The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Productivity - Essay Example

?Literature Review The level at which engagement is promoted in s worldwide is differentiated. The organizational aims and objectives, thesimilar practices of competitors and the conditions in the internal and external organizational environment seem to influence the use of engagement indices as a measure of performance. The literature developed in this field has been reviewed for checking the potentials of engagement indices to play such role. Three major articles have been chosen based on the following criterion: the relevance of these articles to the subject under examination. In addition, each of the three major articles is assigned three minor literature sources that compare and contrast the main ideas presented in the major articles. These articles are analysed below focusing on their value for achieving the objectives of the proposed study. The first article is that of Siddhanta and Roy (2010). The specific article focuses on the relationship between employee engagement and productivity. The examination and the evaluation of this relationship is one of the study’s objectives. The article has been considered as important for the proposed study because of the following reasons: a) it helps to explore one of the study’s objectives, meaning especially the involvement of employee engagement in enhancing productivity in institutions; b) it presents a thorough analysis of the role of engagement within modern organizations. Also, engagement, as a concept, is explained in the context of its relationship with different aspects of the organization, such as ‘productivity, profitability and customer satisfaction’ (Siddhanta and Roy, 2010, p. 172). In all institutional settings, performance measure is specifically important because it is the direct reflection of what the turnover, output or productivity levels of the institution would be. Again, human resource managers and other leaders of institutions and organisations find it prudent to measure performance because it is the only means by which they can assess whether or not they are having the needed returns made in the investments they make in enhancing human capital. Again as reflected in the topic, employee engagement is a very important means of achieving performance. It is therefore a step in the right direction that an index such as the employee engagement index be used in measuring performance. Once this balance is done, the implication is that there will be the avenue to assess each employee as a singular stakeholder for growth and development for the organisation. The index could thus be considered effective because it offers individualised assessment on employee performance. Barret (2012) puts forth an argument that sharply disagrees with the notion elucidated by Siddahanta and Roy (2010), which puts much emphasis on short term turnover profitability and productivity as the best way to judge the effectiveness of the employee engagement model. In his opinion, employee engagement should be seen as a medium term or a long term strategic change plan rather than a short term one. To this end, the author strongly hold the view that there are many companies who have failed to realize the essence and individual talents of their employees because they dismiss them after one or two years of engagement with no massive returns on the financial books. Contrary to such an attitude, the writer posits that the whole system of organizational change the leads to fatter turnovers grinds slower and so Siddahanta and Roy (2010) cannot be right in their judgment of the output of employee engagement as short term turnover profitability. On their parts, Stringer (2007) and Ulrich (2004) refuse to welcome the debates of the first two writers whether the debate is taken from a short term basis or from a long term basis. Together, the two new writers hold the idea that as much as employee engagement index could be an excellent way to measure performance it is totally out of place to make financial turnover the major focus of the resulting index. In the view of Stringer (2007), once financial turnover is made the focus of the resulting index, there becomes a major cut out for companies and institutions who are not necessarily into profit making ventures. Meanwhile, employee engagement index should be a sure way of measuring performance also in among non-profit making institutions. Ulrich (2004) therefore comes forth with the view that personal development and improvement in the individual input of employees should be the main focus of the resulting index. For instance instead of looking at how much the company has made as a whole entity, it is better to look at how well each employee is improving from his or her previous status. The second major article of Bhatla (2011) focuses on the effect of employee engagement on employee performance. In this way, the impact of employee engagement on organizational productivity is verified especially since employee performance directly influences the performance of the organization, either in the short or the long term. The specific study is also related with one of the objectives of the proposed study. More specifically, as already explained, the proposed study aims to show the potential influence of employee engagement in increasing productivity in institutions. The study of Bhatla (2011) shows how employee engagement can affect employee performance; as a result, the role of employee engagement in organizational productivity is also made clear. Several questions are asked by Bhatla (2011) on how employee engagement could be used to measure performance. On this, it is important to draw on the core derivatives of employee engagement, much of which has to do with the freedom given to employees to run organisations in ways that they judge as most appropriate. This means that employee engagement comes with a very important aspect of the organisational system where each employee becomes responsible for his or her own act. This way, performance may not be generalised but given on a personal basis. Essentially therefore, employee engagement becomes a useful index for performance measure because it draws on the personal expertise of employees. On this note, it is worth emphasising that as much as every organisation may have a generalised vision and mission statement, there are always specific occupational requirements given to individual recruits for which they are to fulfil once they assume positions as permanent workers. It is for this reason that an index that measures performance be one that does so on a personalised basis: and it is in this direction that there is the rooting for the employee engagement index in achieving this goal. On the freedom given to employees to run organization as a principle of employee engagement, and as a means of measuring performance, Watkins & Mohr (2001) agree perfectly with Bhatla (2011). Watkins & Mohr (2001) argue that each member of the organizational team should be seen as an individualized expert who can do one peculiar thing to perfection if given that chance to operate. Watkins & Mohr (2001) lament on the situation whereby the capabilities of individual employees is made to be overshadowed with by organizational hierarchies and the fact that people must always look