Managing Employee Engagement - Literature review Example

nаging Еmрlоyее Еngаgеmеnt Name: Institution: Abstract This review detailed and explored the emerging concept of employee engagement and the underlying human resource management dynamics. The affective, intellectual and social features surfaced as crucial parameters underpinning engagement. Open communication and active involvement of employees in organizational decision making bolsters engagement and loyalty to the employer. Engagement revolutionizes the working environment leading not only to improved well being of the staff but also enhancing organizational performance. It is recommendable that companies invest more in advancing engagement initiatives that would pave way for the much sought lean thinking in the contemporary business realm. Table of Contents Introduction 4 Theories of Employee Engagement Management 6 Models and Frameworks of Engagement Management 9 Drivers of Employee Engagement 12 Environmental Features 12 State of Engagement 13 Job Engagement 14 Company Engagement 14 Employee Level Outcomes of Engagement 15 Engagement and Organizational Performance 15 Management and Leadership Approaches 17 Management Behaviors 18 Outcomes of Engagement 19 Conclusion 19 References 21 Маnаging Еmрlоyее Еngаgеmеnt Introduction As the globalization continues to impart change in the human resource realm, the management is persistently pushed toward optimal employee performance management thus the emerging concept of employee engagement. Employee engagement underlines the principles that draw people’s attention at all levels in positive two-way dialogue and action to achieve maximal performance while transforming the working environment. This is to imply that employee engagement describes working conditions in which people make sense of their work and staff is highly motivated to continue working for best results with high cooperation between colleagues where the future success of the employer remains at the center stage (Saks 2006). Employee engagement is bolstered by the employer’s desire to have people that do their best work and employees’ quest for jobs that are worthwhile and continually motivating. Companies are therefore increasingly finding ways of creating win-win contests that not only favor organizational goals but also satisfy employees’ needs: engaged workforce. Important to note is that engagement is the integration of the human resource’s commitment to its employer and its core values, and the willingness to promote productive group work through coordination. This emerging crucial facet of human resource management: engagement, develops from the will of employees to deliver optimally, and cannot be included as a requirement in the employment contract. Organizations want engaged workforce to realize strategically high productivity in sustainable styles. Shaufeli and Bakker (2010) cites the apparent link between the human resource management regime, employee attitudes and overall company performance in that when the employer fulfills their onus of meeting employees’ expectations they catalyze the employees’ sense of fairness that motivates development of trust to the company. The positive role of employers on delivering on their commitments greatly reinforces the psychological undertaking by employees to make it their onus to consistently perform for the better future of their employer. The University of Bath (Purcell 2004) coined the high performance model: ‘Black Box’ from this concept of psychological contracts, and reiterates the crucial role of line managers in establishing working environment in which their subordinates can offer discretionary behavior. The synergy of the model in this context lies on the emphasis that employees have to have the freedom of choosing and deciding on the level of engagement to offer their employer. In a business world where organizations are increasingly banking on the brand more than conventional product marketing, engaged workforce emerges pivotal. This premise builds from the understanding that appropriately engaged employees can help build a strong brand and protect their employer from misdemeanors that arise from poor service levels or low quality products. Moreover, a sustained strong organizational brand is a cornerstone of the increasingly brand-sensitive talent and its retention. The critical review of the emerging employee engagement management will underline features that bolster optimal employee performance while detailing factors that may derail outcomes associated with the properly engaged workforce. Theories of Employee Engagement Management Extant literature progressively reveal ascendance to prominence of engagement management in that the novel human resource management approach underlines success in performance of the contemporary organization. In the recent years, many government skills policy tools congruent on development of leadership and management skills that are resilient and capable of withstanding the continual change. Important to note about these rationales is the implicit realization that measures to promote supply and raise skills of the human resource are, while exceptionally crucial, not adequate to drive performance enhancements on their own (Alfes,Truss, Soane, Rees & Gatenby 2010). Although there appears not to be a conventional ground for rationalizing engagement management, academic literature increasingly cite Kahn (1990) framework as the basis of conceptual employee engagement. This premise is bolstered by suggestions that engaged workforce identify with their optimal job performance that is underpinned by more effort into their work. While retaining the conceptual approach that presents employee engagement as a psychological state, some theorists consider the approach as a positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter 2001). Maslach and Leiter (1997) view employee engagement as the direct opposites of burnout dimensions: engagement comprises energy, involvement and efficiency, which culminate into fatigue, cynicism, and ineffectiveness during the burnout process. The positive antithesis view of engagement is shared by Shaufeli and Bakker (2003), which they present as a distinctive concept that relate negatively to burnout. In this context employee engagement is viewed as a mental state that is characterized by high energy levels that catalyze an individual’s high investment efforts to their work. Additionally, the