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
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.
As noted by Gallup (2006) there are 3 types of the engagement level of employees
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
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.
As noted by Gallup (2006) there are 3 types of the engagement level of employees
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
Figure 2 explains the engagement levels of employees furthermore
• 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).
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.
3.2.
3.4.
3.5.
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.
Figure 3: Research Model: Individual factors of employee engagement and its work outcomes
Source: (Andrew C.Ologbo 2012)
3.1.
3.2.
3.4.
3.5.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Organizations with highly engaged employees experience increased customer satisfaction, profits, and employee productivity (Harding et al, 2015)
ReplyDeleteHi Lakshmi, thank you very much for the comment, to add furthermore details as stated by Van Allen (2013), engaged employees consistently perform at high levels through their talents hence they build productive relationships with their customers and multiply effectiveness through those relationships.
DeleteHi Mark, Robinson et al. (2004) state that neither commitment nor Organizational Citizen Behavior reflect sufficiently two aspects of engagement-its two-way nature, and the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awareness, even though it appears that engagement overlaps with the two concepts. Rafferty et al. (2005) also distinguish employee engagement and the two prior concepts- Commitment and Organizational Citizen Behavior , on the ground that engagement clearly demonstrates that it is a two-way mutual process between the employee and the
ReplyDeleteorganization.
Hi Vianlo thanks for commenting, Commitment in the earlier model of Allen and Meyer (1990) was highlighted and reviewed by Tamkin(2005) and three types of commitments were defined as mentioned below.
Delete1.Affect commitment -Emotionally attached to the organization
2.Continuance Commitment -The realization of the cost involved in leaving an organization
3.Normative Commitment - the moral obligation to remain with the organization
NHS stated that engagement considered how people attend and contribute to their work to achieve the organisational goals. Highly engaged employees would like to attend much in their duty role and make it interesting activity. They spend extra time in their work place and try to catch others, inviting them into organisation or activities by tending to explain the values and task of it (NHS National Workforce Projects, 2007).
ReplyDeleteHi Geethanjalee thanks for commenting, to illustrate more on this NHS employers have adapted to a more broader model as mentioned by above in figure 1 which defines engagement as a positive position held by an employee towards the employer and its values.furthermore an engaged employee knows whats to be done within the tasks given to drive the organizations towards its success and its also a responsibility of the organizations to build culture of two way relationship between the employer and employee(Robinson et al 2004, p 4).
DeleteThe motivation element in engagement is intrinsic. Macey et al (2009: 67) commented that: ‘When the work itself is meaningful it is also said to have intrinsic motivation. This means that it is not the pay or recognition that yields positive feelings of engagement but the work itself.’
ReplyDeleteHi, Shiromi thanks for commenting, further illustrating on your view, As stated by Bakar (2012) various studies have proven that financial benefits are not the only aspect that drives motivation. Not all the individuals remained after making the
Deletemoney by doing work but instead work itself is their purpose of life. The assigned task itself gives them a great deal of motivation and diversion. employees are motivated by activities, culture, work attitude, and behavior of other employees, According to Crabtree (2004) engaged employees are the drivers of the business and the builders hence they know what the organizations expect from them, they are keen to utilize their potential and talent in the best interest of their organization.
When it come to the engagement supervisors have one of critical roll to manage it. According to the Finnegan, (2017) supervisors’ responsibility as below.
ReplyDeleteGet them their own engagement survey score.
Monitor if they build trust
Are they courageous enough to hire top performers?
Do they identify poor performers early, coach them, and fire them when necessary
Ask your supervisors to conduct periodic stay interviews with their teams
Ask them to forecast next engagement levels for their teams
Monitorcemployee turnover and inter-company transfers.
Hi Pubudu thanks for commenting, furthermore on the comment i would like to bring to your notice that an effective leader needs to be able to win employees trust hence it is a key component to become successful as a leader as well as it been recognized as being fundamental to cooperative relationships(Blau, 1964).but as mentioned by Perry and Mankin (2004) the main question is "Trust in Whom ?".as an answer to it Hunt and Aldrich (1998) in studies have suggested that trusting in supervisors has a greater impact than trusting in CEO`s. In turn, trusting in the supervisor has been tied to pleasing results such as job satisfaction, commitment, and OCB (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). finally trusting in supervisors can be stated as one of the key elements in employee engagement.
