Why Employee Engagement is so Important - Essay Example

Employee Engagement Introduction Employee engagement is a relatively new construct that is slowly gaining momentum and being embraced in many organisations today (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Wefaid & Downey, 2009). The growing popularity of this concept can be linked to developments in research which show that employee engagement can play an invaluable in improving organisational outcomes (Macey & Schneider 2008; Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Although the concept of employee engagement is compelling on the surface, its meaning is still unclear (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). A critical look at different perspectives in literature, it is evident that employee engagement is a vague and multidimensional concept that lacks a specific or standard definition. Albretch (2010) defines employee engagement as the extent to which employees are motivated to work toward the realisation of organisational success and are willing to go an extra mile when performing tasks that are important in achieving organisational success. On the other hand, Armstrong (2010) notes that, employee engagement involves creating opportunities so that employees can connect with their counterparts, managers and the organisation in general. It further involves the creation of a work environment where employees are highly motivated such that they are connected with their work and care so much about doing their job well. Dernovsek (2008) notes that, employee engagement is synonymous with employee commitment and positive emotional attachment. Cook (2008) argues that, employee engagement is more of a psychological concept than a physical one. She notes that the concept can be summed up by how positively employees think and feel about the organisation and how they are proactive in acting so as to achieve organisational goals. Although different views have been put across on what the concept entails, the definitions provided have some key similarities. Based on these definitions, it is plausible to argue that the concept of employee engagement encompasses aspects such as; motivation, work enthusiasm, employee commitment and the achievement of organisational goals. This paper seeks to critically examine what the concept of employee engagement entails. Through a critical review of various relevant literature and empirical studies, this paper will foremost discuss the specific meaning of employee engagement in relation to constructs such as morale, motivation, spirituality, job satisfaction, involvement commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. It will further look into the measure of employee engagement. Secondly, it will examine the relationship and differences between employee engagement, work engagement and organisational engagement. Thirdly, this paper will examine engagement and individual differences. It will then look into the strategies, antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Subsequently, this paper will identify the existing research gaps in the empirical studies reviewed and make recommendations for future research. Employee Engagement versus Work Engagement and Organisational Engagement The term ‘engagement’ is commonly used in the organisational context in different ways. According to Gallup (2009) engagement is the level of an individual’s satisfaction, involvement and enthusiasm towards their work and their organisation in general. Balain and Sparrow (2009) further notes that engagement is a fulfilling, positive work-related state of mind often characterised by absorption, dedication and vigour. Based on these definitions, it is evident that the term engagement is broad and touches on individual, work and organisational related aspects. Over the years, scholars have examined and differentiated different aspects of engagement either as employee engagement, work engagement or organisational engagement. Although these three concepts of engagement have several commonalities and relationships, they also have significant differences. According to Schaufeli (2013), “employee engagement” and “work engagement” are often used interchangeably; nevertheless these concepts are different in that, work engagement refers to the relationship of the employee with his or her work whereas employee engagement refers to the relationship of the employee with his or her work as well as the organisation. In essence, Schaufeli (2013) portrays employee engagement as more inclusive in that it touches on both work and organisational aspects. Similarly, Macleod & Clarke (2008) argues that employee engagement is manifested in terms of work engagement and organisational engagement. In this case, work engagement refers to the extent in which employees put effort in their work particularly with regards to energy, time and brainpower. On the other hand, organisational engagement touches on the attachment and positive attitude held by employees towards the organisation and all its overall values (Armstrong, 2010). Few empirical studies have been conducted over years to show the relationship and differences between these three concepts. In a study conducted by Saks (2006), it was established that work engagement and organisational engagement are moderately related in that there are all driven by employees’ intentions, attitudes and behaviours. However, the study established that these concepts have significant variance in relation to their antecedents and consequences. The antecedent variables used in this study established a significant amount of variance in job engagement (R2¼0.30, p,0.001) and organization engagement(R2¼0.39, p,0.001). Job characteristics (0.37, p,0.001) and organizational support (0.36, p,0.01) were found to be major predictors of job engagement. Organisational support was also found to be a major predictor of organisation engagement (0.57, p,0.001), and procedural justice approached significance (0.18,p,0.10). In relations to the consequences, Saks (2006) established that the engagement measures showed a significant amount of the variance in job satisfaction (R2¼0.37, p,0.001), organisational commitment (R2¼0.50, p,0.001) and intention to quit(R2¼0.22,p,0.001) (Saks 2006). Engagement versus morale, motivation, spirituality, job satisfaction, commitment, involvement and organisational citizenship behaviour. As previously observed in this paper, employee engagement is a vague and multidimensional concept that lacks a specific or standard definition. In some instance, the term engagement has been likened or used synonymously with concepts such as morale, motivation, spirituality, job satisfaction, commitment involvement and organisational citizenship behaviour. This section will look at the similarities and differences between engagement and these concepts. Morale can be defined as a state of mind that has a strong influence on individual’s willingness to work. Thus in the end it affects individual and organisational objectives and performance. Morale can also be regarded as the overall satisfaction that an individual derives from his job, colleagues and work environment (Bowles & Cooper, 2009). A critical look at various relevant literatures, it is evident that morale has been portrayed as a measure or consequence of employee engagement (Bowles & Cooper, 2009; Heikkeri, 2010).For instance Heikkeri (2010) observes that, the level of employee engagement can influence employee morale. Similarly, Bowles & Cooper (2009) note that employees who are disengaged can negatively impact on the morale of the organisation. According to Frazier (2009), job satisfaction can be described as the attainment of one’s critical job values that are congruent with or help in the realisation of one’s physical or psychological needs. Job satisfaction can also be considered to be a positive and pleasurable emotional state driven by one’s appraisal of their work or work experiences (Frazier 2009). Fernandez (2007) suggests that, there is a clear distinction between job satisfaction and engagement. She contends that employee satisfaction is not synonymous with employee engagement since managers cannot rely on employee satisfaction to help retain their employees. However, engagement can help in the retention of employees. Some researchers consider job satisfaction to be part of engagement, but it merely reflects a superficial, transactional relationship that can only be retained through incentives (BlessingWhite, 2008; Macey & Schnieder, 2008). On the other hand, employee commitment can be described as the extent in which employees are emotionally or intellectually attached to the organisation. It can also be regarded as a strong belief and acceptance of organisational values and goals which in turn translates to a strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation (Cooper 2012). Dernovsek (2008) notes that employee engagement is synonymous with employee commitment. Nevertheless, studies by Macey & Schnieder (2008) and Markos & Sridevi (2010) tend to suggest that employee commitment is an important predictor of employee engagement. In essence, these studies do not agree that commitment is the same as engagement. Instead, they portray commitment as an antecedent of engagement. Despite the fact that there is little consensus on what workplace spirituality entails, McKee et al (2008) note that spirituality is associated with dimensions such as meaning, purpose, connection to others and a sense of community. Saks (2011) observes that spirituality is a term commonly used to describe the experiences of employees who have a sense of meaning and purpose in their work and are energised and passionate about their work. Conversely, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz (2010) argue that, spirituality entails aspects in the workplace (either individual or group related) that enhance individual feelings of satisfaction and connectedness through transcendence. In his article Saks (2011) explores the similarities between spirituality and engagement. He establishes that both spirituality and engagement touch on employee connectedness, completeness and wholeness in their personal lives and profession (work performance). Moreover, Saks (2011) argues that both spirituality and engagement have similar work-related outcomes. Research studies have linked these constructs to work-related outcomes such as creativity, commitment, productivity and lower turn-over intentions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Kolodinsky et al., 2008). Motivation can be described as intrinsic or extrinsic driving forces that stimulate the energy and desire in people to achieve certain goals (Jex & Britt, 2008). According to Burton (2012), the relationship between motivation and engagement is two-way. In essence, employee engagement enhances motivation and vice versa. Other studies have also portrayed motivation as an antecedent and consequences of employee engagement (Macey & Schnieder, 2008; Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Employee involvement is often described as a set of practices aimed at creating a work environment where employees can participate and have an impact on various aspects that revolve around their work (Lashley 2012). Gaber (2012) argues that engagement and involvement are different in the sense that, engagement predetermines involvement. He particularly observes that engagement encourages employees to be more involved in their work and organisational activities (Gaber, 2012). Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a concept commonly used to describe constructive or positive behaviour amongst employees that goes beyond their job description and plays a critical role in facilitating effective organisational functioning (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009). A number of studies show that OCB is not synonymous with engagement rather it is one of the consequences of employee engagement (Richet al.2010; Saks 2006). In contrast, Markos, & Sridevi (2010) argue that employee engagement is a predictor of OCB. Engagement and Individual Differences The workforce today is more complex and diversified than ever with employees from different generations, cultural, economic and educational background backgrounds. Additionally, employees within an organisation have different personalities, work experiences, views, values, preferences, needs, beliefs and goals. Hence, when it comes to engagement a one-size-fits-all approach may not be effective due to individual differences within the organisation (Scott & Byrd, 2012). Kular et al (2008) observes that, individual differences can play a critical role in determining employee’s potential level of engagement. He accentuates that each individual receives and processes information differently. People tend to make sense of information, events and situations according to their own unique individual frame of reference that has been influenced over time by their personality, knowledge, past experiences, priorities, environment, interests and expectations among many other factors. Consequently, levels of engagement can be linked to individual differences (Kular et al, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Over the years, research studies have showed that, differences in individual aspects such as personality, emotional experiences, personal relationships, gender and marital status can play a significant role in determining the level of employee engagement, job engagement or organisational engagement (Kular et al, 2008). For instance, a study carried out by Inceoglu & Warr (2012) established that the level of employee engagement can be determined by primary functions of personality factors and sub-factors that match motivational and affective elements such as emotional stability, conscientiousness and extraversion (Inceoglu & Warr, 2012). Personality impacts on how employees perceive meaningfulness, safety and value of their work or organisation. Due to differences in individual aspects can play a significant role in determining the level of employee engagement, it is likely that in some instances that employees may be more engaged than their managers (Albretch, 2010; Kular et al, 2008; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Some studies have shown that the level of individual engagement can impact on individual relationships and overall wellbeing. A Gallup survey asked employees whether work-related engagements caused them to behave poorly with their family or friends. 51% of the respondents of actively disengaged employees indicated YES, 31% of actively engaged employees indicated YES, 35% of not-engaged employees indicated YES, whereas 18 per cent of engaged employees indicated YES. These findings show that the level of employee engagement can impact on their individual relationships (Gallup, 2009; Kular et al, 2008). Measures of Employee Engagement A critical look at various relevant literatures, it is apparent that there is no universally acceptable way of measuring employee engagement. In most cases, organisations tend to measure employee engagement using survey items that touch on the drivers, antecedents or behavioral items of employee engagement (Albretch, 2010; Kular et al., 2008). Nonetheless, Macey & Schneider (2008) consider employee engagement as a desired state that can be measured by taking into account a combination of four key individual elements namely advocacy, satisfaction, retention and pride. The rationale behind this view is that engaged employees often have pride and are satisfied with their organisation as a workplace. As a result, they are likely to advocate for the organisation and remain in their organisation (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Similarly, Albretch (2010) argues that employee engagement can be measured based on their pride in their organisation, how they portray their organisation to others and their overall satisfaction with their organisation as their place of work (Albretch 2010). Conversely, in a study carried out by Andrew & Sofian (2012), employee engagement is measured in relations to job engagement and organisational engagement. This study supports the findings of Saks (2006) who suggested that there is significant difference between job engagement and organisational engagement. On the other hand, Markos & Sridevi (2010) argue that employee engagement can be measured based on three key behaviours. Firstly, engaged employees often advocate for the organisation to potential customers and co-workers. Secondly, engaged employees have intense desire to work for their organisation despite of other opportunities to work elsewhere. Lastly, according to Markos & Sridevi (2010), engaged employees put in extra time and effort to contribute to the achievement of organisational goals. Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement Over the years, a number of studies have critically examined the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. However, little research has been directed towards the development of models or theoretical frameworks. Currently, there are two streams of research conducted by Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al (2001) that provide models for employee engagement. Kahn’s (1990) model accentuates that there are three key psychological conditions that can be linked to employee engagement or disengagement at work. They include; safety, meaningfulness and availability. In essence, this model suggests that employees are more engaged at work when offered psychological meaningfulness and safety and when they are psychologically available. On the other hand, Maslach’s et al (2001) postulates that factors such as; reward, recognition, perceived fairness, social support values and a sense of community played a significant role in determining the level of employee engagement. The Social Exchange Theory (SET) is also another model that provides theoretical foundation that explains the predictors of employee engagement. This model is based on the notion that relationships are based on