The Concept of Employee Engagement - Case Study Example

What is employee engagement? Is it a relevant and important concept to managers? Why and Why Not? (Name) (Course) (Institution) (Instructor’s name) Date Introduction Employee engagement is a relatively new notion that has been largely marketed and popular among human resource consulting firms that provide advice on the ways in which this concept can be created and leveraged (William and Benjamin, 2008 p.3). Nevertheless, employee engagement has not been fully exploited in academic studies and very little knowledge exists about its antecedents and consequences (Saks, 2006 p.600). However, scholars are steadily joining the fight and both parties are burdened with competing and unsteady interpretations of the meaning of this construct (William and Benjamin, 2008 p.3). The studies carried out in this field have different approaches and opinions towards employee engagement. Employee engagement is however becoming an important aspect in many organizations despite the gap between the concept and lack of research. The global economic crisis of 2008 saw many employees being laid off. However, this was not the solution as employers realized that they lost some of the most valuable assets they had, engaged employees. This essay seeks to explore what employee engagement is, whether it is relevant and its importance to managers in the organization. This will be achieved through critical evaluation of research articles and other sources in the management field. Critical Literature evaluation Employee engagement has been defined in several varying ways with the definitions and measures sounding like other existing and better known constructs such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship (Saks, 2006 p.601). In a report by MacLeod and Clarke (2009 p.8) the authors employed the definition of employee engagement that was given by Professor Katie Truss during their study which states; “Engagement is about creating opportunities for employees to connect with their colleagues, managers and wider organization. It is also about creating an environment where employees are motivated to want to connect with their work and really care about doing a good job…It is a concept that places flexibility, change and continuous improvement at the heart of what it means to be an employee and an employer in a twenty-first century workplace.” (Macleod & Clarke 2009, p.9). This definition entails all the elements of employee engagement that help in realization of optimal results in organizational performance, employee retention and customer satisfaction. This definition also conforms or is an elaborate of Saks (2006 p.602) definition. According to Saks, employee engagement entails the emotional and intellectual commitment of employees to the accomplishment of an organization. Basically, employee engagement is the force behind employees’ urge to utilize the resources and ingenuity for organizational effectiveness. Employee engagement can be seen as the most crucial metric for organizations in the contemporary organization management. According to Michael and Sims (2008 p.7) employee engagement is the key determinant of many if not all of other main measures that echo and propel organizational performance including productivity, innovation, quality, profitability, and loyalty. Michael and Sims (2008p.7) employ four key factors in defining employee engagement which is based on many years of experience and vigorous global benchmarking research. These factors include dedication to job and organization, satisfaction in job and organization, enthusiasm to promote the benefits and merits of the job and organization and finally satisfaction with job and organization (Michael and Sims 2008 p.7). Thus the authors advocate for engagement as the measure of employee-organization association. In their research, Michael and Sims (2008 p.8) found out that, employee engagement results to increased financial performance, increased customer satisfaction and increased retention of employees. There is a strong link between the degree of employee engagement and performance of the organization. In the study by right management, it was revealed that employees who perceived their organizations as best performers had twice the level of engagement as compared to those employees who attributed their organization performance as average (Michael and Sims 2008 p.8). In a global survey carried out in 2006 by Tower Perrins ISR, a 52 percent difference in performance increment in operating income over the period between organizations with greatly engaged workforce and organizations which had low level of engagement (Macleods & Clarke, 2009 p.11). Employee engagement entails the psychological meaningfulness which are related to employee commitment to their work (Douglas et al. 2004 30). Job enrichment and work role fit are also linked to psychological meaningfulness. As managers, it is important to give employees psychological meaningfulness as they are able to give the best of their skills or intellect in for the benefit of the organization. Consequently, engaged employees has higher degree of perceived consumer satisfaction. This is because, engaged employees appreciate the worth of guaranteeing a positive customer experience are most probably to express their commitment by offering high quality products and services (Michael and Sims 2008 p.9). Jonathan Austin of Best Companies argued that, “The way employers treat employees has a direct effect on how employees treat customers. Customers, or consumers, vote with their feet based on the quality of the interaction they experience with any organization. Quality employee and customer interactions are, over the long run, the livelihood of any company. These quality interactions guarantee loyalty of the brand, advocacy and can give an organization a feasible edge, which is based in their ‘culture’ can be difficult if not impossible to copy” (Macleod and Clarke, 2009 p.11). Hence managers the concept of employee engagement is of magnitude significance to managers as mangers are obligated to ensuring customer satisfaction and realize great returns to the organization. The success of the organization depends solely on its relations with its customers. Managers are supervisors and should oversee the progress of the organization towards a satisfied customer base. When a company fails to maintain its customers by failing to offer them satisfaction, the blame is put on the managers. Therefore engaging employees is not only of benefit to the organization or the employee, but important to the manager. Engaged employees are also less likely to their work or organization in the next year and are one and a half times more likely to stay in their job for not less than five years. Consequently, Macleod and Clarke (2009 p.12) stipulates that