Employee Engagement

In a highly dynamic and competitive business context, top management focuses to involve, engage and get fullest commitment from employees to be a successful in business. The employee engagement is very popular Strategic Human Resource subject and mostly analysed topic among the corporate leaders, scholars and human resource professionals (John et al, 2008,). According to Thakur (2014), the major task nowadays is not just retaining talented employees, but fully engaging them. Employee engagement has developed as a critical factor of business success. Further, employee engagement can be a decisive aspect in organizational success. The employee engagement significantly affects employee retention, productivity and loyalty. It is also a key link to customer satisfaction, company reputation and overall stakeholder value (Thakur, 2014). The Engaged employees at work are positive, interested in and even excited about their jobs and prepared to go the extra mile (Armstrong 2008). Thus, the employee engagement is a very vital and clinical subject in Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM). 

Definition of Employee Engagement

As per Armstrong (2008. p 140), employee engagement is ‘the extent to which employees put discretionary effort into their work, beyond the minimum to get the job done, in the form of extra time, brainpower or energy’, and  is the emotional commitment employees have towards the organization and its goals (Evans & Lindsay, 2012). As per Kahn (1990, p 694) employee engagement is ‘the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances’. According to Alfes et al (2010) illustrates with three core aspects of employee engagement:

1. Intellectual engagement – thinking hard about the job and how to do it better;
2. Affective engagement – feeling positively about doing a good job;
3. Social engagement – actively taking opportunities to discuss work-related improvements with others at work.

Another definition was formed by Macey et al (2009, p 7) as ‘an individual’s s sense of  purpose and focused energy, evident to others in the display of personal initiative, adaptability, effort and persistence directed towards organizational goals’ and as per Harter et al (2002 p 276) employee engagement is ‘the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work. As per Reilly and Brown (2008) the terms ‘job satisfaction’, ‘motivation’ and ‘commitment’ are generally being replaced by ‘engagement’ since it has more power and face validity, and constitute the mechanism through which human resource practitioners impact individual and organizational performance (Truss et.al, 2014).

 

Some corporate companies define ‘Employee engagement’ as follows. Caterpillar defines it as: ‘The extent of employees’ commitment, work effort, and desire to stay in an organization. Dell Inc declares that, ‘To compete today, companies need to win over the minds (rational commitment) and the hearts (emotional commitment) of employees in ways that lead to extraordinary effort. The Corporate Leadership Council defines it as ‘The extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organization, how hard they work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment (John et al, 2008).

Importance of Employee engagement

According to Robinson et al 2004, research shows that committed employees perform better, and Employee engagement is ‘one-step up’ on commitment. Anitha, (2014) articulates ‘when an employee is engaged, the engaged employee is aware of his/her responsibility in the business goals, and motivates colleagues alongside, for the success of the organisation. The positive attitude of the employee with his work place and its value system is called as the positive emotional connection of an employee towards work, and go beyond the call of duty to perform their role in excellence.

On the one hand the engaged employees commit passionately to performing their work role, exhibiting their full capabilities at work; engagement is a multidimensional construct built on the full investment of an individual in their performance, while on the other hand, disengagement results in psychological and at times physical withdrawal from the organization and its goals, leading to a drop in performance (Saks & Gruman, 2014).  A company's ability to engage its employees has been considered a key to success, contributing particularly to profitability, productivity, higher shareholder returns, higher customer satisfaction, and higher employee retention rate (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Further, according to Kennedy and Daim (2010), employee engagement results sustainable competitive advantage. In contrast, companies where employee disengagement is high, the low levels of commitment result in increased absenteeism, less productivity, and lower profitability (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Despite this, it has been reported that employee disengagement has become increasingly common worldwide in organization (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The above substantiate the importance of Employee Engagement and benefit for the organization through Employee Engagement.

Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment

Employee Engagement and organizational commitment are two vital concepts affecting work performance, the attraction of employees and retention of employees. They are closely linked, high organizational commitment can increase engagement and high engagement can increase commitment. Combinations of engagement and organizational commitment are illustrated in Figure 1.1 (Armstrong, 2008).

Figure 1 : Combinations of the impact of engagement and organizational commitment

 

 

(Source: Armstrong, 2008)

Engaged Employee

According to Storey et al 2008, UK Workplace Relations Survey found that more engaged employees had higher employee participation in company programs, retention, receptiveness to change, and loyalty. In addition, employee engagement has also been found to be related to:

1. less role conflict and stress;
2. less cynicism about the organization and its goals;
3. sense of control over one’s work environment;
4. confidence in the future of the organization;
5. sense of self-confidence in the ability to make change happen in the organization;
6. willingness to learn and experiment;
7. willing to stay with the company (lower turnover or higher retention);
8. motivation;
9. creative ideas and solutions; continuous improvement;
10. team working;
11. organization identity.

