What and Why of Employee Engagement - Research Paper Example

What’ and ‘Why’ of Employee Engagement Introduction Background of the study In the modern day business environment, the companies believe that the employees or the human resource of an organization are the biggest strength and asset. Therefore a lot of effort is being put in by the companies round the globe to increase the level of satisfaction to ensure employee retention (Maylor and Blackmon, 2005). One of the best ways to improve the level of employee satisfaction is through improving the level of involvement and commitment. Employee engagement is the level of the commitment and involvement of an employee towards the organization and the organizational values (Sonnentag, 2003). An engaged employee is aware of the business and works closely with the peers to improve the organizational performance (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). Scope of the study The present study has been confined in order to analyze the key issues related to the topic of employee engagement as well as to explore the importance of the employee engagement. The study also looks to identify the key factors influencing the level of employee engagement (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). Over the course, the research study conducted by Dale Carnegie and MSW research has been referred in order to find out the importance of the employee engagement in the context of the organizational performance as well as to find out the key factors influencing the employee engagement programs in an organization ((Mullins, 2010). Add to this, in order to get a more holistic view, various employee engagement programs undertaken by various major organizations round the globe has also been referred to (Buelens, Sinding, Waldstrom, Krietner and Kinicki, 2011). Research Question What is Employee Engagement and what is the importance of employee engagement in the context of the organizational performance? Literature Review Employee engagement overview Engagement at work place has been conceptualized by Kahn as the harnessing of the organizational member or employees with respects the roles and responsibilities towards the organization (Boselie, 2010). In case of engagement, the people may actually employ and express the feelings towards the workplace cognitively, physically and also emotionally (Boxall and Purcell, 2007). Another related construct to employee engagement happens to be the notion of the flow mentioned by Csikszentmihalyi (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). According to Csikszentmihalyia flow is the state in which there are very little distinction between the individual and the overall organizational environment (Simons, 2011). In this way employee engagement can be defined as the level of involvement and commitment that an employee exhibits towards the organization and the values of the organization (Bowditch and Buono, 2001). An engaged employee is always aware of the business perspective of the organization and work closely with the colleagues to improve individual, team as well as organizational performance (Redman and Wilkinson, 2006). Therefore the organization must look to nurture and develop engagement which needs a two way relationship between the employee and the employers. In this way it can be said that employee engagement is actually a barometer that shows the level of association of a person with the organization (Bhattacharya, 2009). Employee engagement is quite closely related to the existing structure of the job involvement. Job involvement can be described as the degree to which the job situation is matching the individual and his or her personal identity. Some researchers actually believed that the job involvement is a cognitive state of the psychological recognition. Job involvement depends upon both job satisfaction and saliency (Senscombe, 1998). The HR practitioners feel that engagement has a lot do with what the employees feel about the work. The engagement is also related to the way the employees are being treated in an organization (Alderfer, 1972). There would always be the presence of people who would not give the best effort despite the efforts of the managers to engage those employees. But, for most of the employees, it can be said that majority wants to commit to the company because in this way the satisfaction levels of the employees would increase and the basic need to contribute and connect would be somewhat significant (Beardwell and Claydon, 2007). Aspects of employee engagement The very basic aspects of the employee engagement according to the global studies can be summed as the employees and the own psychological setup and experiences; the employers and the capability of the employers to develop an organizational culture to promote the concept of employee engagement; interaction between the employees at all the different organizational levels. All these aspects ultimately lead to a win-win situation (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004). Different Categories of employee engagement According to a research by Gallup consulting services there are mainly three different categories of engagement: Engaged: The engaged employees are the one known as the builders. These employees want to know the expectations for the roles and responsibilities so that the employees can actually meet or exceed those expectations. Such employees look to manage high level of consistency. Such employees look to work with passion and look to inject innovation and take the organization forward (Baumruk, 2004). Not Engaged: Such employees look to concentrate on the tasks rather than the outcomes that the employees are expected to achieve. Such employees expect the superiors to tell them what to do; so that the employees can actually finish the job (Bates, 2004). Such employees often feel that the contributions towards the organization are being overlooked and the potentials are not being tapped totally. These employees most of the times tend to have a less than productive relationship with the employees (Cooper, 1997). Actively Disengaged- These employees known as the cave dwellers tend to be against everything. Such employees are not only just unhappy with the work but also busy in showing the unhappiness (Kahn, 1990). These employees sow the seed of negativity at every possible opportunity (Burnett, 2006). The problems fostered by these actively disengaged employees can actually cause great damage to the