Organizational Behavior Problem: Employee Engagement - Literature review Example

Organizational behavior Problem: Employee Engagement Contents Organizational behavior Problem: Employee Engagement Contents 2 Introduction 3 Literature Review 4 Frameworks for employee engagement 5 Leadership and Employee Engagement 5 Improving employee engagement levels 6 Role of managers in employee engagement 7 Drivers of employee engagement 8 Practical Example 8 Conclusion 10 Reference List 11 Introduction In this industrialized world, organizations are continuously trying to diversify and possibilities of problems occurring related to workplace are continuously intensifying. Most organizations small or big face one or more of the following three potential kinds of conflict -- employee, team or organizational issues. Most often, the causes of such problems are absence of open, free flowing communications between employees or teams and maybe even employing the wrong organizational structure. Many businesses manifold these problems by not providing employees with a clear chain of command. One of the pressing organizational behavioral issues is employee personality problems. Individual employee can have problems oriented towards personality conflicts, issues related to their supervisor, personal trauma, or structure of the company (Gadot and Drory, 2006). The top management must understand cause of the problems and elements aggravating the same. If the management finds no clear trigger, the most expected reason must be insufficient communications. For example, if an employee working in a decentralized styled organization feels that he/she has to report to multiple supervisors, then it is clear that communication regarding chain of command is inadequate for employees. The other problem of organizational behavior is team problem. To become a high performer in a team, all members of the team must be focused to work towards a common goal. If the members do not feel a personal connection with other comprising the team, the team will become non-functional. Such issues arise due to organizational or management miscommunication, which confuse team members about personal and team`s common goals. The team leader, who leads the team, must give his/her continuous feedback and encourage cohesiveness. The last type of organizational behavioral problem is organizational problems. In this type of problem, ordinary employee or team issues can blow out of proportion and spread into the entire organization, if immediate corrective steps are not taken. This situation leads to the employees forming two groups; communication is very poor between the groups and they are mostly at odds with one another. These problems not only change corporate culture of the organization, but also adversely affect workforce performance and productivity. The underlying cause of most of these problems is employee disengagement. If the employees are engaged, then such issues will be minimized, as most often they would be occupied with their job tasks. However, there is dearth in literature available on employee engagement as the topic has not been considerably explored. Literature Review Employee disengagement has become a top priority for senior level executives in running a business. In this highly competitive and rapidly growing economy, business managers and leaders realize the importance of having a highly efficient workforce that can ensure long-term growth and survival of a business. The managers believe that a disengaged work force cannot foster innovation, can reduce productivity and yield bottom line performance while increasing the cost of hiring and retention in a highly competitive market filled with talents. However, while most of the senior level managers identify a clear need to enhance the engagement level of their employees, many of them are yet to develop approaches to measure as well as attain this goal. A growing cluster of best-in-class companies state that they have successfully been able to augment the impact of their engagement initiatives on overall performance of the business (Harvard Business Review, 2013). Disengagement reduces productivity of a talent pool working within a particular organization. So, it is the responsibility of managers to create an environment, where employees feel more passionate about work assigned to them as well as expected organizational behavior is seen to benefit both employees and organization, as a whole (Baumruk, 2006). Managers undeniably agree to the fact that in this century, where business environments have become considerably competitive than ever before, productivity and efficiency are of highly necessary. Businesses are increasingly attempting to improve their performance and responsibility of ensuring the same rests on business managers. Hence, in order to improve performance of business, managers have consistently been improvising strategies to boost employee engagement. In order to assist managers, research scholars, researchers as well as academicians throughout the world have been contributing in their respective ways by highlighting various approaches that can be adopted so as to enhance engagement level of employees. Among techniques that are suggested more often than not, total quality management (TQM) and Business Process Reengineering are the most widely recognized. A disengaged employee does not care for organizational performance nor does he strive to improve individual or organizational productivity or performance. Such an employee is very negative minded about the job and entire organization as well as tends to create a negative working environment, causing high employee dissatisfaction and ultimately high turnover. Disengaged employees do not believe in organizational goals, reluctant towards performing duties properly, treat others with disrespect and discourage others who are trying to improve on their work. The employee does not fulfill his job requirements and cannot be relied upon by his colleagues. Such employees do not identify themselves with the organization and do not care to know recent developments in their field of work (Sakovska, 2012). Frameworks for employee engagement Disengaged employees exhibit incomplete role performances and are usually effortless, robotic or automatic. Sakovska (2012) 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. The authors also identified role fit and job enrichment to be positive indicators of meaningfulness; gratifying co-workers and encouraging supervisor relations were found to be positive indicators of safety; whereas, obedience to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were