Example Of Employee engagement and overall conclusion

Example of Employee engagement

The organization I work for uses a method of giving an opportunity for all the employees to express their views and ideas during a decision-making process, which impacts the entire employees. the most appropriate solution is been identified and the initiator or the owners of the idea will get an opportunity to present it to the senior management, The recognition which the individual receives on this the process creates motivation/ownership as well as strengthen engagement towards the organization and circulates a message across for all staff that their voice is heard as well as the organization respects the ideas which are generated by all the levels in the hierarchy.

Conclusion

Engagement in the organization needs to start from and the support of the most senior position in the hierarchy in hence the outcome of employee engagement will result from better productivity and competitive advantages for the company and the employee to succeed. Further organizations should initiate different strategies to encourage employees in different stages of employee engagement to engage more with the organization so there will not be a possibility of a negative environment or wrong culture, created in an organization. When an employee’s self-commitment conquers in an environment where the employer creates a better working environment employee engagement instigates in an organization.

References 

Baumruk, R. (2004), “The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success”, Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

The outcome of employee engagement

The outcome of employee engagement 

Figure 3: Research Model: Individual factors of employee engagement and its work outcomes

 Source: (Andrew C.Ologbo 2012)

3.1. Most of the research which was done on employee communications and employee engagement have proven that there is a need for employees to identify and understand organizational goals and objectives. Stating the most important drivers of employee engagement, in the report CIPD (2006, p23)  it stated that having given opportunities to listen to their voices or the feeling that their voice is heard including feedback from the employer's end is given and feeling well informed about the company future, drives the employee to engage more with the company. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was developed as follows: H1: Employee engagement and employee communications are influenced by each other. (a)Job Engagement and (b)Organizational engagement.

3.2. As stated by Wellins and Concelman (2005, p24) on employee development and employee engagement it says that organizations can create learning cultures and have individuals development plants to be more bonded with the employees and also many studies show that by acquiring more knowledge and applying it to their day to day work employees make their job more creative and interested. Therefore hypothesis 2 was developed as follows: H2: There is a significant influence between employee development and employee engagement (a) job engagement and (b) organization engagement.

3.3. It is important to have talented Co-employees and employee engagement working in a lean organization to expect high productivity and also to achieve tasks in a better way by helping each other, Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was developed as follows: H3: There is a significant influence between co-employee support and employee engagement (a)Job engagement and (B) Organizational engagement.

3.4. There is also, some practical research reporting did on the connection between employee engagement and its outcome.  As mentioned by Saks (2006, p11) it says job engagement can be shown negatively allied to employee intentions to quit while positively related to organizational commitment. Hence, Hypothesis is stated as H4: There is an influence between employee engagement and (a) job satisfaction (b) organizational commitment (c) organizational citizenship behavior (d) intention to quit.

3.5. Employee engagement and work outcomes Hypothesis 5 is stated as follows: H5: There is an influence between employee engagement and (a) job satisfaction (b) organizational commitment (c) Organizational Citizenship behavior (d) Intention to quit.

3.6. Employment engagement very likely can support the connection between the factors driving engagement and the work outcomes of employee engagement. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is stated as follows: H6: Job engagement and organizational engagement will enhance the affiliation among the influencing factors and their outcomes.

References 

Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, E C, Rees, C and Gatenby, M (2010) Creating an Engaged Workforce, London, CIPD

Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Managerial Psychol., 21: 600619.

Wellins, R. and Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a Culture for Engagement,Workforce Performance Solutions. Retrieved from www.WPSmag.com, on 30th August 2010.

Drivers and Characteristics of employee engagement

Drivers of engagement

As stated by Crawford et al (2013: 59–62) below is the factors that affect the drivers of employee engagement

•    Job Challenge -This takes place when the job responsibility is more and the scope is more so the employee gets an opportunity for personal growth as well as creates a potential for accomplishments and it enhancers engagement

•    Autonomy -The independence and freedom of having ownership and control of the job by letting them schedule and determine the procedures of carrying it out.

