What Impact Employee Engagement Has on the Management of People in Organizations Today in the UK - Literature review Example

Impact of Employee Engagement Introduction According to Macey and Schneider (2008) the notion of employee engagement defines the level of voluntary commitment that an employee offers to his organization. The concept of employee engagement originated from the idea that if an employee is willingly involved in the welfare of the organization, then he is most likely to have higher levels of productivity and working efficiency. This paper is focused on the topic of employee engagement and how it influences people management in an organization. It also covers on how the employee engagement is important from the organizational point of view. Literature Review Based on the studies of Ross (2013), the employee engagement is of three types, engaged, non-engaged and actively disengaged. The engaged employees are the ones who voluntarily commit themselves to organizational welfare. These individuals are willing to work beyond their allocated job roles and are concerned for the welfare of the organization. They are willing to work extra hours and take extra responsibilities to ensure that his organization is being profited by his effort. The firms always cherish having such employees in the organization. They are largely responsible for the organizational success. Secondly, the non-engaged employees are only concerned about the fulfilling his allocated roles and responsibilities and they hardly care about the how the organization is doing. They do not take any voluntary actions towards the organizational welfare unless they are instructed by their authority (Frank, Finnegan and Taylor, 2004). These people are known to give limited priority to the organizational welfare and they also lack passion of gaining success at work place. Finally, the employees who are actively disengaged show visible signs of ignorance towards their allocated roles and responsibilities. These individuals avoid their work as much as possible and do not show any interest towards the welfare of the organization. They often become liabilities for the organizations and turns out to be a cause of revenue leakage (Medlin and Green, 2014). Rayton (2012) mentioned that an organization should take effective steps to ensure that the employees have high levels of engagement, which in turn will be reflected in increased organizational performance. Increasing the engagement level of the employees has become the primary concern for the firms. Medlin and Green (2014) further added that the employee engagement is proportional to the management processes followed by an organization. It has been identified that the firms which strictly adhere to the proper management processes and runs its operations in accordance to the predefined rules of employee management, they exhibit higher levels of employee engagement. This can be justified by the fact that by following the proper management rules, the employees get a clear insight of the organizational culture and what and how much is expected from them (Bates, 2004). This allows the firm maintain a standardized organizational practice that helps the employees to avoid facing any uncertain situations. Moreover, Macey and Schneider (2008) mentioned that the clearly defined job roles increases employee motivation as the employees get a clear idea of exactly what they need to do and how they can achieve their organizational goals. Models and Theories on Employee Engagement This section covers some of the theoretical models and theories that have been used to describe the concept of Employee Engagement. On the perspective of the psychological nature of the employees it has been found from the models proposed by Kahn (1990) that the psychological conditions of an individual is largely responsible for the level of employee engagement among the employees. However, it failed to describe why individuals with same psychological factors exhibit varying degree of response towards the employee engagement. This confusion has been clarified by the SET (social exchange theory) explained by Cropanzano and Mictchell (2005). They mentioned that the sense of obligation that an employee feels towards his organization arises from series of long term interaction between the employer and the employee, who are interdependent on each other. The SET theory is based on the concept of the Rule of Exchange which suggests that the action of one party creates certain expectations in the other party, when that expectation is fulfilled; there exists a mutual trust and bonding between the two parties. The mutual trust between the employer and the employee eventually strengthens the psychological contract between them and the employee invariably shows higher levels of engagement towards the organization (Baumruk and Gorman, 2009). On a different perspective, the employee engagement can also be discussed in terms of the theory of psychological contract discussed by Patrick (2008). Psychological contract is an unwritten agreement between the employer and the employee, where each party is holds certain expectations from one another. It is expected that if the employer gives the necessary level of attention and support to the employees, then the employee in return will also voluntarily engage in the to ensure organizational welfare. This exchange of mutual attentions clearly justifies the fact that support