DeleteAdding more on Engagement and Job satisfaction, was defined by Locke (1976: 1304) as ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job and job experiences’. Engaged employees are more likely than not to be satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction, like commitment, is regarded by Yalabik et al (2013: 2805) as an antecedent of work engagement. It has been shown to be related to other attitudes and behaviors. Positively, it is related to organizational commitment, job involvement, organizational citizenship behaviors and mental health. Negatively, it is related to turnover and stress.
ReplyDeleteHi, Nalin thank you very much for commenting, illustrating more on turnover due to negative employee engagement, employee turnover has become a popular topic for academics, policymakers and other stakeholders (Bowles and Cooper, 2012). as well as the current economic conditions create job uncertainty and support to deterioration of working conditions (eg : low pay, promotion, rewards, and T&D and human capital investment) and employee health such as high stress levels and feeling of organizational injustice: (De Witte ,1999 ;Cheng and Chan, 2008;Dale-Qlsen,2006;Cottini et al.,2011;O`Halloran,2012;He et al.,2015), this itself makes and negative impact on job satisfaction as well as commitment which will result in the organizational performance and employee productivity(Levy-Garboua et al.,2007;Bockerman and llmakunna,2009;Robertson and cooper,2010)
DeleteHi Mark, apart from the drivers of engagement that described by Crawford et al (2013) Tredgold, (2018) illustrate five steps that drives employee engagement as below
ReplyDelete1) To create sense of purpose
2) Employee involvement
3) Not over complicated things
4) Empowerment
5) Recognition
However Line managers played an important role in facilitating participation and providing clarity of purpose, assessing goals, and employee effort and contribution (Armstrong, 2016). Motivation is the key factor in employee engagement (Comaford, 2018). Pandey, (2013) describes that Engaged employees results in sustainable competitive advantage
Hi Rukshan, thanks for commenting. adding to the idea i would also like to bring to your notice that Investing time with employees in their work and sharing power and ideas with an intention of enhancing motivation is a part of empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). psychological empowerment is a significant contribution to employee creativity by positively affecting an employee’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995)
DeleteHi Mark, adding more to your comments, Organizations with higher engagement levels have a tendency to have lower employee turnover, higher productivity, higher total stakeholder returns and better financial performance (Baumruk, 2006). Highly engaging organisational cultures may also have an attractive employer brand, being an employer of excellence, which attracts and retains the best talent (eg Martin and Hetrick, 2006).
ReplyDeleteHi Ganga thanks for commenting,furthermore on the advantages of employee engagement as a employer, employee engagement has a direct positive impact on customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002); in turn, this has been shown to be a leading indicator of financial performance in analyses of the service profit chain in the retailing and banking industries (Gelade & Young, 2005).
DeleteHi Mark,adding more on job satisfaction and employee engagement ,Job satisfaction is related to company commitment, job involvement, organizational citizenship behaviors and mental health and therefore job satisfaction will have an impact on employee engagement and this will negatively relate to turnover and stress(Lu Lu, Gursoy, & Neale, 2016).
ReplyDeleteHi Shamalka thanks for commenting, very true adding to your view,less employee engagement and low employee health level itself makes and negative impact on job satisfaction as well as commitment which will result in the organizational performance ,stress and employee productivity(Levy-Garboua et al.,2007;Bockerman and llmakunna,2009;Robertson and cooper,2010)
DeleteAccording to Clifford (as cited in Wright & Davis, 2003) job satisfaction is directly related to employee and their work environment. If an employe, positively engaged towards the work, the result is satisfied. According to Basbous (2011) an engaged employee is a satisfied employee.
