Critically examine the managerial implications of employee engagement

by ariasani (student)

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

Assignment Topic: “Critically examine managerial implications of employee engagement.”

Introduction

Organizations have usually depend on upon monetary methods or statistics to assess their value, performance and health, yet recently organizations have come to realize the importance of people-centred indicators such as employee traits, perceptions and attitudes can be essential predictors of employee performance and behaviour (Luthans and Peterson 2002, 376). Employee engagement has come to be a popular and broadly used term, there have been various claims that an engaged employee can provide organizations with competitive advantages (Rich, Lepine and Crawford 2010, 617). Although much has been written on the subject, there is still very little research done on how managers, in particular, can influence engagement and how it can be used to improve satisfaction and productivity among employees and overall organizational performance. The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the managerial implications of employee engagement, with the use of empirical and theoretical data previously done to help us support this concept and better understand organizational behaviour.

What is Employee Engagement?

There have been various and often irregular meanings regarding employee engagement in the academic literature that has resulted in the term becoming confusing to many. Kahn (1990, 694) was the first to describe engagement as “the coupling of an employee’s full self in terms of cognitive, emotional and physical vitalities to work role performances”. His research concluded that a personally engaged person was someone who is physically involved in tasks, cognitively vigilant and emphatically connected to others. Rothbard (2001, 656), like Kahn, also defined it as psychological presence but encompassed two critical components: attention and absorption. Attention refers to the amount of time a person spends on thinking on a role and their cognitive capability; whereas absorption refers to the intensity of one’s focus and engrossment on a role (Saks 2006, 601). Burnout researchers have also claimed that engagement is the contrary to the burnout concept, stating that engagement is characterized as involvement, efficacy and energy whereas burnout is characterized by cynicism, exhaustion and inefficacy. On the other hand, Schaufeli et al. (2002, 74) describe engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption.” They further elucidate that engagement is not a temporary and definite state, but rather, it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour”. Saks (2006, 603) stated that there were two types of engagement that employers must look at, that is: job engagement and organization engagement. Simply put, employee engagement refers to one’s involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work on a physical, emotional and cognitive state.

It may seem as though employee engagement is similar to other concepts in organizational behaviour but is in fact quite distinct from these constructs. Robinson et al. (2004, 8) states that “engagement comprises many of the elements of both commitment and OCB, but is by no means a perfect match with either. In addition, neither commitment nor OCB sufficiently replicate the two traits of engagement – the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have an element of business awareness and its two-way nature”. Organizational commitment furthermore varies from engagement in that it denotes to an employee’s attachment and attitude to an organization while engagement differs from attitude due to the fact that it involves both the attentiveness and absorption of a person’s performance in their work role (Saks 2006, 602). Though OCB focuses on voluntary and informal behaviour, engagement emphasises on an employee’s official role performance instead of extra-role and voluntary behaviour. Employee engagement is more closely associated with job involvement but still differs because engagement is more concerned with how individuals employ themselves during their work role, whilst job involvement focuses on the belief or cognitive state of psychological identification. Basically, employee engagement is a unique and separate construct from OCB, organizational commitment and job involvement which incorporates the cognitive, emotional and behavioural parts that are linked to an individual’s role performance.

Positive Outcomes of Engagement

This is a preview of the whole essay

Positive Outcomes of Engagement

The interest in engagement stems from claims that it helps to foresee organizational success, financial performance along with employee outcomes (Saks 2006, 600). This theory suggests that there is a link concerning engagement and job performance and can help managers to make decisions and understand how to interact with employees to positively increase job satisfaction and overall organizational performance. Engagement can affect employees’ attitudes, absence and turnover levels and various studies have verified that it is linked to productivity, increasingly pointing to a high association with individual, group and organisational performance, a success measured through the quality of customer loyalty and experience (Robertson-Smith and Marwick 2009, 1). Previous research has also shown that companies that have implemented employee engagement progressed better in terms of profitability, focus, morale, staff retention and performance (Smythe 2007, 11). Previously, financial security and the necessity to earn a living were the main factors driving people to work but in today’s society individuals are looking for more than just that. Employees need to feel that they are valued at their respective organizations and in their jobs.

One of the positive outcomes of employee engagement is its link to better productivity. Kahn (1990) proposed in his study that high rankings of engagement led to both optimistic outcomes for individuals and the organization in terms of productivity and profitability. The Gallup Organization (2004) also found critical associations between employee engagement, customer loyalty, business growth and profitability, showcasing 18% higher productivity in their top-quartile business units as compared to the bottom-quartile business units. These studies support the link between employee engagement and customer loyalty. Southwest Airlines is a prime example of the connection amid engaged employees and customer’s influences customer loyalty and satisfaction. The corporation’s success is largely due to their customer loyalty; the company did this by creating a blog for its workers and customers to freely voice their opinions and continues to encourage them to produce videos conveying their feelings of the company (Gonring 2008, 31). This validates the fact that employee engagement is important to an organizations success by improving productivity and gaining customer loyalty. This is especially true for the service sector where employees come face-to-face with customers.

Organizations have come to realize that it is much more costly to hire new people and believe that by training and developing current employees, this would produce feelings of being valued at the organization and is a more influential reason for them to stay. Studies have revealed that highly engaged employees are less likely to turnover and be absent from work. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004, 307) found that there was a negative correlation between and turnover intent and simplified the connection between turnover intention and job resources. Saks (2006, 608) conducted a survey on students at a Canadian University asking about employee work attitudes and experiences. The findings showed that more engaged employees had high-quality relationships with employers and were less likely to leave their current job. This proved the fact that highly-engaged employees were more inclined to remain in their current organization and were less likely to remain absent.