Figure 2 shows the characteristics of engaged employees according to Robinson et al (2004)

Figure 2: Characteristics of an engaged employees 

(Source: Robinson et al 2004).

Drivers of Employee engagement

According to Storey et al (2008), several consulting firms, such as Accenture, Concours, Gallup, Hewitt, Mercer, Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt have created engagement surveys. The group of scholars Storey (2008); Ulrich (2008); Welbourne (2008);   and Wright, (2008) have assessed and have identified following seven common factors.

1. Vision: The department / company has a clear sense of the future that engages hearts and minds and creates pride among employees.
2. Opportunity: The job on offer provides a chance to grow both personally and professionally, through participation in the department / company’s activities.
3. Incentive: The compensation package is fair and equitable, including base salary, bonus, and other financial incentives.
4. Impact: The work itself makes a difference or creates meaning, particularly as it connects the employee with a customer who uses the employee’s work.
5. Community: The social environment includes being part of a team when appropriate, and working with co-workers who care.
6. Communication: The flow of information is two-way, so employees are in the know about what is going on.
7. Experimentation: The work hour, dress, and other policies are flexible and designed to adapt to the needs of both the firm and the employee.

Each of the elements represents a set of choices which leaders can make to increase employee engagement. An individual may differ on his/her interest in each of these seven factors (e.g., some may be more interested in community than in communication). Over a career span, employees may also vary on the relative weighting of each of these elements (e.g., early in a career, incentives or financial rewards may be more important than later in a career). These seven elements can be merged into an employee value proposition, representing what employees get in return for their commitment to the firm (Storey et al, 2008).

According to Robinson et al (2004), analysis of the NHS case study data indicates the strongest driver of all is a sense of feeling valued and involved. This has several key components:

1.      Employees involvement in decision-making

2.      The extent to which employees feel able to voice their ideas, and managers listen to these views, and value employees’ contributions

3.      The opportunities employees have to develop their jobs

4.      The extent to which the organisation is concerned for employees’ health and well-being.

The line manager clearly has a very important role in development employee engagement (Robinson et al, 2004). In the recent research report by Crawford et al (2013, pp 59–62) identifies the following drivers:

1. Job challenge – this takes place when the scope of jobs is broad, job responsibility is high and there is a high work load. It enhances engagement because it creates potential for accomplishment and personal growth.
2. Autonomy – the freedom, independence and discretion allowed to employees in scheduling their work and determining the procedures for carrying it out. It provides a sense of ownership and control over work outcomes.
3. Variety – jobs which allow individuals to perform many different activities or use many different skills.
4. Feedback – providing employees with direst and clear information about the effectiveness of their performance.
5. Fit – the existence of compatibility between an individual and a work environment (eg, job, organization, manager, co-workers) which allows individuals to behave in a manner consistent with how they see or want to see themselves.
6. Opportunities for development – these make work meaningful because they provide pathways for employee growth and fulfilment.
7. Rewards and recognition – these represent both direct and indirect returns on the personal investment of one’s time in acting out a work role. In addition, the quality of leadership exercised by line managers is an important driver Hakanen et al (2006) established through their research

In addition, the quality of leadership exercised by line managers is an important driver, Hakanen et al (2006) established through their research that supervisory support is positively related to employee engagement as is involvement in decision making and day-to-day control over tasks and schedules. According to Armstrong (2006), the Hay Group has developed a model for what they call ‘engaged performance’, which is made up of six elements, and is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 : The Hay Group model of engaged performance

1.  Inspiration/values reputation of organization organizational values and behaviors quality of leadership risk sharing recognition communication	4.  Tangible rewards competitive pay good benefits incentives for higher performance ownership potential recognition awards fairness of reward
2.  Quality of work perception of the value of the work challenge/interest opportunities for achievement freedom and autonomy  workload quality of work relationship	5. Work–life balance supportive environment recognition of life cycle needs/flexibility security of income social support
3. Enabling environment physical environment  tools and equipment job training (current position)  information and processes safety/personal security	6. Future growth/opportunity learning and development beyond current job career advancement opportunities performance improvement and feedback

(Source: Armstrong 2006)

Employee engagement research in Local context

Contemporary organizations are facing the challenge to manage engagement and retain Generation Y (Gen Y). The cause of this issue is that organizations do not identify the generational characteristics, and have engagement tools that typically address engagement under one basket without any differentiation for the generations of employees (Liyanake and Gamage, 2017). In 2017, Liyanake and Gamage (2017) conducted a research using MediGain (Pvt) Ltd, a Knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) company employees.  MediGain (Pvt) Ltd is leading KPO company in Sri Lanka, is resourced with educated, talented young individuals as its employee base.  There are total of 269 such employees who were born after year 1980 will represent the population for this study taken for sample.