ReplyDeleteHi Renuka than you very much for commenting, furthermore genuine leadership will enhance employee attitude and behavior as well as productivity which will be indicated from the commitment towards the job creativity, engagement and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Cunha, 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa, Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck, & Avolio, 2010).Employee engagement is the individual’s involvement in, satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for work (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).all in all the moment that employees feel that they are treated equally and honestly they be more engaged at work which will bring positive results to the organizations
DeleteAs stated by Macey and Schneider (2008) Engagement might be a result of both environmental conditions and dispositional qualities and their connection. Not all interests in job design as well as the training and performance the board of pioneers in organization with the objective of enhancing engagement levels will be gainful for all workers.
ReplyDeleteHi thank you very much for commenting and also illustrating furthermore on job design a well designed job may foster employee well being and engagement (Bakker and Demerouti,2013; Hakman and Oldham,1980; Parker and Wall,1998).job design describes how “Jobs, Tasks, and roles are instructed, enacted, and modified and what the impact of these structures, enactments, and modifications on the individual, group, and organizational outcomes (Grant and Parker,2009)”.
DeleteHi Mark, in your context, you mention the word "personal engagement". Christian et al. (2011) pointed out that there is a positive relationship between responsibility, positive emotions, positive personality, and engagement. Bakker et al. (2006) observed that resilience is a personal attribute which promotes employee engagement. Do you suggest personal engagement is trainable or a personal trait?
ReplyDeleteHi Achintha,In terms of personal resources, dedicated employees seem to be different from other employees, including optimism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, resilience, positive coping style, and demographic variables. These resources can help dedicated employee control and influence their work environment, so personal resources can promote employee dedication (Sun and Bunchapattanasakda, 2018) .
DeleteWould like to add there are several attributes which are identified which affects the employee engagement towards the organization. Some of them which are identified are Work, Leadership and Organizational Interaction. Langelaan et al (2006) measured extraversion and neuroticism , where they identified that extraversion is positively related to engagement whereas neuroticism has a negative impact.
ReplyDeleteHi Priyantha thank you very much for commenting,a different reason that drives the situation to that extend is that today`s leaders face a huge challenge to identify what aspects do motivate their employees (Manzoor, 2012).the idea is all motivational activities and systems must be intrinsic. This is because a blend of factors motivates employees, employees spend one-third of their lives at the workplace which is one of the most important aspects of an employee's identity (Gallup, 2013)
DeleteWould also like to add Each person is different from another. For example one employee might approach a certain decision whereas the other might approach it in another complete different way. Each individuals personality dimension affects the way the individual would make the decisions (Macey and Scheneider, 2008).
ReplyDeleteHi Nilusha thank you for commenting,adding to your comment as proposed by Schuck and Wollard (2013) employee engagement is defined as an individuals cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed towards desired organizational outcomes.adding to it, Vanpoucke and Vereecke (2010) stated that a leaders behavior supports the organizational success.
DeleteHi Mark,To add on to your topic and to look at the sustainability of the concept of” employee engagement “wish to bring in following view.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s dynamic business environment, it is seen more and more organizations using the services of change providers/consultants to sustain and thrive their businesses. The top management should question their change providers carefully and ensure that what they build into change programmes around engagement is well founded and sustainable in the long term. Otherwise the concept will become another lip service (Smith,2014).
Hi Suresh thank you very much for commenting, furthermore note that in any organization change is a common.change will happen in the strategy and be driven through restructuring or initiated through new systems and technology.all employees should be accountable for their own engagement with the employer. the leaders must take a leap step in coaching the rest towards the top of engagement, morale, and motivation through the process (White, 2011). as mentioned by Mendes and Stander (2011), leaders in an organization as supervisors need to play a major role in influencing engagement among the rest of the staff during a change process.
DeleteThe Gallup Organization (2006) describes that the most engaged employees are those who ‘work with a passion and having profound connection to their company and drive innovation and move the organization forward’. This has been further elaborated by UK, CIPD (2007) as it is the ‘passion for work’ and the willingness to go the extra mile. As Shaw (2005) indicates, internal communication professionals of the organization can potentially influence the employees to be engaged and translate their potentials to organizational performance and business success.