from management is vital to increase the level of employee engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). According to Chevrier (2003) it is quite important for an organization to address the cultural background of the employees before implementing any employee management techniques. He further mentioned that different individual from different cultural backgrounds responds differently to the same stimulus. This idea gave birth to the concept of cultural management in an organization. Hofstede’s cultural dimension model helps to identify the different cultural traits (Hofstede Centre, 2015). In UK firms should implement their employee management techniques base on the cultural background of the company. This as a result will help the organization to understand the behavioural pattern of the employees and will also help them to anticipate their activities in terms of organizational performance. Having a clear insight regarding the employees’ behaviour will help them identify the factors that will lead to employee motivation and employee engagement (Lockwood, 2007). According to a the Hofstede’s model, UK bears a low score in power distance, which suggests that the people are intolerant about the inequality and they believe that power should be fairly distributed. This indicates that the employees in UK are intolerant to authoritative leadership style, therefore in order to increase the motivational level of the employees the firms must employ a democratic leadership where each individuals are given proper working freedom and they are involved in the decision making process. Moreover, the people in UK also prefer to have certain degree of competiveness in the organization which is reflected by the high levels of masculinity. People are success oriented and any rewards, appreciation and even acknowledgement of their effort brings about high motivation in them (Hofstede Centre, 2015). Thus it can be stated that the firms need to ensure that it is capable of managing the employees by addressing the cultural and psychological trends of the employees (Mathis and Jackson, 2011). Human Resource Management The human resource management is quite responsible for ensuring that the organization is capable of fostering work related commitment among the employees. The HR department is not only dedicated to look after the welfare of the employees, but also it ensures that the human resources of the organization are providing the desired level of return. The HR management is primarily based on the concept of people management (Marrelli, 2010). It is the responsibility of the HR department to ensure that the employees’ behaviours are aligned towards the organizational welfare. Thus the HR managers take all the necessary and possible steps to improve the motivational level of the employees. This makes it imperative for them to ensure that the employees exhibit high levels of engagement towards the organization. Thus it can be stated that the activities of the HR department is largely responsible for the organizational success (Jafri, 2012). Employee Engagement and HRM The Human Resource Management (HRM) plays a major role in maintain the desired level of employee engagement in a firm. The HR department needs to follows a standardized approach that will ensure that the organizational practices are in line with the proper management processes and that the higher authority are looking after the interest of the employees. In the context of the UK business market the firms need to follows a unified HR practices that can be implanted in almost all business sectors. According to Centre for Human Resource Strategy (2009), the HR management acts as the main driver for increasing the employee engagement in a firm. Since, the HR department is responsible for monitoring and managing the work place behaviour of the employees, therefore it justifies the importance of the HR department in the developing employee engagement, which is also a part of the employee behaviour. Jafri (2012) mentioned that the firms need to realize that the determinant of employee engagement is not related to the management’s behaviour only. It is also associated with other factors like job design, level of internal competition, career development and performance management initiatives taken by the organization. Saks (2006) further added that although job involvement is different than the concept of employee engagement, but the level of involvement an employee exhibits acts as a one of the primary determinant of employee engagement. An individual who is satisfied with his job role is most likely to perceive that the organization has been able to create a perfect job fit for him. Right job for the right candidate allows him to perform better by leveraging his skills and knowledge. This as a result increases his chances of getting rewards from his supervisors. Moreover, the supervisors should also praise his employees for good works and make rectifications for their mistakes. This as a result will create a psychological contract between the employees and the employer. When the employee perceives that the organization is effectively taking care of its employee and it is being reflected in their good performance, then employees will also exhibit voluntary engagement towards organizational welfare, thereby fostering higher organizational performance. Discussion Impact of Employee Engagement on People Management Dessler (2005) mentioned that the employee engagement plays a vital role in people management of an organization. The human resources are probably one of the most vital assets of a company, unlike other physical assets that also gives return on investment, the human resources need more attention and care from the management so as to ensure the desired level of productivity. Therefore, a work force with higher levels of employee engagement makes it easier for the organization to manage its employees. In his report Swinscoe (2013) mentioned that the support from the management is one of the primary factors that help to increase the motivational level of the employees. The higher management should always support the employees in terms of providing guidance, training and by rectifying errors instead of penalizing them. Saks (2006) justified these statements by explaining that when the employees are given more attention and support, they perceive a sense of belongingness in the organization. This sense of belongingness drives them to do more for their organization, thereby increasing their level of engagement. Thus it can be stated that the employee engagement and people management are symbiotic in nature, where proper people management leads to higher employee engagement which in turn leads to improved people management for the organization (Sardar et al, 2011). On a deeper review of the concept of employee engagement Saks (2006) have found that the employee engagement can be considered as a “positive antithesis” of the employee burnt out. The studies conducted by him showed that the symptoms of these two factors are exactly opposite in nature. Employee burnout exhibits symptoms like exhaustion and cynicism which is antagonistic to the symptoms of employee engagement which are vigour and dedication (Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2009). Therefore these symptoms can easily help the organization to ensure the whether or not the employees bear a good level of engagement. Furthermore, it has been stated by May, Gilson and Harter (2004) that the employee engagement should not be confused with job involvement. The job involvement is associated with the satisfaction level of a particular job role. The employee utilized to his cognitive judgement to assess the need satisfying abilities of the job roles that has been allocated to him. It is also associated with the perception of the self image associated with that particular job role. The employee exhibits a high level of job involvement when he perceives that the job role in enhancing his self image. On the other hand the employee engagement is associated with how an employee offers voluntary commitment towards the welfare of the organization and improves his job performance (Baumruk, 2009). The engagement of an employee often drives him to get involved in activities that are outside his allocated tasks. Employee engagement in perspective of UK According to the studies of Roberts (2014) it have been found out that UK exhibits some of the lowest levels of employee engagement in the world. Over a span of one year, 2013 to 2014, the level of employee motivation has decreased from 47% to 37%. This indicates an alarming degradation of employee motivation. This degradation is clearly reflected in the poor relationship between the higher authority and their subordinates. The report also mentioned that more than half of the employees feel that they are being undervalued by their employers. This as a result has significantly deteriorated the overall business performance of the industry. It has been further mentioned in the article of Roberts (2014), that in order to increase the individual performance of the UK employees, the firms must take necessary steps like supporting creative thinking, encouraging innovative ideas and creating a perception among the employees that the higher management is acting in favour of the employees’ interests. Rayton (2012) further added that UK holds the ninth rank among the world’s twelve largest economies in terms of employee engagement. This low deficit of employee engagement has reduced the per hour output level of the country by 15% points from the rest of G7 industrialized nations. Since, the level of engagement of the employees is directly proportional to the industrial performance so the major corporate players have become quite concerned about increasing the employee engagement levels. In order to improve the employee engagement of the UK employees, the firms need to make some major changes in the organizational behaviours and policies. It has been found that the primary cause of dissatisfaction is caused out of the lack of attention given by the employer and a poor and often repulsive relationship between the higher and lower management (Klie, 2007). These factors are highly influential to reduce the motivational level of the employees and they do not feel the urge to make voluntary commitments towards the organization. Therefore, the primary concern for the employer needs to be focused on improving the relationship between the employer and the employees. This can be achieved by employing the HR personnel to manage the employees in a proper manner (Cascio, Boudreau and Davis, 2011; Konrad, 2009). The employees should be given proper attention in terms of providing guidance and training, which will help to replenish the human capital of the firm. Moreover, the HR department should also ensure