Employee Engagement in Health Sector in Columbia - Literature review Example

Employee engagement in Health sector in Columbia Table of Contents Chapter 2- Literature Review 3 2 Relevance of the topic to academic literature 32.3 Drivers of employee engagement 9 2.4 Job burnout and Disengagement  11 Reference list 14 Chapter 2- Literature Review 2.1 Relevance of the topic to academic literature The concept, employee engagement, has gained immense prominence in recent years. There are a number of academic literatures, which has depicted the effect of management on employee engagement. Researchers have shown considerable interest in studying employee engagement. However, a number of misunderstandings are associated with the concept. According to Kular (2008 cited in Linda and Springett, 2003), these misunderstandings are partly evaluated in such a way that there is no definite definition that results in engagement and result of the same is measured in different ways. The previous studies pertaining to the topic employ a multidimensional method in defining employee engagement, which includes several elements that are required to achieve true engagement. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2007a) has defined employee engagement as a “combination of the commitment to organisation and its values plus a willingness to help out colleagues” (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2007a). From this view, it is evident that employee engagement is more complicated than motivation and job satisfaction as a concept. According to Schmidt (2004), employee engagement refers to the link between commitment and satisfaction in the job. Satisfaction encompasses attitudinal or emotional elements; whereas commitment explains physical and motivational elements. He has pointed out the fact that commitment and satisfaction are two main elements for employee engagement; neither of them can contribute alone in fulfilling the goal. According to Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003), employee engagement are about binding members of organization in their job roles. During the employee engagement process, people express their cognitive and emotional behaviour during the performance of their job role. The cognitive feature is concerned with beliefs of employees about the organisation, managers and its working conditions. The emotional aspects constitute certain facts regarding how employees feel about their management. It also inspects three factors that are related to negative or positive attitude for organisation and its managers. The physical features indicate physical energies that are required by individuals for accomplishing their job roles and goals. Hence, from the view of Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003), it is evident that employee engagement relates to psychological and physical behaviour of employees during performance of their job roles. Employee engagement has become an important aspect from HR perspective in the health sector of Columbia. The changing economic climate has forced organisations to resize and restructure their elements by investing in new approaches for maintaining and increasing engagement in the health sector. The health care sector aims at recruiting the best talent and trains them accordingly. So, the organisations maintain a perfect balance between enhancing and fostering levels of employee engagement. Employee engagement in health sector has become prominent in the recent years since there is considerable number of issues regarding the human resource. In doing so, employee engagement is firstly explained foregrounding the main arguments and issues related to the topic. There are a number of studies that have highlighted relevance of the topic (Holbeche and Springett, 2003). Gallup Organization has carried out a research pertaining to the subject matter by using Q12 instruments. The organisation had been questioning a number of employees and customers accordingly. The survey attempted to examine satisfied individuals in their respective jobs by the way of answering particular questions pertaining to employee engagement. The study aims at addressing the level to which needs and expectations of employees are met. It also highlights emotional tie up that they share with their employment. Coffman and Gonzalez-Molina (2002) have considered results of Gallup research as impressive. Gallup identified that employees who scored high in employee engagement accounted for an average percentage. There is higher success rate (56%) for customer loyalty, success rate on higher success rate is 44% and the success rate of productivity outcomes is 50%. One of the main elements of Q12 instrument of Gallup is perceptions of the employees, which are influenced by managers. This has not facilitated a real change, which is based on results of the survey. Over the period of time, consultants of Gallup have concentrated upon educating managers by partnering with companies for implementing certain changes in their strategies. The changes that are implemented between the first and second year have influenced performance of the employees. It has been recorded that success rate has increased and have portrayed deviation in employee engagement. Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003) has also identified psychological conditions in his studies, which are appropriate for certain moments of personal engagement and personal disengagement. His studies involved techniques of interviewing and observing respondents, which constitute the part of qualitative study for personal engagement. The respondents include members from 16 firms and camp counsellors. Kahn has stated that employees differ in their levels of performing work as well as ability to commit physically, cognitively and emotionally in their job roles. If they are not satisfied with their job, then they choose to disengage or withdraw from their job roles and tasks. The author has defined disengagement as decoupling of one’s self within role that involve individuals withdrawing and defending themselves while they are performing their role. Managers should allow their employees to work with appropriate freedom. They should let their employees decide on the approaches to be taken towards fulfilling a particular task, instead of imposing their own suggestions. By doing so, managers will be able to reflect trust and faith towards their employees as well as earn their respect. This will endow them with the ability to establish a strong relationship of trust and respect with employees and thereafter will be able to encourage employee engagement (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008; Shuck et al., 2012). Secondly, managers can augment the level of employee engagement by letting subordinates follow their passions and interests. This will help the managers to boost innovation and knowledge sharing within the organization. Hence, in such a way, employees will be able to contribute towards development of the organization in their own ways, which in turn will give them the feeling of fulfilment and accomplishment. This will lead to a higher employee engagement level. Lastly, managers should maintain a culture of openness within the organization that will enable employees to not only choose the way they work, but also the place of work (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008; Shuck et al., 2012). 2.2 Social and emotional context of employee engagement One of the most concerning issue of an organisation is employee engagement. The management has continuously concentrated upon formulating training programs for their employees so as to be able to manage engagement and retention. This has affected the corporate circuits by becoming an endemic in the recent years. Most of the managers have perceived employee engagement as an end objective to pursue (Vance, 2006 cited in Visser, de Coning and Smit, 2005). Nevertheless, it is to be noticed that when employee engagement is exercised in complete isolation, without evaluating results, it proves to be a valueless effort (Vance, 2006 cited in Visser, de Coning and Smit, 2005). There are several rewards for building employee engagement in an organisation. This had also proved to true in many organisations since its results have reflected true values. Both practitioners as well as research scholars have given their approval to the fact that employee engagement is associated with immense benefits (Visser, de Coning and Smit, 2005). Majority of the consultancy firms have stated that there is a positive correlation between employee engagement and increase in profitability. This is attained through increase in sale and productivity, customer satisfaction and level of employee retention. There are a number of literatures, which have reflected solid evidences regarding facts of employee engagement. Employee engagement is claimed to affect an organization’s performance positively. Rafferty (2005 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003) has cited that employee engagement has an outstanding positive impact on customer satisfaction, employee turnover, profit, productivity and safety. Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003) has advocated that importance of employee engagement lies in fact that it not only benefits the organization, but also helps in enhancing performance of employees. A thoroughly engaged employee loves his job responsibility and is eager to acquire knowledge pertaining to benefits. The employee puts in effort to formulate new ideas in order to prove his relevance to the organization. This helps in creating a very stable environment, which enforces sharing of knowledge. The work environment enables the employees to work in a good climate. Hence, it portrays the level of engagement towards achievement of organizational goal. According to Zhu, Avolio and Walumbwa (2009), engagement building is a process that is never-ending, which underpins the emotional and meaningful work experience. Additionally, the process is not applied to make people blissful neither for paying more money to them. The elements of employee engagement relate to strong leadership, autonomy, accountability and control over development of environment. There are no particular substitutes for these elements (Wilkinson and Fay, 2011). The survey undertaken by Gallup revealed a number of issues, which highlight ways in which employees are affected by family related issues, thereby failing to perform in the best manner. During the survey, employees were inquired about the reasons, which forced them to work inadequately in the organisation, failing to achieve their goals. The findings of the survey revealed that 51% of the respondents have problems at home, which affect their performance in workplace. However, relationships at workplace are affected if employees are not satisfied in their personal life (Wiley, Kowske and Herman, 2010). The employees are often affected by rude behaviour of their co-employees, which leads to conflicts between them. This in turn affects overall operation of the organisation. Wilkinson and Fay (2011) have recognised that connection between the employees needs to be nurtured in order to facilitate a comfortable working environment. The workers who argue in the organisation should give emphasis on their work. Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003) has suggested that customer relations according to some individuals are not important in enhancing work experience. Employee engagement is the most challenging job for managers. In order to conduct employee engagement, the managers measure employee performance and take appropriate actions based on survey feedback given by employees. The employee survey plays an important role in enabling an organization to foster employee engagement. It is referred as a two-way communication, which aims at facilitating generation of important signals between the employees pertaining to priorities and values of an organization. This also permits an organization to obtain opinions from their employees on key issues associated with organizational effectiveness (Walumbwa, et al, 2005). Every organization has its own sets of benchmarks and every right to measure if those benchmarks are being met or not (Walumbwa, et al, 2005; Johnson, 2006). This is precisely because the measurement helps the company to analyze gaps, if any, which might be restricting the company towards achieving outright success. Hence, the organization should measure each and every employee’s engagement towards the responsibility that they have been assigned to and determine the extent to which those responsibilities are being fulfilled (Carrig and Wright, 2006). Having done that, the organization can conduct an employee engagement survey whereby it can relay performance benchmark that is expected from their employees as well as gather valuable feedback from their employees regarding areas of improvement (Right Management, 2006). The survey will also enable the organization to understand needs and demands of the employees and allow them to identify key determinants of encouraging employee engagement. If such is done, then employees will feel that they are of a definite contribution to the organization and that their opinions are being valued. This will render them more thoroughly engaged to the organization and committed to their work (Tarabishy et al., 2005). 2.3 Drivers of employee engagement Researchers have identified that the committed employees aims at giving their best performances to the organisation. It is regarded as one-step-up than commitment and it is the main of the organisation to understand the engagement drivers. It is clearly identified that aspects of work life are related to the engagement levels. However, the strongest driver among all is involved and is regarded as valuable (Tammy and Kimberly, 2006). The following components drive employee engagement: 1) The involvement in decision making encourages the employees to feel that they form an important part of the organisation (Tammy and Kimberly, 2006; Shane and Venkatraman, 2000). 2) The degree to which the employees are able to express their views and ideas. The extent is examined to which the managers hear the difficulties of the employees and value their contribution. 3) The opportunities provided by the organisation to develop and work on their job responsibilities. 4) The degree to which the organisation looks after the well being of the employees. The line mangers play an important role in fostering the sense of involvement for the employees (Sparrow, 2008). The other drivers of employee engagement are community, compensation, content, congruence, coping and career. They are regarded as the most significant drivers as content with job responsibility is one of the most important feelings that an employee needs to have in order to be thoroughly engaged with work as well as the organization. In addition to that, they also need to be content with rewards that they are being offered for such fulfilments. This suggests the importance of providing employees with appropriate job roles as well as rewarding them appropriately for fulfilling the responsibilities. The next significant factor is the work environment that the employee is working within. The engagement level of employees greatly depends on their workplace environment (Sparrow, 2008). The key determinant in this case is how hard it is for the employee to cope up with the environment as well as his job responsibilities. The easier it is for employees to adapt to the surrounding; higher will be their level of engagement. The next factor is compensation, which refers to the extent to which efforts of employees are recognized and are accordingly rewarded. The management will have to ensure the fact that employees are made to feel that their contribution is being appropriately valued. This has to be done by providing proper compensation to them. Community is also another crucial driver of employee engagement (Sparrow, 2008). The community in which the employee is working includes colleagues, the management, the industry as well as the society. If the employee feels that he/she is working in a friendly community, then that itself will amplify the level of engagement. This state of agreement is a vital determinant of employee engagement. If an individual finds that his/her opinions are always being undervalued or not taken into consideration, then this will lead to disagreement and henceforth, will deplete the level of engagement. Lastly, an employee will always be engaged with an organization that provides him/her with ample opportunities for career development. Therefore, this is also a key driver of employee engagement (Sparrow, 2008). 2.4 Job burnout and Disengagement  Disengaged employees exhibit incomplete role performances and are usually effortless, robotic or automatic. Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003) stated that there are three basic psychological conditions, which can be associated with both employee engagement and disengagement at work: safety, meaningfulness and availability. The author argued that majority of employees asked themselves three questions in every job responsibility that they are assigned to: (i) How meaningful is it for them to contribute towards the organizational performance; (ii) How safe is it for them to do so; (iii) How available are they to do so? The author found evidences indicating that workers were more engaged at work in those circumstances, which offered them with enhanced psychological safety and meaningfulness and in situations where they were more psychologically available (McGee, 2006). According to Brusman (2013 cited in Brief and Weiss, 2002), work engagement is associated to employees who are innovative, highly talented, passionate, committed and highly curious about their own work. They always make sure to give extra effort in order to put up an efficient work, thereby enabling self as well as the company as whole to achieve an all round development. Employee engagement can be very distinctively understood by studying fundamental difference between the attributes of engaged and non-engaged employees. As far as non-engaged employees are concerned, they are mainly focused towards their personal goals and tasks. Safeguarding personal interests is what matters to them. Little attention is directed at achieving organizational objectives. These kinds of employees do not have any sort of productive relationship with the team and work done by them. As long as they are being duly paid for work, they are found to be happy. They are not concerned about other responsibilities that can be fulfilled, even though they are not required to do so. The feeling of unhappiness as well as disengagement of non-engaged employees can have a considerable negative impact on overall performance of an organization. It may also affect the entire work as well as the work environment. Thus, employee engagement plays an important role in an organisation for both the employee and organisation (McGee, 2006; Rafferty, 2005). While investigating the aspect of employee engagement, Kahn (1990 cited in Holbeche and Springett, 2003; Rafferty, 2005) was able to conclude that engagement is related to safety, meaningfulness and availability. The facts that can be regarded as key determinants of employee engagement are workload, control, feelings, supportive climate, recognition, meaningful and valued work, work-life balance and justice. According to Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004 cited in Walumbwa et al., 2005), employee engagement is a two-way relationship between employee and the management. Hewitt (2010 cited in Walumbwa et al., 2005) stated that engagement can be referred to as an emotional and intellectual collaboration, which motivates employees to give their optimum effort. Reference list Brief, A. P. and Weiss, H. M., 2002. Organizational behaviour: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp. 279-300. Carrig, K., and Wright, P.M., 2006. Building profit through building people. Society for Human Resource Management, pp. 1-190. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2007a. Employee Engagement. [online] Available at: < http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1 > [Accessed 3 May 2014]. Coffman, C. and Gonzalez-Molina, G., 2002. Follow this path. How the world’s greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York: Warner Books Holbeche, L. and Springett, N., 2003. In search of meaning in the workplace. Horsham: Roffey Park. Johnson, R., 2006. Singular focus (employee engagement). People Management, 12(18), pp. 36-38. Linda, L. and Springett, N., 2003. In Search of Meaning in the Workplace, roffeypark.com, [online] Available at: < http://www.roffeypark.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Research%20Rep orts/meaning.pdf > [Accessed 3 May 2014]. McGee, L. 2006. How to interview for engagement. People Management, pp 40-41. Rafferty, A.N., 2005. What Makes A Good Employer? [online] International Council of Nurses. Available at: < at http://www.icn.ch/global/Issue3employer.pdf > [Accessed 3 May 2014]. Right Management, 2006. Measuring true employee engagement. Philadelphia: Right Management. Schmidt, F., 2004. Workplace well-being in the public sector: A review of the literature and the road ahead for the public service human resources management agency of Canada. Ottawa: PSHRMA. Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W. B., 2008. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), pp. 116-131. Shane, S. and Venkatraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp. 217-226. Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D. and Nimon, K., 2012. The Jingle Jangle of Employee Engagement: Further Exploration of the Emerging Construct and Implications for Workplace Learning and Performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), pp. 11-35. Sparrow, P., 2008. Performance management in the U.K. New York: Routledge. Tammy, A. D. and Kimberly, O. B., 2006. Formal mentoring programs and organizational attraction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 43-58. Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald, L. W. Jr and Sashkin, M., 2005. The entrepreneurial leader’s impact on the organization’s performance in dynamic markets. Journal of Private Equity, 8, pp. 20-29. Vance, R. J., 2006. Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. Society for Human Resource Management, pp. 1-45. Visser, D. J., de Coning, T. J. and Smit, E. M., 2005. The relationship between the characteristics of the transformational leader and the entrepreneur in South African SMEs. South African Journal of Business Management, 36(3), pp. 51-63. Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P. and Lawler, J. J. 2005. Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, pp. 235-256. Wiley, J.W., Kowske, B.J. and Herman, A.E., 2010. Developing and validating a global model of employee engagement. Cheltenham: Handbook of Employee Engagement. Wilkinson, A. and Fay, C., 2011. Guest editor’s note: new times for employee voice? Human Resource Management, 50(1), pp. 65–74. Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O., 2009. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group and Organization Management, 34(5), pp. 590-619. Read More