to their superiors to get things done. In a clear tone wording, the writer emphasizes that he believes in organizational structuring and the fact that there should be portfolio system where some people will be made to serve under others. He however refuses to take up the notion that subordinates should only be good as onlookers or passive participants. He therefore embraces the research by Bhatla (2011), which identifies the focal point of employee engagement as the need to equip all members on the team with some high level of trust that is translated into freedoms for them to perform duties. In a sharp rebuttal, Bell (2012) and Yukl (2006) refuses the notion put forth by Bhatla (2011) that employee engagement index should be used in such a way that it draws on the personal expertise of employee as well as the personal performances they exhibit. This is because the two writers see the organization as an instituted system that should be run on the principle of team work. Bell (2012) therefore introduces a term labeled as ‘teamship’ and says that the index should judge an employee as successful and of good performance only and only if that employee is able to coordinate so well with other structures and departments of the organization to bring about the achievement of the larger mission and vision of the organization. In agreement to Bell (2012), Yukl (2006) suggests that at the recruitment level of organizations, they should be able to use the principles that guide employee engagement to identify which of the candidates would become a team player and which of them would not. In his estimation, team players should be selected over individual players. One of the objectives of the proposed study is the establishment of the potential contribution of employee engagement to employees’ wellbeing. This objective can be achieved using the study of Robertson and Cooper (2009). The above researchers have tried to prove that employee engagement can influence the wellbeing of employees and vice versa. The study of Robertson and Cooper (2009) is based on the review of the literature related to this issue; still, the findings of empirical research conducted in this area are also presented and explained. In the particular study, emphasis is put on the following fact: employee engagement can influence the wellbeing of employees but at the same time, the wellbeing of employees ‘cannot be at high levels unless engagement is high’ (Robertson and Cooper, 2009, p. 328). The above condition of employees is described as ‘full engagement’ (Robertson and Cooper, 2009, p. 328). Robertson and Cooper (2009) have throughout their review looked at how employee engagement could help in the improvement of employee wellbeing at the workplace. This is a legitimate question to raise as far as the aim of the present study is concerned because if employee engagement cannot be hoped to offer any improvement in the experience and wellbeing of employees, then it is not worth using employee engagement to measure performance because it adds nothing to the ability of the employee to perform. However, the review has made it clear that employee engagement indeed helps in refining the experience and performance rate of employees. This is done through the widened exposure that employees are given at their workplaces. Though employee engagement is not a way of promoting a lazier faire leadership, it equally offers employees a lot of room to become masters on their own and this is the very virtue that promotes perfection among the employees. In a sharp contrast, Wheatley (2007) and Zinger (2008) sharply question the notion by Robertson and Cooper (2009) that employee engagement helps in the refinement of the experience and performance of employees. They pose their question because in their opinion, the vice versa of the whole idea should be what should be considered as valid. That is, Wheatley (2007) notes that instead of employees coming to wish for any improvement in their experience and performance as a result of instituted employee engagement, they should rather look at ways by which with employee engagement, they would rather improve the general wellbeing and performance of the organization in which they belong. In a similar manner, Zinger (2008) argues that should employees be flattered with the mentality that employee engagement would help in improving their wellbeing, employees would tend to over depend on employee engagement rather than using the employee engagement system to help develop their organizations. He therefore concludes that the notion held by Robertson and Cooper (2009) only defeats the general principle of employee engagement. Zinger (2008) therefore poses a rhetoric question that should the index be measuring output of companies or output of employees? In agreement with Robertson and Cooper (2008), Klie (2007) notes that the principle of employee engagement index that refines the experience and performance rate of employees can best be associated with the maxim of a scrubbing brush. Klie (2007) notes that used a scrubbing brush is used to scrub the floor, though the floor becomes clean, the bristles of the brush also becomes very clean and shiny. This means that as much as the employee engagement system seeks the overall wellbeing of organizations, employees also in turn become well catered for because their continuous response to work makes them gain a lot of experience and performance work rate. In the long run, such experiences gained can help in improving the curriculum vitae of employees and therefore enhance their opportunities of gaining promotions. The articles presented above are related to specific objectives of the proposed study. These articles are indicative, showing the availability of literature for exploring the issues that the proposed study addresses. The articles presented above also indicate the value of the subject under examination: employee engagement is highly valued in the literature and the empirical research and for this reason its aspects have been explored using both primary and secondary research, as appropriate. REFERENCE LIST Barret, A, 2012, Findings from a study of CEO departures at S&P 1500 companies between 2007 and 2009, Equilar Study, [Online] http://www.equilar.com/knowledge-network/research-articles/201104-ceo-turnover.php [August 26, 2012] Bell P 2012, The Ideal Employee Evaluation from My Manager, [Online] Bull Eyes Evaluation, http://www.bullseyeevaluation.com/the-ideal-employee-evaluation-from-my-manager.aspx [August 26, 2012] Klie, S. 2007. Senior leadership drives employee engagement: Study. The National Journal of Human Resource Management,1. Stringer, T. E. 2007. Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ulrich, D. 2004. Hot HR issues for the next two years. Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Conference Board of Canada. Watkins, J. M., & Mohr, B. J. 2001. Appreciative inquiry: Change at the speed of imagination. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass/Pfeiffer. Wheatley, M. 2007. Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations (2nd custom ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zinger, C, 10 Principles of Employee Engagement: MMP #39, [Online] Employee Engagement http://www.davidzinger.com/10-principles-of-employee-engagement-mmp-39-442/ [August 26, 2012] Read More