theoretical basis is built on belief that the engagement is based on high vigor associated with dedication to work and absorption. While large literature tend to define employee engagement from the mental convictions toward engagement with roles and tasks, definitions strongly oriented toward business and practitioners perspective tend to associate the concept with instrumental focus on employee’s engagement with the employer. Shaufeli and Bakker (2010) in their view of the concept from the standpoint of human resource management (HRM) professionals recognize the insistence of meaning based on organizational commitment. This context considers the strong employee attachment: emotional and positivity: to their employer and the desire by staff to remain at the service of the organization in the future. Additionally, the definitive character of employees in the context of the emerging engagement concept, in the view of HRM considers employees’ commitment to work extra harder, which include behavioral and discretionary efforts that promote operational efficacy of the company. Theoretical excerpts buttress employee engagement on three main facets: rational, emotional, and motivational. The rational dimension is one of the link s that reflects the level at which the employees understand their roles in the company and appertaining responsibilities. Saks (2006) says that the emotional feature is a dimension that helps reveal the employees’ passion to bring to their work and the company. Another crucial component is the motivational aspect, in which employees show their free will of investing their energy maximally without any reservations not only to derive pleasure from their improved performance but also help build sustainable future for their company. The concept of engagement management appears more complex and sophisticated as more literature and research work surfaces. Generally, some theorists and research quarters (CIPD 2011) find it visible to demarcate organizational commitment from what they consider more logical and practical explanations of the concept. In this context, notwithstanding the general ideology that highly engaged workforce that is highly affective of their employer abhor more discretionary behavior, there are different constructs underlying. This thinking orientation connotes purports to define engagement with more focus on job roles and tasks and not strongly lining engagement with the devotion to the organization. Employee engagement cannot overemphasize its inherent feature of intellectual tapping, which connotes employees’ mental commitment on job performance and its improvement. Moreover, the affective facet importantly reflects from a functional definition of engagement in that it explains the positivity employees attach on the good job done for the employer (Shaufeli and Bakker 2010). Importantly, the social engagement is a pivotal block in the construction of employee engagement concept, which bolsters the employees’ character of continually discussing work-related solutions with team mates. Despite the more confusing conceptualizations that confound a clear cut line for defining employee engagement, extant literature portrays the approach a functionally active and realistic HRM feature in the contemporary people management practices. Shaufeli and Bakker (2010) for instance, promote the idea that improved engagement stakes in the human workforce confers an organization increased performance improving benefits while at the same time revolutionizing the work environment. Summarily, employee engagement is the way forward for HRM optimal management because research increasingly demonstrates its plausibility in positively transforming organizational commitment, customer satisfaction, the much elusive employee loyalty, and stability in profitability and productivity. Models and Frameworks of Engagement Management At this level of review it has become clear that employee employment has fast ascended into a respectful discourse in the realm of HRM practices, organizational management theorists and psychologists, and also HRM-oriented management consultants. The concept is commonly deployed in the listed disciplines to imply involvement, passion, commitment or loyalty. According to Dalton, Hoyle and Watts (2010), many studies that explore the perceived relationship between engagement and vital parameters of organizational performance like profitability, employee turnover, and earnings per share have spurred a wave of the concept’s popularity and ramification in the business world. However, development of conventional definitions of the discourse of employee engagement has not matched the drastic acceptance of the construct in the different industries. This implies that there is a diversity of the concept in terms of its perception and application both in the research and HRM practice. This aspect bears negative implications for the concept in that in the research world for instance, the diverse conceptualizations create challenges for accumulation of coherent body of research knowledge. Additionally, from the practice vantage point, making recommendations for actions becomes particularly challenging because of the apparent ambiguity of the construct’s definitions. The analysis at this juncture will explore a model of engagement that has been coined in an effort to stem the underlined challenges associated with the construct’s definitions. One of the pillars of the logic of the model lies on the definition of engagement as the state that employees can be in at the point of delivering their designated chores. What this serves is to imply that the intensity of the workers’ state can experience a continual change because if any of the core engagement parameters is altered then engaged employees may shift to a new status. Moreover, is crucial to isolate the predictors of engagement, the realized state of engagement, and the outcomes of the engagement to pave way for a greater understanding of the construct. The model (Figure 1) helps explain techniques and inherent features that may be useful in solving the potential dilemma of misinterpreting real engagement. Albrecht (2010) argues that a strategic adoption of the underlines principles can tremendously aid resolve some of the definitional issues associated with the engagement construct. For instance, employees’ behaviors such as working harder or adopting career perspectives in readiness to stay