•    Variety -Roles which creates an opportunity to perform many different activities along of usage of many different skills

•    Feedback -Describing clearly the effectiveness of the particular job

•    FIT -The expectation of how they see or want to see each other compatible as the employee and the work environment

•    Opportunities for development -The growth opportunities provided for the employee to reach fulfillment.

•    Rewards and recognition -The return which an employee will receive directly or indirectly for his involvement as an individual contributor

Characteristics of employees based on engagement levels

The three core facets of engagement (Alfes et al., 2010)

1 intellectual engagement – Finding new ways of doing the job with great enthusiasm.

2 effective engagement – Positive mindset of doing a better job.

3 social engagement – Finding a new mechanism to improve by discussing with other employees.

  

As noted by Gallup (2006) there are 3 types of the engagement level of employees

•    Engaged

•    Not Engagement

•    Actively Disengagement

Figure 2 explains engagement levels of employees furthermore

Figure 2: Three types of employees

Source: (Krueger and Killham, 2006)

As per the figure, 2 (Krueger and Killham, 2006) explains further, due to the unconditional actions were taken by the engaged employee towards the growth and the Job they stand apart from the actively disengaged and not engaged employees. Employees with that stature will have a strong connection towards the organization hence they will go an extra mile with lots of passion and willingness (Reilly, 2014).out of the three categories the not engaged employees will be the hardest to identify hence they will be a disturbance for work neither aggressive on activities and also will spend time in the organization with a lack of motivation to only fulfill their job requirements. As mentioned by Reilly (2014) they will not show much interest in handling customers, productivity, profitability, and quality of work. Actively disengaged employees are used to be continuously unhappy and also they underestimate the positive efforts put in by engaged staff`s (Saunders and Tiwari, 2014).

References 

Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, E C, Rees, C and Gatenby, M (2010) Creating an Engaged Workforce, London, CIPD

Crawford, E R, Rich, B L, Buckman, B and Bergeron, J (2013) The antecendents and drivers of employee engagement in (eds) C Truss, R Deldridge, K Afles, A Shantz and E Soane, Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge, pp 57–81

Krueger, J. and Killham, E. (2006) Who's Driving Innovation at Your Company?. [Online]

Available at: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/24472/whos-driving-innovation-your-company.aspx

[Accessed on 08 May 2018].

Reilly, R.(2014) Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now. [Online]

Saunders, L. and Tiwari, D.(2014) Employee Engagement and Disengagement: Causes and Benefits. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2(5), pp. 44-52.

Introduction to employee engagement

Introduction to employee engagement 

“A positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its value. An engaged employee is aware of the business context and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The organization must work to develop and nature engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee” (Robinson et al., 2004, P.9).

As stated by Robinson et al. (2004) employee engagement has become a widely used popular term though surprisingly only very few academic and empirical research has been done. However, a greater extent about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it has its footing in practice rather than experimental research. As a result, some might call employee engagement as "old wine in a new bottle." Organizational commitment and Organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson et al.,2004) are better known and established concepts out of which employee engagement has been defined. Intellectual and emotional commitment towards the organizations is the most often used definitions among the rest (Baumruk, 2004: Richman, 2006: Shaw, 2005). Or the various actions which they take towards the progress of the organization is within the scope of their jobs (Frank et al., 2004).there is plenty of definitions in academic studies on this topic out of which, Kahn (1990, p.694) defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”. Personal disengagement refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (Kahn,1990,p.694). According to it an employee reaching an organizational goal with full psychological concentration is called engagement Kahn (1990, 1992). 

The components of employee engagement

In the below-mentioned model which was produced by the Institute for employment studies (Armstrong et al, 2010) it describes having the motivation, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as the main three overlapping components that can be observed in engagement.

Figure 1: IES Model of employee engagement

 Source: (Armstrong et al, 2000)

References

Armstrong, M, Brown, D and Reilly, P (2010) Evidencebased Reward Management, London, Kogan Page

Baumruk, R. (2004), “The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success”, Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-25.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.

Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be full there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49.

Richman, A. (2006), “Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?”, Workspan, Vol. 49, pp. 36-9.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.