The study proves that career growth, supervisor behaviour, intellectually challenging work content with adequate task variety and work life balance are factors influencing employee engagement in case of Generation Y employees. Thus, improving those factors in the work place will positively contribute the employee engagement of Gen Y employees. Further, the study shows that out of the aforementioned factors, career growth and supervisor behaviour are significant predictors of employee engagement of Generation Y employees (Liyanake and Gamage, 2017).

Conclusion 

Finally in conclusion employee engagement has significant benefits to the organisation such as Higher Retention & Lower Turnover, Higher Productivity, Increased Profitability, Less Absenteeism, Increased Employee Loyalty, Go the Extra Mile to Achieve Individual and Company Success, Innovate at Workplace, Attract customers and employees and Infuse energy and positivity at workplace. There are many factors influencing the employee engagement such as Work/Job Role, Work Environment/Organization Culture, Rewards and Recognition ,  Learning and Training Opportunities , Performance Management ,  Leadership  & line management, Clear and open communication, quality of interaction with peers, collaboration, organization policy and organization performance, this may vary country to country, industry to industry, sector to sector and the type of employees. Understanding of employee engagement and developing tools improve the employee engagement leads to successful organization.

Reference

Armstrong, M & Brown, D 2006, Strategic Reward: Making it Happen. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Armstrong, M  2012, Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 12^th Edn. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Armstrong, M  2008, Strategic Human Resource Management a Guide To Action. 4^th Edn. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Armstrong, M  2006, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 10^th Edn. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Anitha, J 2014, Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Issue: 3, pp.308-323,

Crawford, ER, Rich, BL, Buckman, B, & Bergeron, J  2013, The antecendents and drivers of employee engagement in Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge, pp 57–81.

Hakanen, J J, Bakker, A B and Schaufeli, W B (2006) Burnout and work engagement among teachers, Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp 495–513.

Harter, JK, Schmidt, FL., & Keyes, CL, 2002. Well-Being in the Workplace and its Relationship to Business Outcomes:A Review of the Gallup Studies. In C.L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing : The Positive Person and the Good Life (pp. 205-224). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL, 2002. Business‐unit‐level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta‐analysisʹ, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 87, No 02, pp 268-279.

Iddagoda, A & Gunawardana  KD, 2017, Employee Engagement and Perceived Financial Performance: A Serene Insight,  International Business Research; Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017, Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Kennedy, E & Daim, T.U. 2010. A strategy to assist management in workforce engagement and employee retention in the high tech engineering environment. Evaluating and Program Planning, 33 (4), pp. 468–476.

Kahn, W.A, 1990. ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692–724.

Liyanage, HM, &  Gamage, P  2017, Factors influencing the Employee Engagement of the Generation Y Employees,  APIIT Business & Technology Conference, 2017 July 20th, 2017,  Colombo, Sri Lanka (ISBN978-955-7678-02-3), pp 66-77.

Markos, S & Sridevi, M.S 2010, Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12), pp. 89-96.

Macey, WH, Schneider, B, Barbera, K  and Young,SA (2009) Employee Engagement, Malden, MA,Wiley-Blackwell

Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S, 2004. The Drivers of Employee engagement, Institute for Employment Studies.

Saks, A. M, 2006. ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7): 600–19.

Saks, A.M. & Gruman, J.A. 2014. What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (2), pp.155-182.

Storey J, Ulrish D, Welbourne T,M, Wright P.M and  Ulrich D, 2008. The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management, pp 299-315.

Perrin, T 2007, Global Workforce Study, http://www.towersperrin.com  viewed on 01/06/2018

Truss, K. 2014. The future of research in employee engagement. In D. Robinson and J.Gifford (Eds.) The Future of Engagement Thought Piece Collection, Engage for Success Peer-Reviewed Thought Leadership Series, London: Engage for Success. http://www.engageforsuccess.org/future-employeeengagement/