longer with the organization must be included as part of the engagement approach. However, this precedence should be approached with caution because employees may display such behavioral cues because they are coerced by situational factors such as fear for their job security. This implies that such a context can lead to false information from measures of engagement. Figure 1: Engagement Model Source: Albrecht (2010) The figure of engagement model presented above gives a compressive perspective of logical elements that underpin the conceptual framework of engagement. On the left-hand side of the figure: the drivers of engagement summarize the characteristics of a convenient working environment. A better fit of the underlined features as regards what employees want and what is available to them is predictably associated with improved engagement levels (Dalton, Hoyle & Watts 2010). When employees are more engaged, it is naturally expected of them to perform more frequent an array of behaviors that advantage their employer. In addition, it is apparent that when employees display such contributory behaviors both they and their employer stand a high potential of benefiting positively from the outcomes of the engagement. The implication in this context is that an organization that has the entire workforce frequently exhibiting positive behaviors is more likely to record positive impacts on engagement improvement indicators such as revenue growth, profitability and customer satisfaction. Employees that work in a fully engaging environment on the other hand are likely to experience more satisfying job environment and improved wellbeing. Worthy mentioning is that personal dispositions of employees are crucial influencers of the components of the model. For instance such features as personality or emotional constructs can predefine an individual’s pattern of preferences for a satisfying working environment, and can as well influence the frequency at which people become engaged (Cook 2008). Research focused on the dispositions establishes that they are crucial in furthering the understanding of behavioral and emotional perspectives such as effort to work hard, contextual performance, and employee satisfaction by their working environment. Drivers of Employee Engagement Environmental Features The characteristics of the working environment greatly bolster the level of employee engagement. Key working environment features that are closely linked to engagement include features of an employee’s job role, and the organizational HRM components that on which the job role is enshrined. According Clark (2012), the condition of the work environment is a crucial driver that bolsters the experience that employees have of their work, which cultivates employee engagement. Notable in this context is that organizational features that shape the working contexts enhances or undermines employees’ motivation and the sense of job ownership. This implies that the environmental features play a key role in promoting the understanding of what makes employees engaged, and they are the benchmarks for decision making for improving engagement and the inherent performance. When evaluating the features of the work environment, for each parameter, targeted employees are asked how much of the particular feature they want in their ideal environment and to what extent they perceive the element to be present. This approach is used to empirically determine the fit between what the expectations of employees from their job and employer and what is actually present. The realization a feasible fit in terms of the extent employees’ desire of a particular feature potentially increases the potential of them entering a state of engagement. State of Engagement The state of engagement explains the employees’ psychological status when executing their job. According to the conceptualization course as put forward by Khan (1990), the state of engagement is underpinned by the fact that people commit and express themselves physically, cognitively, and affectively when executing their tasks. When people are in engaged state, they commit themselves more to the job performance: conducting their work with enthusiasm while investing more energy. The state of engagement invigorates the job ownership by employees in that they feel their work performance is part of their identity and character. In this context employees internalize organizational goals and the vision of the employer as their own. However, a disengaged workforce is only physically present at the work place. It does not connect with the company goals and aspirations, and thus not committed or affectively concerned about job performance. According to Clark (2012), disengaged people are just like empty shells in that they deploy little or no emotional attachment to tasks, and they doo not care about the future of their employer. Important to note is that engagement is not static and remains subject to changes over time especially in response to situational alterations ate work such as promotion into a new portfolio with new responsibilities, or a structural change in the organization. The state of engagement can as well be altered by external features such as conflicting interests that distract the employee thus affecting the amount dedicated for the job. In summary, the stable characteristic of an individual like the physique, psychological satisfaction, and emotional state greatly influence personal engagement to work. Job Engagement Job engagement is another driver that is leveraged by close involvement to task. Job involvement is largely catalyzed by a motivational framework, which curves an identity of an employee based on the task they perform in the company. The main features of job engagement manifest from the extent to which the worker feels energized by conducting performing their duty. Employees that experience strong affection for their job when performing the task direct their motivational cues towards more enjoyment in executing their duty, and thus increased motivation and high productivity (Cook 2008). Company Engagement The concept of organizational commitment underlines the type of relationship established with the employer, which greatly influences the individual’s decision to remain or quit the organization. Company engagement is realized when employees feel affectively obligated to remain serving the organization, and when they consider it costly and socially