Shaw, K. (2005), “An engagement strategy process for communicators”, Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-9.

Organization Performance Through Employee Engagement

Induction

“A positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its value. An engaged employee is aware of the business context and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The organization must work to develop and nature engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee” (Robinson et al., 2004, P.9).

As stated by Robinson et al. (2004) employee engagement has become a widely used popular term though surprisingly only very few academic and empirical research has been done. However, a greater extent about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it has its footing in practice rather than experimental research. As a result, some might call employee engagement as "old wine is a new bottle." Organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson et al.,2004) are better known and established concepts out of which employee engagement has been defined. Intellectual and emotional commitment towards the organizations is the most often used definition among the rest (Baumruk, 2004: Richman, 2006: Shaw, 2005). Or the various actions which they take towards the progress of the organization is within the scope of their jobs (Frank et al., 2004).there is plenty of definitions in academic studies on this topic out of which, Kahn (1990, p.694) defines personal engagement as “the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”. Personal disengagement refers to “the uncoupling of selves from work roles in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (Kahn,1990,p.694). According to it an employee reaching an organizational goal with full psychological concentration is called engagement Kahn (1990, 1992). 

The components of employee engagement

In the below-mentioned model which was produced by the Institute for employment studies (Armstrong et al, 2010) it describes having the motivation, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as the main three overlapping components which can be observed in engagement.

Figure 1: IES Model of employee engagement

 Source: (Armstrong et al, 2000)

Driver of engagement

As stated by Crawford et al (2013: 59–62) below is the factors that affect the drivers of employee engagement

•    Job Challenge -This takes place when the job responsibility is more and the scope is more so the employee gets an opportunity for personal growth as well as creates a potential for accomplishments and it enhancers engagement

•    Autonomy -The independence and freedom of having ownership and control of the job by letting them schedule and determine the procedures of carrying it out.

•    Variety -Roles which creates an opportunity to perform many different activities along of usage of many different skills

•    Feedback -Describing clearly the effectiveness of the particular job

•    FIT -The expectation of how they see or want to see each other compatible as the employee and the work environment

•    Opportunities for development -The growth opportunities provided for the employee to reach fulfillment.

•    Rewards and recognition -The return which an employee will receive directly or indirectly for his involvement as an individual contributor

Characteristics of employees based on engagement levels

The three core facets of engagement (Alfes et al., 2010)

1 intellectual engagement – Finding new ways of doing the job with great enthusiasm.

2 effective engagement – Positive mindset of doing a better job.

3 social engagement – Finding a new mechanism to improve by discussing with other employees.

As noted by Gallup (2006) there are 3 types of the engagement level of employees

•    Engaged

•    Not Engagement

•    Actively Disengagement

Figure 2 explains the engagement levels of employees furthermore

Figure 2: Three types of employees

Source: (Krueger and Killham, 2006)

As per the figure, 2 (Krueger and Killham, 2006) explains further, due to the unconditional actions were taken by the engaged employee towards the growth and the Job they stand apart from the actively disengaged and not engaged employees. Employees with that stature will have a strong connection towards the organization hence they will go an extra mile with lots of passion and willingness (Reilly, 2014).out of the three categories the not engaged employees will be the hardest to identify hence they will be a disturbance for work neither aggressive on activities and also will spend time in the organization with lack of motivation to only fulfill their job requirement. As mentioned by Reilly (2014) they will not show much interest in handling customers, productivity, profitability, and quality of work. Actively disengaged employees are used to be continuously unhappy and also they underestimate the positive efforts put in by engaged staff (Saunders and Tiwari, 2014).

The outcome of employee engagement

Figure 3: Research Model: Individual factors of employee engagement and its work outcomes

 Source: (Andrew C.Ologbo 2012)

3.1. Most of the research which was done on employee communications and employee engagement has proven that there is a need for employees to identify and understand organizational goals and objectives. Stating the most important drivers of employee engagement, in the report CIPD (2006, p23)  it stated that having given opportunities to listen to their voices or the feeling that their voice is heard including feedback from the employers end is given and feeling well informed about the company future, drives the employee to engage more with the company. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was developed as follows: H1: Employee engagement and employee communications are influenced by each other. (a)Job Engagement and (b)Organizational engagement.