that all the employees irrespective of the hierarchical status should abide by the management rules, which itself needs to be designed by keeping in mind the interest of the employees (Dalal et al, 2008). Conclusion The concept of employee engagement is vital to the organizational success irrespective of the industry in which it operates. The level of employee engagement indicates an individual’s commitment towards his organization. Higher levels of commitment yield higher productivity and efficiency of the individual employees. This makes the important for the organizations to increase the level of engagement among the employees (Marrelli, 2010). From the critical discussion made in this paper, it can be stated that the employee engagement can be fostered by the firms by increasing the level of interaction between the employer and the employees and well as by providing organizational support by the authority. The high levels of interaction and support to the employees create a sense of belongingness among the employees which as a result is drives them to voluntarily engage in the organizational welfare. The UK has been found to be some of those countries which have the lowest levels of employee engagement. It has been found that in UK, there is a severe lack of interaction among the managers and the subordinates. Moreover, it has also been found that the employees are undervalued by their employers. The firms in UK must address these issues in order to improve the level of engagement among the employee and increase the overall productivity of the national industries (Masson et al, 2008). Reference List Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, pp. 209−223. Bates, S., 2004, Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49 (2), pp. 44-51. Baumruk R. and Gorman B., 2009. Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement. 4th ed. London: Melcrum Publishing. Baumruk, R., 2009. The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, pp. 48−52. Cascio, W. F., Boudreau, J. W. and Davis, A., 2011. HR Strategies for Employee Engagement. 5th ed. New York: Springer Verlag. Center for Human Resource Strategy (2009). A New Framework of Employee Engagement. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. Chevrier, S., 2003. Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. Journal of World Business, 38(2), pp. 141-149. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management, 31, pp. 874-900. Dalal, R. S., Brummel, B. J., Wee, S., and Thomas, L. L., 2008. Defining employee engagement for productive research and practice. Industrial and organizational psychology, 1, pp. 52−55. Dessler, G., 2005. Human Resource Management. 10th Edition, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall , pp. 4. 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, 27(3), pp. 12-25. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B., 2009. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp. 495−513. Hofstede Centre, 2015. United Kingdom. [online] Available at: < http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html> [Accessed on 4 April 2015] Jafri, H., 2012. HRM Practices as Predictors of Employee Engagement: An Empirical Investigation. IES. 6(4). Kahn, W.A., 1990, Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724. Klie, S., 2007. Senior leadership drives employee engagement: Study. Canadian HR Reporter, 20(20), pp. 6-12. Konrad, A.M., 2009. Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices. Ivey Business Journal, 5, pp.211-219. Lockwood, N. R., 2007. Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. Journal of SHRM, pp. 2-11. Macey, W. H., and Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational psychology, 1(1), pp. 3-30. Marrelli, A., 2010. Managing for Engagement -- Communication, Connection, and Courage. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins. Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., and Fine, S., 2008. Leveraging employee engagement: The practical implications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, pp. 56−59. Mathis, R. L. and Jackson, J. H., 2011. Human Resource Management: Essential Perspectives. 5th ed. Belgium: Peeters Publisher. p. 54 May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M., 2004, The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37. Medlin, B. and Green, K.W., 2014. Impact of Management Basics on Employee Engagement, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 13(2). Patrick, H. A., 2008. Psychological Contract and Employment Relationship. The Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(4), pp. 7-24. Rayton, B., 2012. Employee Engagement Task Force “Nailing the evidence” workgroup. Engage for Success. November. Roberts, H., 2014. UK near bottom of employee engagement ranking. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 4 April 2015] Ross, S., 2013. 3 Types of Employees & 4 Ways to Curb the Not-Engaged and Actively Disengaged Problem. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 4 April 2015] Saks, A.M., 2006, Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 21(7), pp. 600 – 619 Sardar S., Rehman A., Yousaf U. and Aijaz A., 2011. Impact of HR Practices on Employee Engagement in Banking Sector of Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(9), pp. 378–389. Swinscoe, A., 2013. Improve Employee Engagement By Boosting Management Support. [online] Available at: [Accessed on 4 April 2015] Read More