incorrect for them to stay away from the organization. This perspective cultivates engagement in that though personal interests are prioritized, the benefits of remaining in the organization override other considerations. Clark (2012) argues that the affective commitment associates strongly with improved job satisfaction, increased revenue growth for the organization, and enhanced job performance. Employee Level Outcomes of Engagement As implied through the engagement model, staff in engaged state experience a range of behaviors, cognitive and affective states that underpin a likely increase in efforts invested in the job, and the realization of higher level satisfaction at work. In essence, engaged employees will be more likely to invest more energy in their tasks or roles at work place, and raise the willingness to participate in job enhancing activities (Schaufeli, Taris &Van Rhenen 2008). In a similar note, engaged employees will potentially yield willful commitment to perform more tasks for the advantage of the organization that are otherwise beyond their routine requirements. Another employee outcome is that they may manifest behavioral contributions that traverse the norms and become external ambassadors of the organization. In this context the employees become the advocates of their employer at their social interactions even with external organizations. Engagement and Organizational Performance Many organizations in the current dynamic labor world pursue engagement indicators in that they view them as the most useful measures of employee satisfaction and commitment to the employer. In the perspective of engagement levels across public and private sectors, it appears apparent that the dimensions that influence engagement: social, affective, and intellectual are increasingly incorporated into management and administrative programs to bolster employee satisfaction and motivation. For instance, Shaufeli et al. (2008) provides that employees in the public institutions tend to report high connectedness to workmates compared to their counterparts in the private organizations. This premise explains the ideology that public employees are more likely to participate in cross-departmental meetings to discuss work-related concerns and possible solutions. This position is informed by the emerging tendency of government arms at both local and central levels to get teams and departments actively innovating problem solution mechanisms through employee friendly approaches. The underlying rationale toward more engagement in the public organizations revolves around the ubiquitous openness and permeability of the institutional functions. This precedence rivals the situations at private firms in that public organizations have to maintain high level transparency while the private companies often create relatively direct hierarchy in which top mangers participate almost wholesomely in decision making. Seijts and Crim (2006) add that the affective drivers of engagement are increasingly optimized in the public realms in that the managers promote open communication to all members of staff, and encourage uncontrolled knowledge-sharing increasingly through information technology tools. The affective element is further garnered through the unparalleled interdependence of government departments compared to private companies. Although the public organizations have ideal conditions to promote engagement through the much liberalized corroboration among departments, employee engagement may be deterred by low appreciation of involvement programs by the employees. Finding meaningfulness in the task emerges as a crucial engagement factor that promotes organizational performance. Cohen (2008) resents that the extent to which the workforce deduce meaning out of their job roles greatly influences their affective perception of their working life in general. For example, employees that feel that their work is important and they can change their lives through increased commitment and hard work are likely to have more positive perceptions about their work and the employer. Cohen (2008) contends that increased realization of meaningfulness in an individual’s work substantially motivates them and in turn helps increase the productivity bar at the place of employment. A research by Alfes et al. (2010) demonstrated that about two-thirds of the employees interviewed conceded finding meaning in their employment chores, compared with meager eight percent that their work personally meaningful. The implication was that the employees that were able to relate their work to diverse contexts and that felt that they could change their lives reported increased motivation and was really engaged. Management and Leadership Approaches It is implicit from prior research (De Mello e Souza Wildermuth & Pauken 2008) that the employees’ engagement level is tremendously leveraged by the prevailing management styles. In this context for example, opportunities for upward feedback bolster engagement of the junior staff through increased participation that promotes the understanding of both personal and institutional issues. Moreover, engagement driven organizational performance is underlined by the employees’ perception that the management is interested in their wellbeing, which cultivates reciprocation of the effort thus enhancing performance. Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2006) endorsed this premise by providing that effective leadership integrates personal level feedbacks that not only make staff feel valued but also catalyses productivity and engagement. Worthwhile mentioning is that the perception of line managers by their subordinates plays a crucial role in cementing organizational relations that can or not build a corporation’s high performance culture. Research by Alfes et al. (2010) revealed that line mangers play a pivotal role in forming the relational web that cultivates workforce engagement in that they are the go-between for employees and the organization per se. For example in large corporations, the perception of line managers is considerably pivotal in that work environment in such organization permit little contact between the top management and subordinates. Line managers influence engagement right from the recruitment and selection processes a level at which they ensure that the right talent is deployed to the correct position in terms of skills and abilities. By ensuring clear statement of