found to be negative predictors. Resources appeared to be positive predictors of psychological availability and on the contrary, participation in corporate social responsibility activities was a negative predictor. On the whole, it was concluded that meaningfulness has the strongest association with different employee outcomes, as far as their engagement level is concerned. Leadership and Employee Engagement Academic researches so far have not directly stated any particular leadership or management behaviors, which are exclusive drivers of employee engagement. However, it is reasonable to suggest both management and the leadership style that they adopt will play a key role in each of the six key areas of work mentioned by Maslach and Leiter (2008). In addition, work done by Maslach and Leiter (2008) also revealed that lack of leadership can be a fundamental cause of employee disengagement. Empirical researches done in this field have laid a substantial blame on the role of lopsided leadership and management causing increment in levels of employee disengagement. Positive perceptions of line management are found to have a significant influence on engagement levels of employees. Employee disengagement is the responsibility of line managers; as most common causes of employee disengagement are that right people are not hired for the right job, organizational objectives and goals are not clearly stated, efforts are not appropriately recognized and rewarded as well as opportunities for career and development and promotion are not provided (Madell, 2014). On the contrary, negative perceptions of senior management have a significant impact on engagement levels of employees. Especially, it is very crucial that the senior management conveys organizational visions effectively to employees and adopts open, approachable and transparent styles. Improving employee engagement levels Saks (2001) proposed a robust theoretical rationale in order to explain engagement level of employees. This rationale can be found in social exchange theory, which is commonly termed as the SET. The theory argues that obligations arise through a sequence of interactions that take place between parties who share interdependency. One of the fundamental principles of SET is that relationships that employees share with the management gradually evolves over time into loyal, trust and mutual commitments as long as both the concerned parties adhere to certain regulations of exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). These regulations lead to reciprocity or repayment rules in such a way that actions of one party compel the other to take actions. As an example; it can be cited that when employees receive socio-economical or economical resources from their managers, they feel obliged and respond in kind, besides repaying with committed performance. This idea is in complete alignment with ideas set forth by Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004), who had described employee engagement as a twofold relationship between employee and the management. Employee engagement is undoubtedly one of the most important and perhaps, most debatable topic to be discussed within organizations. Building employee engagement has its rewards and this has proven true for several organizations. Both research scholars as well as practitioners have given their consent to the fact that employee engagement is associated with immense benefits. Majority of the consultancy firms states that there is a significant positive correlation between employee engagement and increase in profitability, which is attained through increasing sales and productivity, level of employee retention and customer satisfaction (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). A thoroughly engaged employee will always love his job responsibility and be curious about deriving further knowledge from everyday job tasks. The employee will constantly try and come up with new ideas in order to prove his relevance to the organization. By doing so, the employee will be able to gain further knowledge regarding the job; this in turn will enable the individual to achieve an all round development. This will in turn develop a very stable working environment, which in itself will support knowledge sharing. It will be very convenient for employees to work in such an environment. As a consequence, level of their engagement towards the organization will increase. Role of managers in employee engagement Managers and leaders play a substantial role in encouraging the level of employee engagement. The fact that leadership has a great contribution towards influencing levels of engagement among employees is undoubted. Direction and goal clarity are one of the most important factors to be identified by empirical research scholars, which can amplify the level of engagement among employees (Baum and Locke, 2004). Yet, the extent to which employees are engaged depends largely on leadership styles that are adopted by leaders and managers working in organizations worldwide. It is the way in which they specify direction as well as clarify goals to their employees, thereby stimulating the level of engagement and commitment among subordinates. This is particularly because of the fact that employees are able to enhance quality of their performance as well as productivity with a clear understanding of their goals and objectives. So, leaders are unable to clearly convey the expectations that they have from their subordinates. This will lead to employees being unaware of approaches that can be undertaken in order to fulfill goals and objectives. As a consequence, employees will tend to be more committed and motivated towards achieving organizational objectives. This suggests the importance of communication of realistic and clear goals as well as proper direction. It is the responsibility of leaders to assist employees in developing personal accountability. The leaders should always direct their attention towards helping their subordinates, as and when necessary, to achieve the goals. Another essential factor that can lead to increased disengagement is lack of leadership in setting performance benchmarks, which instill personal accountability among employees. Drivers of employee engagement As far as global drivers of employee engagement is concerned, content, compensation, community, congruence and career are ones, which are regarded as the most significant. Being 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 fulfillments. This suggests the importance of providing employees with appropriate job roles as well as rewarding them appropriately for fulfilling 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. 