rules of exchange or reciprocity. For instance, when employees receive socio-emotional or economic benefits from their organisation, they are likely to feel obliged to repay the organisation in kind. One way in which they can repay the organisation is through their engagement. In essence, employees will choose to engage themselves in different degrees depending on the resources that they receive from the organisation (Saks 2006). Drawing on Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachet al.’s (2001) model, a study carried out by Saks (2006) explored the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Saks established that some of the key antecedents of employee engagement include; job characteristics, rewards, recognition, perceived organisational and supervisors support and perception of justice. The study further established that some of the consequences associated with employee engagement include; job satisfaction, organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and turnover intention (Balain 2009; Saks, 2006). On the other hand, a study conducted by Heikkeri (2010) found that individual characteristics such as self-esteem and personality are significant antecedents of employee engagement. Organisational factors such as relationships, communication, leadership characteristics and job characteristics were also found to be significant antecedents of employee engagement. Similar to the findings of Saks (2006), this study also established that some of the positive consequences of employee engagement include; job satisfaction, employee commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and low turnover intentions (Heikkeri 2010). Strategies of Employee Engagement In their article, Markos & Sridevi (2010) explore several strategies that can be used to develop or enhance employee engagement. Firstly they note that employee engagement can be enhanced by giving employees satisfactory opportunities for development and advancement. They recommend that organisations should encourage independent thinking by giving their employees more job autonomy so that they can have a chance to choose their own best approach of doing their job as long as they are able to deliver the expected results. Dowling, Festing and Engle (2008) argue that, providing employees satisfactory opportunities for development and advancement provides them with exposure required for them to become flexible and adaptable. It also increases their capabilities and makes them have a general and deeper view of the organisation. However, in as much as this strategy is beneficial it may not be ideal especially in situations where employees lack knowledge, experience or a sense of responsibility required to achieve the expected results. For instance, when an inexperienced or irresponsible employee is given more responsibility or an advanced work opportunity they are likely to produce substandard work (Dowling, Festing & Engle 2008). Secondly Markos & Sridevi (2010) accentuate on the importance of appropriate employee training. Appropriate training can help employee to update and increase their knowledge and skills. As a result, their confidence in their job is likely to increase and they will be able to work without much supervision from their managers. This will in turn enhance self-efficacy and commitment. In a study conducted by Sihinidis & Bouris (2008), a positive correlation was established between training and employee commitment, motivation and job satisfaction. Other studies have also found training to be effective in enhancing employee productivity at work (Devi & Shaik 2012; Langer & Mehra, 2010). Although many studies have found that training to be an effective strategy of enhancing employee engagement Salas et al (2008) suggests that training can ineffective if mediating variables such as content, the trainer and number of trainees are not taken into account. Moreover, in some instance training can be costly and time consuming (Armstrong, 2010; Salas et al, 2008). Some studies have found that both financial and non-financial incentives can also have a significant impact on employee engagement. Markos & Sridevi (2010) argue that, when employees get more pay, praise and recognition, they are likely to exert more effort towards their work and have more positive emotional attachment towards their organisation. Similarly Bhattacharya & Sengupta (2009) argue that the use of incentives can strengthen citizenship behaviour and employee commitment to the organisation. A study conducted by Willis-Shattuck et al (2008) suggests that the use of financial incentives alone may not be effective in enhancing employee engagement. Other factors such motivation, availability of resources and infrastructure were found to be key in enhancing employee engagement. Furthermore, certain incentives especially financial ones can be costly to the organisation (Willis-Shattuck et al, 2008). Research gaps The various research studies reviewed in this paper have provided invaluable insight on what employee engagement entails. However, a critical look at these studies, it is evident that they have left several research gaps. Firstly, most of the research studies reviewed in this paper have emphasised on the significance and positive impacts of employee engagement on the organisational outcomes (Heikkeri, 2010; Markos & Sridevi, 2010; Saks, 2006; Wefald &Downey, 2009). Nevertheless, these studies have failed to provide a balanced view on the costs of engagement. In essence, many studies have failed to carryout the cost-benefit analysis for engagement decisions. Therefore, there is need for future studies to examine the cost aspect of employee engagement decisions and practices. Secondly, a number of studies examined in this paper are based on self-reported and cross-sectional data (Balain 2009; Heikkeri, 2010; Saks, 2006). As a result, this limits the conclusions made on causality and raises questions regarding common method bias. In relations to causality, we cannot be certain that certain antecedents cause engagement or engagement brings about certain consequences. Therefore, studies that employ a longitudinal approach are required provide more definitive conclusions regarding the extent in which certain antecedents contribute to employee engagement and causal effects of employee engagement. References Albretch, S.L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Andrew, O. C. & Sofian, S. (2012). ‘Individual factors and work outcomes of employee Engagement’. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences 40, 498-508. Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong’s Essential Human Resource Management Practice: A Guide to People Management. London: Kogan Page. Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). ‘Towards a model of work engagement’. Career Development International 13, 209-223. Balain, S. & Sparrow, P. (2009). Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on employee engagement. Lancaster: Lancaster University Management School. Bhattacharya, M.S. & Sengupta, N. (2009). Compensation Management. New Delhi: Excel Books. Blessing White. (2008). The Employee Engagement Equation in India. Retrieved September 12 2014 from Bowles, D. & Cooper, C.L. (2009). Employee Morale: Driving Performance in Challenging Times. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Burton, C. (2012). A study into Motivation: why we really do the things we do. Retrieved September 12 2014 from Cook, S. (2008). The Essential Guide to Employee Engagement: Better Business Performance through Staff Satisfaction. London: Kogan Page. Cooper, D. (2012). Leadership for Follower Commitment. New York: Routledge. Dernovsek D. (2008, May). Creating highly engaged and committed employee starts at the top and ends at the bottom line. Credit Union Magazine, 43-46. Devi, V.R & Shaik, N. (2012). ‘Training and Development: A Jump starter for employee performance and organizational Effectiveness’. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research 1(7), 202-207. Dowling,P. J., Festing, M & Engle, A.D (2008). International Human Resource Management: Managing People in a Multinational Context. London: Cengage Learning. Fernandez. C.P. (2007). ‘Employee engagement’. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 13(5), 524-526. Frazier, D.P. (2009). Job satisfaction of international educators. New York: Universal Publishers Gaber, P. R. (2012). The Manager’s Employee Engagement Toolbox. Alexandria, VA:ASTD Gallup (2009). Workplace Audit. Washington DC: Gallup Inc. Giacalone, R.A. & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2010). ‘The science of workplace spirituality. In R.A.Giacalone and C.L. Jurkiewicz, eds. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Griffin, R. & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organisational Behaviour: Managing People and Organisations. London: Cengage Learning. Heikkeri, E. (2010). Roots and Consequences of the Employee Disengagement Phenomenon. A Masters Thesis to Saimaa University of Applied Sciences, Lappeenranta. Inceoglu, I. & Warr, P. (2012).’Personality and Job Engagement’. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 177-181 Jex, S.M. & Britt, T.W (2008). Organizational Psychology: A Scientific-Practitioner Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724 Kolodinsky, R.W., Giacalone, R.A., & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2008). ‘Workplace values and out- comes: exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality’. Journal of Business Ethics 81, 465-480. Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soone, E. & Truss, K. (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Kingston University, Working Paper Series No.19 Langer, N.& Mehra, A. (2010). “How Training Jumpstarts Employee Performance.” Indian Management 49 (6), 14-18. Lashley, C. (2012). Empowerment: HR Strategies for Service Excellence. New York: Routledge Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). ‘The meaning of employee engagement’. Industrial and Organizational Psychology1, 3–30. MacLeod, D. & Clarke, N. (2008). The extra mile: How to engage your people to win. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall. Markos, S. & Sridevi, S. (2010). ‘Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance’. International Journal of Business and Management 5(12), 89-96. Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,52, 397-422. McKee, M.C., Mills, J.H. & Driscoll, C. (2008). ‘Making sense of workplace spirituality: towards a new methodology’. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 5, 190- 210. Saks, A.M. (2006). ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600 – 619. Saks, A.M (2011). ‘Workplace spirituality and employee engagement’. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(4), 317-340. Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Goodwin, G.F. & Halpin, S.M. (2008). ‘Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis’. The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics 50 (6), 903-933. Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). ‘What is engagement’? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane(Eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Scott, C.L & Byrd, M. Y. (2012). Handbook of Research on Workforce Diversity in a Global Society: Technologies and Concepts. New York: IGI Global Snippet. Shuck, B. & Wollard, K. (2010). ‘Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations’. Human Resource Development Review 9 (1), 89-110. Sihinidis, A. G & Bouris, J. (2008). ‘Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship to employee attitudes’. Journal of European Industrial Training 32(1), 63-76. Wefald, A.J. &Downey,R.G. (2009). ‘Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction’. The Journal of Psychology 143(1), 91–111. Willis-Shattuck , M., Bidwell, P., Thomas, S., Wyness, L., Blaauw, D. & Ditlopo, P. (2008). ‘Motivation and retention of health workers in developing countries: a systematic review’. BMC Health Services Research 8, 247- Read More