3.2. As stated by Wellins and Concelman (2005, p24) on employee development and employee engagement it says that organizations can create learning cultures and have individuals development plants to be more bonded with the employees and also many studies shows that by acquiring more knowledge and applying it to their day to day work employees make their job more creative and interested. Therefore hypothesis 2 was developed as follows: H2: There is a significant influence between employee development and employee engagement (a) job engagement and (b) organization engagement.

3.3. It is important to have talented Co-employees and employee engagement working in a lean organization to expect a high productivity and also to achieve tasks in a better way by helping each other, Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was developed as follows: H3:There is a significant influence between co-employee support and employee engagement (a)Job engagement and (B) Organizational engagement.

3.4. There is also some practical research reporting done on the connection between employee engagement and its outcome.  As mentioned by Saks (2006, p11) it says job engagement can be shown negatively allied to employee intentions to quit while positively related to organizational commitment. Hence, Hypothesis is stated as H4: There is an influence between employee engagement and (a) job satisfaction (b) organizational commitment (c) organizational citizenship behavior (d) intention to quit.

3.5. Employee engagement and work outcomes Hypothesis 5 is stated as follows: H5: There is an influence between employee engagement and (a) job satisfaction (b) organizational commitment (c) Organizational Citizenship behavior (d) Intention to quit.

3.6. Employment engagement very likely can support the connection between the factors driving engagement and the work outcomes of employee engagement. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is stated as follows: H6: Job engagement and organizational engagement will enhance the affiliation among the influencing factors and their outcomes.

Example of Employee engagement

The organization I work for uses a method of giving an opportunity for all the employees to express their views and ideas during a decision-making process, which impacts the entire employees. the most appropriate solution is been identified and the initiator or the owners of the idea will get an opportunity to present it to the senior management, The recognition which the individual receives on this process creates motivation/ownership as well as strengthen engagement towards the organization and circulates a message across for all staff that their voice is heard as well as the organization respects the ideas which are generated by all the levels in the hierarchy.

Conclusion

Engagement in an organization needs to start from and the support of the most senior position in the hierarchy in hence the outcome of employee engagement will result from better productivity and competitive advantages for the company and the employee to succeed. Further organizations should initiate different strategies to encourage employees in different stages of employee engagement to engage more with the organization so there will not be a possibility of a negative environment or wrong culture, created in an organization. When an employee’s self-commitment conquers in an environment where the employer creates a better working environment employee engagement instigates in an organization.

References

Armstrong, M, Brown, D and Reilly, P (2010) Evidencebased Reward Management, London, Kogan Page

Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, E C, Rees, C and Gatenby, M (2010) Creating an Engaged Workforce, London, CIPD

Baumruk, R. (2004), “The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success”, Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52.

Crawford, E R, Rich, B L, Buckman, B and Bergeron, J (2013) The antecendents and drivers of employee engagement in (eds) C Truss, R Deldridge, K Afles, A Shantz and E Soane, Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, London, Routledge, pp 57–81

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-25.

Krueger, J. and Killham, E. (2006) Who's Driving Innovation at Your Company?. [Online]

Available at: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/24472/whos-driving-innovation-your-company.aspx

[Accessed on 08 May 2018].

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.

Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be full there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.

Reilly, R.(2014) Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now. [Online]

Richman, A. (2006), “Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?”, Workspan, Vol. 49, pp. 36-9.

Saunders, L. and Tiwari, D.(2014) Employee Engagement and Disengagement: Causes and Benefits. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2(5), pp. 44-52.

Shaw, K. (2005), “An engagement strategy process for communicators”, Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-9.

Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Managerial Psychol., 21: 600619.

Wellins, R. and Concelman, J. (2005). Creating a Culture for Engagement,Workforce Performance Solutions. Retrieved from www.WPSmag.com, on 30th August 2010.