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. 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. Practical Example Nucor, an US based manufacturer of steel is known for its strong business strategies but low innovation with high cost associated to increase productivity. Nucor’s problems are mainly due to its issues with HR strategies for lean management structure, teamwork, formalization, recruiting and reward. Nucor is a highly decentralized organization with all of its 16 facilities work independently. Nucor has four levels of management which help to achieve its business strategy. But recently Nucor has been facing a lot of problems with innovation as its Research and Development team is not that effective. The cost of production is also rising in Nucor which even after a lot of effort put in by the management is not showing any signs of reducing. There is no concept of rewards which can be paid on basis of employee productivity. Thus, Nucor productivity targets although are achievable but much less than industry averages. Moreover, the no rewards policy prevents the proper effort and zeal among employees to improve productivity. This also deters team members to assist each other to achieve organizational goals. There are no job descriptions and no performance appraisals at Nucor as the managers feel that it is wastage of time. According to the top management the absence of job description is attributed to the changing work requirements at Nucor which the employees are required to cover. At Nucor employee’s selection is stringent with applicants tested on their ability to work in a team with coworkers and under less supervision. In short Nucor`s strategies of lean management, decentralization, no rewards and low formalization is an hurdle to achieve its business goals of low cost, high innovation, high productivity and good performances. It has been suggested to the top management team at Nucor that job description is important during selection process but the advice has yet not been incorporated. Low empowerment of employees has also led to lack of initiatives by employees to improve the productivity of the organization. At last no performance appraisal strategy has also been criticized since it identifies the capabilities and encourages the high performers who are required for greater responsibilities. The problem of Nucor is related to the organizational problem of employee disengagement. Based on the theories of employee engagement the solution to the current problem of Nucor is threefold. Firstly, 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 respect from them. This will endow them with the ability to establish a strong relationship of trust and respect with their employees and thus, will be able to encourage employee engagement. Secondly, managers can augment the level of employee engagement by letting their 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 fulfillment 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 the employees to not only choose the way they work, but also the place of work. Organizations can offer their employees flexible working hours as well as work from home facilities so as to help them achieve work-life balance. Conclusion Employee engagement cannot be built solely through administration of employee engagement programs. It has to be incorporated in the approach that an organization adopts while conducting its daily business. It has to be kept in mind that employee management needs a great amount of patience. One of the key principles of enabling engagement is to engage line managers in the effort towards fostering employee commitment. A clear connection has to be established between the concerns of line managers and engagement programs that are being designed in order to encourage employee engagement. This is particularly because objectives of organizational and that of management have to be in complete alignment (Gadot and Drory, 2006). If this connection is not made distinctively clear, then managers will find it difficult to fulfill daily job responsibilities and will not be concerned about organization’s efforts towards building employee engagement (Davenport and Harding, 2010). Managers sometimes are very complacent and do not pay required attention towards employee engagement level because they believe that tools designed by the organization are not for them to fulfill their core business objectives, but are for directed at development of HR business activities. Nevertheless, this is not the case. As mentioned above, employee engagement is key determinant of an organizations success. This success is realized when each and every individual working for the organization achieves the same in their own respect, which includes managers too. Therefore, line managers have to have a clear understanding about importance of employee engagement and also to realize the effort that is being made so as to build employee engagement. Reference List Baum, R. J. and Locke, E. A., 2004. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), pp. 587-598. Baumruk, R., 2006. Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement. [pdf] Melcrum publishing. Available at: [Accessed 31 January 2014]. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, pp. 874-900. Davenport, T. O. and Harding, S. D., 2010. Manager Redefined: The Competitive Advantage in the Middle of Your Organization. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Gadot, E. and Drory, A., 2006. Handbook of organizational politics. UK: Edward Elgar publishing. Harvard Business Review, 2013. The impact of employee engagement on performance. [pdf] Harvard Business School publishing. Available at: http://www.yorkworks.ca/default/assets/File/analyst-insights-HBR_Achievers%20Report_TheImpactofEmployeeEngagementonPerformance(1).pdf [Accessed 21 May 2014]. Madell, R., 2014. The Supervisors Impact on Employee Engagement. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2014]. Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. P., 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 498-512. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S., 2004. The drivers of employee engagement. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2014]. Sakovska, 2012. Importance of Employee Engagement in. Business Environment: Measuring the engagement level of administrative personnel in VUC Aarhus and detecting factors requiring improvement. [pdf] Aarhus University. Available at: [Accessed 21 May 2014]. Read More