overall morale of the organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Importance of Engagement Employee engagement is extremely important for the manger. Lack of productivity has often been closely related to the detachment of the workers from the work (Edmondson, 1999). In these conditions the individuals are likely to be alienated from themselves (Fisher, 2004). Various researches using other resources of employee engagement has bridged it to variables like employee turnover, customer satisfaction, loyalty, safety, profitability and also productivity criteria (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Some of the major advantages of having engaged employees can be described as- engaged employees would stay with the organization for a long period of time and would be an advocate for the products and services, the employees would be motivated and performing even in the normal state, significant linkage between profitability and employee engagement, the employees would develop an emotional connection with the company and the clients and customers, increased level of commitment, passion, trust, credibility and transparency; would make the employees effective brand ambassadors of the company (Emmott, 2006). Factors influencing employee engagement Career Development Organizations having high levels of engagement would provide the employees various opportunities to develop the skills and abilities and improve the potential (Hyman and Mason, 1995). Career development would also help the employers to manage the talent pool effectively. This would help the employers in employee retention also as it most likely that a highly satisfied and engaged employee would be unlikely to leave (Fox, 1974). Leadership Effective leadership would help in clarifying the values of the company. This would help the employees to feel that the core values of the organization are the base and the values are clear and unambiguous (Gubman, 2004). Effective leadership would help in delivering respectful treatment to the employees (Hayday, 2004). All the successful organizations show respect for the quality and the contributions of the employees irrespective of the job level and designation (Welbourne, 2007). Effective leadership also helps the employees understand the ethical standards of the organization leading to high level of engagement (Frank, Finnegan and Taylor, 2004). Empowerment The employees want to get involved in the decisions that can affect the work (Johnson, 2004). The leaders of high workplaces having high degree of engagement should create a trustful and challenging work environment in which the employees are encouraged to oppose from existing orthodoxy and provide their own input to innovate to ensure the growth of the organization (Guthrie, 2001). Image The degree to which the employees are prepared to endorse the products produced by the company actually largely depends upon the perception of the quality of the products. High levels of employee engagement are linked to high levels of customer engagement (Hart, 1998). Other Factors Other factors that also influence the degree of employee engagement are Equal Opportunities, Performance appraisal, Pay and Benefits, Health and Safety, Job Satisfaction, Communication, Family Friendliness, Co-operation and Fair Treatment (Springett, 2003). Findings There has been much research that looks to point towards the percentage of the engaged and disengaged. But studies have actually focused upon the main drivers of the employee engagement (Springett, 2003). Dale Carnegie along with the MSW research carried out a research to analyze the emotional as well as eh functional elements that affect employee engagement (Shaw, 2005). A national representative sample of 1500 employees was researched. The key findings of the research have been summarized below (Hofstede, 1997). The research revealed that among many factors, there are three key factors that affect the employee engagement such as the relationship with the immediate supervisors, belief in the leadership and the pride of working in the company (Wilson, 2004). Among the 1500 respondents only 29% felt that were fully engaged, almost 45% felt that they were partially engaged and 26% felt that they were disengaged. Genders, work status, age; ethnicity did not emerge as the key factors influencing employee engagement (Robinson, 2006). There is presence of some additional factors that also influence the level of engagement. More engaged workers are likely to be in the senior management; employed in large corporations; have high level of college education; earn more than $50K and belong to the age group of 25-50. One of the most important findings happened to be the fact that according to the respondents the caring managers is one of the key elements that drives in the employee engagement. The employees want the managers to care about the personal lives also (Purcell, 2006). The employees want the managers to provide support to the health and well being of the people. The ability of the manager to develop strong relationship with the employees through a person centric way actually creates an engaging environment (Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter, 2001). Various organizations around the globe have started to understand the importance of employee engagement and its impact on the organizational performance. One of the prime examples of such initiatives happens to be Wal-Mart (MacDonald, 2002). Wal-Mart believes that while the top down leadership is important, one of the best employee engagement programs are actually co-owned and co-created by the employees actually (Lloyd, 2004). The global engagement platform of the company called My Sustainability Plan has been developed by the company to help more than million associates of the company across various countries to take steps to live healthy and greener lives (Mathieson, 2006). Sustainability is an organizational value of the company and such employee engagement programs would help the employees to be involved in the organizational sustainability activities (Nord, 1990). Apart from Wal-Mart, there is also examples of other employee engagement programs by other companies such as make it Strategic by Intel; Make it Personal by Hyatt Hotels and Resorts; Make it easy by Google; Make it Last by Clif Bar (Kanungo, 1982). Conclusion To conclude it can be said that employee engagement is the buzz word in the industry. It is the positive attitude held by the employees