ReplyDeleteHi Nimantha thank you very much for commenting,would like to bring your attention to a furthermore detail on the Gallup definition you have mentioned,Gallup organization (2013) Developed the Employment Engagement index from the study done using a sample of 1 million employees and 80,000 supervisors which they started in 1990. The Gallup Management Journal (2013) presented their global follow-up study on engagement. The outcome of the study was out of the 1,000 adults sampled, 17% were actively disengaged, 54% were not engaged, and 29% were engaged. As defines by Yudhvir and Sunita (2012) motivation is the process that accounts for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of efforts toward attaining a goal. furthermore, motivation starts from a need which should be achieved for an individual, in turn, leads to a specific behavior. Employee motivation is the key factor in influencing their performance in the workplace (Gallup, 2013)
DeleteHi Mark,
ReplyDeleteThere is a positive relationship between employee cognitive attitudes, performance personality traits, job performance, emotions and favorable job outcomes (Peterson, 2001). The most rational level of engagement, which is cognitive engagement formed the basis in unravelling the phenomenon as well as the psychological state of engagement (Pillay, 2018). This emphasizes that employees that are cognitively engaged shared a common purpose with their organisation and based on the understanding of that purpose, they are willing to make a personal investment of the resource they influence (Alagaraja andShuck, 2015).
Hi Tharika thank you very much for commenting,furthermore on cognitive engagement,as stated by Glavas (2012) social theories identify engagement as ethical behaviors driven by cognitive moral development whilst psychological theories identifies the idea of engagement in connectivity with tasks creativity, safety climate, and resource availability (Kataria et al,2012)
DeleteHi, According to Gatenby (2008) observe that “engagement is about creating opportunities for employees to
ReplyDeleteconnect with their colleagues, managers and wider organisation. 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”.
Hi Nishad thank you very much for commenting,as stated by Wilhelm (2013) when employees work on, values, talents, and aspirations aligned with the company’s goals and mission. When they emotionally contributed to the organization and the work. as stated furthermore a motivated employee works willingly towards the success of the organization.
DeleteHi,Engaged employees are also more likely to display discretionary behaviour. Engagement has
ReplyDeletebeen found to be closely linked to feelings and perceptions around being valued and involved,
which in turn generates the kinds of discretionary effort that lead to enhanced performance
(Konrad 2006). Such evidence implies that management needs to share control and allow
employees to influence important decisions. If they do not, they risk having a workforce,
which is not, and cannot be, engaged.
Hi Anne thank you very much for commenting,would like to write a definition related to the subject of engagement through empowering employees.Investing time with employees in their work and sharing power and ideas with an intention of enhancing motivation is a part of empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
DeleteCommitment represents the strength of an individual’s identification with, and involvement in,
ReplyDeletean organization. It is a concept that has played an important part in HRM philosophy. As Guest
(1987: 503) suggested, HRM policies are designed to ‘maximize organizational integration, employee commitment, flexibility and quality of work’.(Beer et al (1984: 20) identified commitment in their concept of HRM as a key dimension because it ‘can result not only in more loyalty and better performance for the organization, but also in self-worth, dignity psychological Involvement, and identity for the individual’.
Hi, Francis thank you very much for commenting, furthermore Employee’s Individuals performance depends on four intervening factors: Competence Teamwork, Organizational Commitment, and Customer Orientation. Individual performance and organizational effectiveness cannot be achieved without organizational commitment, i.e. readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization (Becker, 1960; Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1979; Allen and Meyer, 1996; Mowday, 1998; Beck and Wilson, 2000). Good HRM Practices lead to high organizational commitment and different researches in the USA and now Britain justifies them. ( Mick Marchington and Adrian Wilkinson,2005). Thus many types of research show that organizational commitment of employees plays a very important role in the increased efficiency of employees and organization.
DeleteMarkos & Sridevi (2010) states that the engagement is affected by many factors which involve both emotional and rational factors relating to work and the overall work experience”.
ReplyDeleteHi, Taniya thank you very much for commenting, nevertheless its also very important for an organization to understand the factors that influence employee engagement in an organization (Handa & Gulati, 2014). Organizations with satisfied, performance-driven,
Deleteand engaged employees may achieve better results and better retain the results than organizations that have ignored employees who lack responsibility and passion (Grant & Marshak, 2011).
