of employees towards organisational goals and encourage employees to employ more efforts towards attaining these goals, which results in employee engagement and increased productivity. Grant Pharmaceuticals has to include the perceptions and views of all employees in the survey and ensure all employees understand the reasons behind the policy to develop considerable beliefs in it once implemented. Moreover, they will develop a sense and perception of owning the policy, which may motivate them towards organisational goals as significant decision makers in the organisation. List of References Al-Zawahrer, A & Al-Madi, F. 2012. ‘The Utility of Equity Theory in Enhancing Organisational Effectiveness.’ European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 46, pp158-169. Binder, D. 2012. ‘Executing Engagement Strategy Creates the Real Value.’ People & Strategy, 35(4), pp 6-7. Christopher, M. 2005. ‘Meaningful motivation for work motivation theory.’ Journal of Management Review, 2, 235–238 Grey, A. H. 2013. ‘Engagement ring: Building connections between employees and strategy.’ Public Relations Tactics, 20(5), pp16 Koontz, H. & Weihrich, H. 2006. Essentials of Management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing. Kruse, K. (2012). What is employee engagement? Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why/ Accessed 18th April, 2014. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2002. ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation.’ American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Rauch, C. 2007. The Goal-setting Theory. Norderstedt: Books on Demand Shuck, B. & Herd, M. A. 2012. “Employee Engagement and Leadership: Exploring the Convergence of Two Frameworks and Implications for Leadership Development in HRD.” Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), pp. 156-181. Teck-Hong, T. & Waheed A. 2011. ‘Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory and job satisfaction in the Malaysian retail sector: The mediating effect of love of money.’ Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), pp73-94. Developing Effective HR-Line Manager Relations Introduction In most organisations, line managers assume many of the daily operations previously handled by the HR or these roles are outsourced to organisations offering HR services. In some cases, line managers may lack the required level of expertise to deal with issues related to personnel management in their respective lines, and may require constant and regular input of HR managers. Therefore, to ensure improved organisational performance, there is a need to cultivate positive and workable relations between the HR and line managers, two levels of managers that are critical in enhancing productivity. Discussion Line managers are sometimes responsible for some HR roles with respect to recruitment, undertaking employees’ performance appraisals and training of employee teams (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Kinnie & Purcell, 2007). Sharing of HR roles with line managers in some cases leads to disharmony between HR-and line managers as line managers may ignore the input of the HR in their management operations. Kulik & Bainbridge (2006) in a study of the views of line and HR managers on the need to share some HR functions with line managers observed some significant differences and points of disagreements affecting effective coordination between the two. Some HR managers responded that the need for line managers to share HR roles was characteristic of ensuring line managers had increased ownership of the production process. On the contrary, more line managers attributed the sharing of HR roles to the need for organisations to cut costs. In such a case, as Yukl (2008) illustrated, developing the behaviour of relations-oriented leadership between the two levels of management would lead to cultivating trust, enhance cooperation and coordination among the staff and commitment, an ideal approach to improve management and productivity. For the HR and line managers to achieve effective relations towards improving organisational performance, there has to be extensively crafted communication strategies that may lead to the formulation of effective working policies. According to the social penetration theory, it would be expected that self-disclosure behaviour improve as the relationship between the two managers intensify (Sprecher, Wenzel & Harvey, 2008). The self-penetration process in this case would be affected by verbal, non-verbal or environmental interpersonal behaviour. Moreover, the social exchange theory requires that interactions have to penetrate way beyond the veneers of formal institutions, work groups to affect the behaviours of collaborating individuals (Berninghause et al., 2007). These theories might suggest that, HR managers have to design communication channels that foster interactions and harmonious working in addition to developing a rapport between the line managers and the HR team. Dow and Taylor (2008) in examining the communication theory stressed on the need for face-to-face conversations as the best way to develop rapport and improve relationships between such team members. The HR has to design effective ways to monitor the operations of line managers in ensuring harmonisation across the organisation. For instance, line managers may lack the requisite skills and expertise to handle most of their roles as organisations develop both in size and scope, unless with intervention from the HR who offers the necessary guidelines. McGuire, Stoner and Mylona (2008) explained that some of the HR roles that line managers are sometimes required to handle are complex, ambiguous and confusing. Such guidelines have to require that line managers assume the role of a coach or leader of a motivated work team (Hales, 2005), with close HR participation towards harmonisation of HR policies across the different departments. The HR has also to plan and organise rigorous training and seminar sessions to impart the required skills to line managers in facilitating effective operations. To ensure effective relations between line managers and the HR, there is an urgent need for the HR manager to dissolve myths and the mistrusts that inhibit effective line manager – HR relations in organisations. In a research on the effects of sharing HR roles between a HR and a line manager, Renwick (2003, 265) observed that some line managers have a sense of being "dumped on" while a study by Harris et al. (2002) noted that some line managers believed they were being "pushed upon to take new HR duties" (p219). Such perceptions result in lack of faith, fear and mistrust when taking the new roles. Dow and Taylor (2008) explained the need to control emotions when communicating with team members in addition to ensuring honesty, openness and straightforwardness among the involved managers. Recommendations Therefore, to ensure effective relations between line managers and the HR, there is a need for comprehensive training and skills transfer from the HR specialists to line managers in helping them handle complex HR functions. Moreover, there is a need for effective interaction policies and communication between line managers, HR managers and the employees, in fostering a cohesive team work approach between the teams. The benefits of the above goals include formulation of policies that suit the local conditions, reducing the time required for decision making and reducing the hierarchy of communication. List of References Berninghaus, S. K., Guth, W. & Vogt, B. 2007. ‘Spontaneous evolution of social exchange –An experimental study.’ The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), pp976- 997. Dow, W. & Taylor, B. 2008. Project Management Communications Bible. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley & Sons. Hales, C. 2005. ‘Rooted in Supervision, Branching into Management: Continuity and Change in the Role of First-Line Manager’, Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), pp.471-506. Harris, L, Doughty, D. & Kirk, S. 2002. ‘The Devolution of HR Responsibilities – Perspectives from the UK’s Public Sector’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(5), pp. 218-22 Kulik, T. C. & Brainbridge, T. H. 2006. ‘HR and the line: The distribution of HR activities in Australian organisations.’ Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), pp. 240-256. McGuire, D., Stoner, L. & Mylona, S. 2008. ‘The Role of Line Managers as Human Resource Agents in Fostering Organisational Change in Public Services’, Journal of Change Management, 8(1), pp. 73–84. Purcell, J. & Kinnie, N. 2007. ‘HRM and Business Performance’, in Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Purcell, J. & Hutchinson, S. 2007. “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM- performance causal chain: theory and evidence”. Human resource Management Journal, 17, pp. 3-20. Renwick, D. 2003. ‘Line Manager Involvement in HRM: An Inside View’, Employee Relations, 25(3), pp.262- 280. Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. 2008. Handbook of Relationship Initiation. New York: CRC Press. Yukl, G. (2008), ‘How leaders influence organizational effectiveness’, The Leadership Quarterly, 19, pp. 708-722. Read More