engaged employees are eighty seven percent less probable to leave the organization than those employees who remain disengaged. The cost of high turnover is significant among disengaged employees; it is estimated that the cost of replacing every employee is equivalent to annual salary of each employee. This is important to managers to embrace employee engagement as organizations are obligated to protect their investment in their employees by retaining workers and their knowledge and skills to ensure business continuity and the potential to meet main business objectives (Michael and Sims 2008 p.9). In the study by Michael and Sims (2008 p.9), it was also revealed that, only a third of employees are engaged in their work and the organization. As discussed earlier, employee engagement is the key drive to major business metrics. Organizations and managers that are focused on engaging their employees can reap great performance, portrayed by all key success indicators of profitability as well as sustainability. Employee engagement takes different forms. However, the most effective forms of engagement are those which have been custom made for the organization. Custom made entails those that are tailored to suit the organization’s need. One such example is John Lewis Partnership, which is a firm owned by its employees. The company articulates that, its model of shop-floor voice and engagement which is a key element in its enduring success, is not just a function of its ownership construct, but originates form a insightful belief, originally articulated by its pioneer, that people working for an organization are key to the success of that organization (MacLeod and Clarke p.4). In practicality principle and for purposes of development, managers must participate in helping their employees become more cognitively engaged (show feeling of purpose or mission and are supplied with information as well as feedback) and emotionally engaged (create strong relations with their job, co-employees as well as with the mangers) (Fred and Suzanne, 2002, p.384). Psychological state of self efficacy offer understanding and strengthens the worker engagement managerial performance relationship and hence provides additional value to workplace results and management development. Managers play a key role in the process of engaging workers. On the other hand, when employees are engaged, they help the manager to become effective in his or her work. Thus self efficacy and effectiveness of managers are determined by how well the managers are creating room for their employee engagement. Employees with strong emotional relations with their managers, who feel that their views are welcome and who believe their managers have concern in their development such as emotional engagement, are highly probable to respond to the1ir managers positively and create favorable results that can assist the manager to be more effective (Fred and Suzanne, 2002 p.185). Fred and Suzanne (2009 p.385) continue to explain that, employees who are aware of what they are expected to do understand their mission or purpose and who are offered the opportunities to flourish and develop and who are consistently seeking information concerning how to enhance their progress are more likely to realize success. Consequently, the enhanced manager’s self efficacy also results to development of engagement and effectiveness of the employees. Substantial study by Bandura in 1997 have succinctly portrayed that self efficacy can be enhanced in four main ways. One of the ways is through enactive mastery which entails successful express experience in a training on the job, vicarious learning modeling in a training construct through mentorship and shadowing courses, simple verbal persuasion as well as social support for subordinate level jobs and strategy development for superior level jobs (Fred and Suzanne, 2002 p.384). Managers are entrusted to drive the employees towards achievement of the organizational goals. However, employees are not robots to be pushed around and they need to have psychological meaningfulness in order to be engaged in their job and to the organization. Managers play a key role in engaging employees. They are the hub for engagement and hence the subject of employee engagement is very important to them. Conclusion The concept of employee engagement is a popular but not largely practiced doctrine. Many of the Human resource talk about engaging employees but in the real sense do not engage in it. Various studies as it has been identified in the essay, have dedicated towards exploring the real meaning and the scope of employee engagement. Various definitions exist of the term employee engagement, but the most important thing is the way it is employed in the organization. Managers play a great role in engaging employees. Self efficacy of managers heavily influences engagement of employees while engaged employees boost self efficacy of the manager and effectiveness. Employee engagement is important for managers as it helps in accomplishing their duties of leading employees to success. Self reflection The study of this course was useful in understanding of organizational management. The course has enabled me to go scrutinize various resources including peer reviewed articles as well as books which has enabled me to see the various dimensions of employee engagement. Employee engagement as I have come to understand through critical evaluation is a multifaceted concept in the human resource field. It is a popular concept that has been adopted and advocated by many HR agencies. The idea of employee engagement is important not only to the employees, but also to managers. Managers are affected by their employees’ performance i.e. in the case of self efficacy and effectiveness. Many organizations have resolved to engage their employees as they realize its worth. Employee engagement is mainly attributed to enhanced organization performance, quality, productivity, innovativeness, and customer satisfaction as well as employee retention. Thus there is every reason for mangers to engage employees. References Douglas R. M., Richard L. G. Lynn M. H. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, (2004): 11-37. Fred, L. and Suzanne J.P. Employee engagement and manager self efficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management Development 21, no.5 (2002): 376-387. MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. Engaging for success: Enhancing Performance through Employee Engagement. A report to Government, (2009). Michael H. and Sims, J. Employee Engagement: Maximizing Organizational Performance, Right Management, (2008). Saks, A.M.. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology 21, No. 6 (2006): 600-619. William H. M. and Benjamin S. The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008): 3–30. Read More