Hi,
ReplyDeleteTo add on, the following two ways were considered to enhance on employee engagement by research (Jenkins and Delbridge 2013);
1) Soft Approach
Creating positive work place conditions and relationship between management
and employees, whilst productivity is secondary goal.
2) Hard approach
Direct impact on employee efforts in order to imrove organizational performance.
However, the organization used soft approach demonstrated high levels of
engagement whilst employee disengagement were evident on the organization used Hard approach.
Hi, Ashanthi thank you very much for commenting, supervisors should uphold to enhance engagement in order to improve organizational performance (Khan, 2016). Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of employee, as well as continuous feedback, are the major areas that a supervisor needs to focus on for a higher degree of employee engagement (Alfes, Shantz, Truss, & Soane, 2013). Further, the employees should be given the credit and recognition and ownership of the result (Kramer, 2010).
DeleteCertainly companies achieve positive results when employees are highly engaged. On the other hand when employees are highly engaged eventually fail to maintain their work life balance and causing health problems finally ended as workaholics (Garrad & Premuzic, 2016).
ReplyDeleteHi, Prabath thank you very much for commenting, Work-life balance is vital for any employee and any stage in life. Having maintaining a balance between the family and wok as well as having a good family life is a major requirment and it would be a powerful leverage point for promoting an individual and employment effectiveness (Bhatnagar & Shankar, 2010).
DeleteGreetings,
ReplyDeleteExcellent leaders help create and spread confidence throughout their company by being exemplars of high ethical and performance standards. If employees see their leader as a confident and ethical
person, they will strive to be like their leader (Ambler, 2007)
Hi, Dilshan thank you very much for commenting, agreed on the argument made on top to add to it "Employee Engagement is the devotion, passion of employees and effective leadership skills with support from the top management to the employees. Human resource leaders set the drive and creed of their company and spread that positive morale to the employees in the company" (Sarangi & Nayak,2016).
DeleteApart from this, organizational culture, a well established and duly followed reward system including compensation, benefits and recognition and personal growth and satisfaction are important elements for better employee engagement. Organizations can overcome the engagement issues by developing better leaders who are more emotionally intelligent, which means they are very helpful for their team members performance, and are trustworthy and very keen on their limitations. More importantly, leaders must understand what keeps their employees motivated and engage in enhancing their emotional intelligence which helps them in improving the ability in understanding people (Bolman & Deal, 2014).
ReplyDeleteHi, Chandrika thank you very much for commenting, furthermore as mentioned by Ivanitskaya, Glazer, and Erofeev (2009, p.109), “the most fundamental element of an organization that helps the organization to survive is the individual person”. When employee accomplishes he.she`s tasks in the most appropriate method the organization will succeed. therefore when an employee has positive emotions he or she is able to feel more flexible, open-minded and also likely to feel greater in self-control, cope more effectively and be less defensive in the workplace (West, 2005).
DeleteThe organization should have proper wage systems in place to motivate employees to work in the company. In order to improve the level of commitment, the employee must receive specific remuneration & benefits (Chandani et al, 2016).
ReplyDeleteHi Aravindth thank you very much for commenting,as stated by Wilhelm (2013) when employees work on, values, talents, and aspirations aligned with the company’s goals and mission. When they emotionally contributed to the organization and the work. as stated furthermore a motivated employee works willingly towards the success of the organization.
ReplyDeleteIts as if you had a great grasp on the subject matter, but you forgot to include your readers. Perhaps you should think about this from more than one angle. Employee engagement in Dubai
ReplyDeleteEngaged employees are not simply working for salary and promotions but they also work effectively and efficiently for the growth of the company. Online employee engagement activities have become the most popular topic for leaders and HR professionals, because of the pandemic conditions.
ReplyDeleteAmazing Article! SOS is the leading employee engagement platform that works but doesn't feel like work! Boost your work from home employees productivity with our Online employee engagement activities social, fun and engaging workplace experience activities.
ReplyDelete