Write a explaining what practices an organisation might adopt as part of an employee engagement policy, and assessing who stands to gain the most from this the organisation or the employee - Lab Report Example

Table of Contents 0 Introduction 2.0 Policies Adopted by Organisations 3.0 Who Gains Most? 3 4.0 Conclusion 5 References 6 Employee Engagement: Policies Adopted and its Benefits 1.0 Introduction It is a common knowledge in today’s environment that companies have perceived human workforce as the most valuable asset than information technology because of their labor service that allows an organisation to achieve its goals. Recognising their effect on the financial performance of the company, employees are highly prioritised through the various efforts of the companies to maintain employee satisfaction.

Employing in human resource management and policies, employees are motivated to work beyond the expectations of the company. This strategy is referred to as employee engagement. CIPD (2009, p.1) defines employee engagement (EE) as giving an environment to employees where they could establish a relationship with their co-workers, job, and employers. Employees have a clear understanding on the corporate’s mission, vision, and culture that allow them to create commitment. The main thrust of this paper is to explain the policies adopted by most companies in creating employee engagement.

Moreover, it aims to analyse the most advantageous between the employee and employer in adopting these policies. 2.0 Policies Adopted by Organisations Organisations often focus on the area of employee satisfaction, but the identified cases that drive the engagement of employees are the leadership system of the company, engaging managers, employee voice, and integrity. Leadership enables the employer to explain the mission statement of the company, and the employee’s contribution in achieving it.

Moreover, managers are encouraging employees to perform their job efficiently and effectively without unfair treatment and biased judgment. Communication is the central point of employee’s voice wherein staff have a chance to voice out their concerns without fear. As part of empowering employees, employers listen to their opinions. Lastly, integrity is the values shaping the organisation that manifests the trustworthiness of employers, which is followed by employees (Acas, 2010). In creating an engaging environment, most companies concentrate on the recruitment, selection, and induction area.

This strategy aims to decrease “employee’s turnover” (Ongori, 2007, p.049). Companies desire to prevent employees from leaving the organisation. They are motivated to retain productive, efficient, and effective employees because of the central point: profit. Thus, when the employee’s satisfaction is high, there is a small probability of employee turnover. Moreover, companies invest in pay and reward system. Reward system through recognition increases the “sense of the organisation’s appreciation and support” to employees.

However, monetary rewards employed by other companies have not increased employee’s commitment (Carpenter & Wyman, 2007, p.7). Currently, companies are investing on nonfinancial method of motivating employees. According to the survey conducted by Dewhurst, et al. (2009), nonfinancial motivators produce long term engagement than financial incentives due to the cost cutting of companies that decreases the employee’s morale. This is applicable to employees who are satisfied with their salary.

Furthermore, equality and equity are promoted by employers to display corporate values. Equity involves the fair treatment of management to all employees while equity is synonymous to equity, but it focuses on rewards that are based on their contributions (Hewitt, 2011, p.12). In addition, internal communication is used to inform employees of the procedures involved in discipline and grievance. The fairness of employers and managers relies on how they treat and apply disciplinary actions. 3.

0 Who Gains Most? Employers and employees have a tacit agreement that entails their obligations in exchange of service and money (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). The employment relationship has different goals and objectives set that can be achieved through the cooperation of employees and employers. Based on Devi (2009, p.3), employee engagement is a “two-way street”; hence, employers and employees must work together. In the concept of the employment relationship, employees are searching for a sustainable company that offers high wages while employer seeks for profit and high quality of service.

Therefore, when implementing employee engagement policy, it is believed that both parties achieved its goals and objectives. Companies that apply employee engagement have perceived importance of high salary offered to employees because Williams, et al., (2012, p.20) assert that high salary is dependent on “organisational performance.” High wages imply that employer values the employees’ welfare within the organisation, which prompted owner to share their success with them. This will lead to happy employees and employers have acknowledge that happiness and fulfillment result to productivity (Doherty, 2010, p.32). Productivity is always associated with profit that is the primary goal of companies.

Saks (2006, p.604) explains that the antecedents to attain job engagement and organisation engagement is through the perception of employees regarding on the characteristics of their job, support from managers and organisation, rewards through monetary or non-monetary incentives, and justice. Employees’ perception results to individual outcome and work-related consequence. In individual outcomes, employees will likely increase the level of their commitment and job satisfaction. Furthermore, work-related consequences involve the increasing productivity, quality output, and positive work-experience.

On the other hand, management aims for controlling their employees, which weakens their bargaining power. However, the employment relationship strategy involves the balancing of “cooperation and conflict” wherein employees and employer met at their shared interest (Edwards, 2003, p.15). Through the negotiation of labor union, employer and employees reach a collective bargaining agreement that protects their interest. It has been studied that employee engagement is linked to organisational performance.

Since the company searches for profit, the survival of the organisation is guaranteed. In a study conducted by Attridge (2009, p.389), engaged employees have changed the financial performance of the company. When examining its past financial performance, the company’s future profit is “four times stronger.” The company’s success is contingent on the communication aspect. Another study found out that effective communication contributes to 16% rise of company’s market value. Therefore, the strategy of the company must be precise and clear to employees, so that they would feel the sense of belongingness and importance.

Markos (2010, p.92) points out that aside from organisation’s increased financial performance, productivity, and low employee turnover, employee engagement is connected to customer loyalty and safety. The more engage the employees, the more they perform better to serve the customers for the benefit of the organisation. The employer will be assured of the quality service that employees rendered. 4.0 Conclusion With the perceive consequences of employee engagement, companies have implemented policies that create engagement such as rewards and recognition; effective communication on the organisation’s mission statement, grievance and disciplinary procedures; investment in recruitment, training and development; and equality and equity in the workplace.

Furthermore, it is concluded that employers and employees benefit on the employee engagement policy because their goals are achieved. References ACAS, 2010. Building employee engagement. UK: ACAS. Attridge, M., 2009. Measuring and managing employee work engagement: a review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24 (4), pp.383-398. Carpenter, G. & Wyman, O., 2007. Engaging employees to drive global business success: insights from Mercer’s what’s working research.

New York, NY: MERCER. CIPD, 2009. An HR directors guide to employee engagement. London: CIPD. Devi, V.R., 2009. Employee engagement is a two-way street. Human Resource Management International Digest, 17 (2), pp.3-4. Dewhurst, M. et al., 2007. Motivating people: getting beyond money. McKinsey Quarterly, [e-journal]. Available at: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Motivating_people_Getting_beyond_money_2460 [Accessed 6 Feb 2012]. Doherty, R., 2010. Making employee engagement an end-to-end practice.

Strategic Review, 9 (3), pp.32-37. Edwards, P.K., 2003. Industrial relations: theory and practice in Britain. Germany: Blackwell Publishing. Hewitt, A., 2011. Trends in global employee engagement. USA: Aon. Markos, S., 2010. Employee engagement: the key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12), pp.89-96. Ongori, H., 2007. A review of the literature on employee turnover. African Journal of Business Management, 1 (3), pp.049-054. Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), pp.600-619. Shore, L.M. & Barksdale, K., 1998. Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: a social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, pp.731-744. Williams, C. et al., 2012. Mgmt. USA: Cengage Learning.