job requirements, and communicating organizational goals and objectives, the line managers cultivates employees’ focus and engagement on specified roles. This translates into an organized and well coordinated working environment in which employees remain motivated and engaged. Management Behaviors The extant literature reviewed in this context reveals that although the role of the senior managers may be remote in terms of cultivating employee engagement, their vision and communication behaviors form the core of motivation an loyalty to the organization. Moreover, when employees form exclusively positive opinions about line managers, their engagement is reportedly raised. According to Alfes et al. (2010), when debating how managers can institute purposeful engagement initiatives, it is important to note the value of promoting meaningfulness of work and leverage effective leadership style. A purposeful leadership style promotes the employees’ participation through provision of avenues that see them giving their input as regards the decisions that affect their work and wellbeing. In addition, an effective leadership style values the inclusion of employees’ opinions in making organizational decisions through active consultation and two-way communication about the workplace issues. The extent and frequency of communication surfaced in this review as a crucial driver workforce engagement. At the core of the concept of employee engagement is the realization that all employees are important for the overall functionality and continual improvement of institutional performance. Outcomes of Engagement In concurrence with Cook (2008), employee engagement has been associated with a diversity of advantages for both individual staff and the organization. For example, is has been demonstrated that engaged workforce is likely to improve productivity and remain loyal to the company with unparalleled benefits for both parties. The engagement processes revolves around a positive cycle of perceptions of work and the employer. The behaviors and the processes that bolster engagement promote employees’ wellbeing and enhance organizational performance. Engagement not only cultivates employee satisfaction and performance but also encourage innovativeness at work. Additionally, engagement helps the employees develop careers while aiding the company in reducing employee turnover concerns. Conclusion This critical analysis detailed the emerging concept of employee engagement that is increasingly revolutionizing the contemporary organizations. Extant literature explored revealed that the concept is rich and complex. Engagement is largely underpinned by intellectual, social, and more importantly the affective features that shape the behaviors and perceptions of employees toward work and the corporation toward the workforce. It emerged that the extent of engagement is higher within the public sector because of the inherent openness and permeability of the administrative structures. Managers are more engaged in both public and private sectors, and the line managers play a crucial role in shaping engagement. Engaged staff is more committed to work and is likely to revolutionize the working environment leading to improved organizational performance. The core factors that underpin engagement include the ability to derive meaning from work, the active participation of employees in decision making especially in matters that concern their wellbeing and the continuity of the employer, and the visionary leadership and communication of top management. Summarily, engagement appears to be the think to watch for the contemporary workforce managers and consultants seeking to enhance the human development programs especially in the wake of ushering in the lean thinking discourse in the corporate domain. References Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E.C., Rees, C & Gatenby, M 2010, ‘Creating an engaged workforce’, London: CIPD. http://www.cipd. co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/_creating_engaged_ workforce.htm (Accessed 8 December 2012). Alimo-Metcalfe, B & Alban-Metcalfe, J2006, ‘More (good) leaders for the public sector’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 19, no 4. Pp. 293–315. CIPD 2011, ‘Shaping the Future. sustainable organization performance: what really makes the difference’, Chartered Institute Of Personnel And Development. http://www.cipd.co.uk/shapingthefuture (Accessed 9 December 2012). Clark, T 2012, The employee engagement mindset: the six drivers for tapping into the hidden potential of everyone in your company, Santa Barbara, CA McGraw Hill Professions. Cohen, G.M 2008, ‘Connecting with the larger purpose of our work’, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 97, no 3,pp.1041–1046. Cook, S 2008, The essential guide to employee engagement: better business performance through staff satisfaction, New York, NY: Kogan Page Publishers. Dalton, M., Hoyle, D.G & Watts, M.W 2010, Human relations, (4th edn). London, UK: Cengage Learning. De Mello E Souza Wildermuth, C & Pauken, P.D 2008, ‘A perfect match: decoding employee engagement, part I: engaging cultures and leaders’, Industrial & Commercial Training, vol. 40, no 3. Pp.122–128. Khan, W.A 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal. Vol.33, No 4. Maslach, C & Leiter, M.P, 1997, The truth about burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B & Leiter, M.P 2001, ‘Job burnout’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52: pp.397–422. Purcell, J 2004, The HRM-performance link: why, how, and when does people management impact organizational performance, http://www.bath.ac.uk/werc/pdf/LovettLecturer2004.pdf (accessed 8 December 2012). Saks, A.M 2006, ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 21, No 7, pp.600–619. Schaufeli, W.B & Bakker, A.B, 2010, ‘The conceptualization and measurement of work engagement’, In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (eds). Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research (pp.10–24). New York: Psychology Press. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W & van Rhenen, W 2008, ‘Workaholism, burnout and engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well­being’, Applied Psychology: An International Review. Vol. 57, Pp.173–203. Seijts, G.H& Crim, D 2006,’What engages employees the most or: the ten C’s of employee engagement’, Ivey Business Journal, vol. 70, no 4. Pp.1–5. Read More