towards the organization and the values. Employee engagement focuses on the importance of the organizational communication on the success o the business (Maslow, 1954). The employees are the biggest investment of a company and hence the employees should bring in the greatest reward. Even today, many employees in several organizations are viewed as assets to be managed rather than individuals who can develop the next phase of innovation for success. Long term engagement begins with good communication between the employee and the employers as well as with the workers at different levels of an organization. Employee engagement however does not happen in isolation. It is a continuous process of learning, improvement, action and, measurement that needs the effort of both employee and the employer. Raising and maintaining employee engagement depends upon the organization and needs perfect combination of time, effort, investment and commitment to craft successful endeavor (Miles, 2001). References 1. Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Human needs in organisational settings. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 2. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, Vol. 49, No 2, pp. 44-51. 3. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, Vol 47, pp. 48-52. 4. Beardwell, J. and Claydon, T. (2007). Human Resource Management, A Contemporary Approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall. 5. Bhattacharya, D. (2009). Human Resource Planning. India: Excel Books. 6. Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 7. Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management: a balanced approach. London: McGraw Hill. 8. Bowditch, J. and Buono, A. (2001) A Primer on Organisational Behaviour. New York: John Wiley. 9. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2007). Strategy and human resource management, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition. 10. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (2010). Organizational Behaviour. Harlow: Pearson. 11. Buckingham, M. (2001). What a waste’, People Management, pp.36-39. 12. Buelens, M., Sinding, K., Waldstrom, C., Krietner, R. and Kinicki, A. (2011). Organisational Behaviour. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education. 13. Burnett, J. (2006). Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement. London: CIPD. 14. Cooper, R. (1997). Applying Emotional Intelligence in the workplace, Training and Development, Vol. 51 No 12, pp. 31-38. 15. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management, Vol 31, pp. 874-900. 16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper. 18. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.44, pp. 350-383. 19. Emmott, M. (2006). Hear me now, People Management. Vol.19, pp. 38-39. 20. Fisher, C. (2004). Researching and Writing a Dissertation for Business Students. Harlow: Prentice Hall. 21. Fox, A. (1974). Beyond Contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber and Faber. 22. Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century, Human Resource Planning. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.12-25. 23. Gubman, E. (2004). From engagement to passion for work: The search for the missing person, Human Resources Planning. Vol.21. pp.42-46. 24. Guthrie, J.P. (2001). High involvement work practices, turnover and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand’ Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 180–190. 25. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE. 26. Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. 27. Hofstede, G., (1997). Culture and Organisation: Software of the Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. London: Harpercollins Business. 28. Hyman, J. and Mason, B. (1995). Managing Employee Involvement and Participation. London: Sage. 29. Johnson, G. (2004) .Otherwise engaged, Training, Vol. 41, No 10, p.4. 30. Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 33, pp. 692-724. 31. Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement, Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 67, pp. 341-349. 32. Lloyd, J. (2004). Offer empowerment to encourage engagement, Triangle Business Journal. Vol.15, No 1. 33. MacDonald, M. (2002). How companies can find renewed focus during uncertain times, Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 220-227. 34. Maslach, C., Schaufelli, B and Leiter, P. (2001). Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397-422. 35. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. 36. Mathieson, H. (2006). Human Resource Management in an International Context. London: CIPD. 37. Maylor, H. and Blackmon, K. (2005). Researching in Business and Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 38. Miles, R.H. (2001). Beyond the age of Dilbert: Accelerating corporate transformations by rapidly engaging all employees, Organisational Dynamics. Vol.29, pp. 313-321. 39. Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour (9thedn). Harlow: Pearson. 40. Nord, W. (1990). Meanings of Occupational Work. Lexington: Lexington Books. 41. Purcell, J. (2006). Change Agenda, Reflections on Employee Engagement. London: CIPD. 42. Redman, T and Wilkinson, A. (2006). Contemporary Human Resource Management: Text and Cases (2nd ed.), Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall. 43. Robinson, I. (2006). Human Resource Management in Organisations. London: CIPD. 44. Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2009) Research Methods for Business: a skill building approach, 5th ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 45. Senscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small scale social research projects. Oxford: Open University Press. 46. Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators, Strategic Communication Management. Vol. 9, No 3, pp26-29. 47. Simons, R., (2011). Human Resource Management: Issues, Challenges and opportunities. Florida: CRC Press. 48. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: a new look at the interface between non-work and work, Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol.88, pp518-28. 49. Springett, N. (2003). In Search of Meaning in the Workplace. Horsham: Roffey Park. 50. Welbourne, M. (2007). Employee engagement: Beyond the fad and into the executive suite, Leader to Leader. Vol. 39. pp. 45- 51. 51. Wilson, F. (2004). Organisational Behaviour and Work, A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More