Disengagement

Despite employee engagement showing many favourable outcomes for organizations, there appears to be a drop in the popularity of engagement resulting in a deepening disengagement among employees these days. Kahn (1990) initially discovered disengagement during his study of the summer camp and architecture firm stating that disengagement is “the uncoupling of selves from work roles, people withdrew and defend themselves and showed a lack of physical, emotional and cognitive energy in their work role performance”. This is a result of employees feeling stressed and devalued at work. O’Brien et al. (2004, 32) showed evidence of cynicism and disengagement among low-status groups. The study was conducted on hospital staff to test how disengaged employees were reluctant to participate in activities. The results showed that the majority of low-status employees were disengaged and reluctant to participate in work-related activities. Organizations will need to pay extra attention to disengaged employees to improve engagement and overall performance.

What characteristics do managers need to increase engagement?

Human Resource departments have started to see the significance of employee engagement in organizations and since this concept is first and notably a management philosophy it has become the manager’s role to implement it among the organizations employees. Many managers are beginning to believe that the top-down model of decision making by the few imposed on the many must be substituted by opening up decision making to those who can add value. The old social contract between employers and employees is outdated with employees seeking more than just financial security. These employees wish to gain acknowledgement for their work, feel valued and wish to be privy to important decision making.

But what exactly do managers truly need to do in order to effectively increase employee engagement?

Luthans and Peterson (2001) first proposed that the self-efficacy of a manager and employee engagement were related due to the reason that as employees come to be further engaged either emotionally or cognitively, the manager obtains a self-assurance and confidence in their skills towards producing and constructing an effective engaged team, thus generating desired organizational outcomes. This theory arose after studies showed that self-efficacy is a better display of work-related effectiveness as opposed to traditional workplace attitudes, personality traits, training and skill, goals and feedback as well as the belief that self-efficacy is a mediator between a managers effectiveness and employees engagement. Data was collected from the Gallup Leadership institute using surveys containing 12 questions of the GWA to measure the level of each manager’s subordinate’s engagement while a self-efficacy scale was given to the managers as a rating of their performance situations. While the results did not support the opinion that self-efficacy is a intermediary concerning managerial effectiveness and engagement, the findings did show that cognitive and emotional scopes of employee engagement had direct and indirect influences on a manager’s self-efficacy and their apparent success and vice versa.

Past research has shown that leadership behaviours and engagement are linked. Xu and Thomas (2011, 405) used the JRA 360-degree feedback measure to test the correlation between leadership behaviour and employee engagement while conducting research on employees at a New Zealand-based insurance company. Their findings reaffirmed that there was indeed a positive association between leadership behaviours and engagement, particularly on relationship- and task-oriented leader behaviour. KIA Motors is also another prime example of how leadership and engagement are connected. KIA Motors HR department realized that senior and middle management played crucial roles in constructing an engaged workforce, so managers were showed on a series of training courses to develop management skills and were tested before and after training using the same 360-degree tool (Tomlinson 2010, 28). Results showed a 14% average increase in manager performance and the scores have been maintained proving the sustainability of the courses. Therefore, to improve engagement among employee’s; managers must be confident in their skills as leaders and create a supportive and inclusive environment where communication and feedback is frequently exchanged and employees can share opinions on decisions as opposed to managers being ignorant and narrow-minded.

Conclusion

The purpose of this essay was to critically examine the managerial implications of employee engagement. From the readings, it was determined that employee engagement is a useful tool for organizations in terms of motivation, organizational performance, focus, staff retention as well as profitability, in addition manager’s play an important and imperative role in implementing and influencing employee engagement through their behaviours and leadership capabilities and they should be aware of disengagement issues before it becomes a significant problem as can be seen in the various studies conducted. However, the studies did not confirm that the same type of engagement approaches could be applied in every department. In conclusion, employee engagement is a relevant concept for managers to use and the factors which drive employee engagement should be formalized into strategies for the organizations management team to utilize in increasing performance.

(1984 words)

References

Gonring, Matthew P. 2008. "Customer Loyalty and Employee Engagement: An alignment for value." Journal of Business Strategy: 29-40.

Kahn, William A. 1990. "Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work." Academy of Management Journal: 692-724.

Luthans, Fred, and Suzanne J. Peterson. 2002. "Employee engagement and Manager self-efficacy." Journal of Management Developmen,: 376-387.

O'Brien, Anne T., et al. 2004. "Cynicism and disengagement among devalued employee groups: the need to ASPIRe." Career Development International: 28-44.

Rich, Bruce Louis, Jeffrey A. Lepine, and Eean R. Crawford. 2010. "Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance." Academy of Management Journal: 617–635.

Robertson-Smith, Gemma, and Carl Marwick. 2009. "Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking." Institute for Employment Studies: 1-65.

Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday. 2004. "The drivers of employee engagement." Institute for Employment Studies.

Rothbard, N.P. 2001. "Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles." Administrative Science Quarterly: 655-684.

Saks, Alan M. 2006. "Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement." Journal of Managerial Psychology: 600-619.

Schaufeli, W.B., and A.B. Bakker. 2004. "Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study." Journal of Organizational Behaviour: 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B., M. Salanova, B. Gonzalez-Roma, and A.B. Bakker. 2002. "The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach." Journal of Happiness Studies: 71-92.

Smythe, John. "Employee Engagement - its real essence. 2007. " Human Resource Management International Digest: 11-13.

Tomlinson, Gary. 2010. "Building a culture of high employee engagement." Strategic HR Review: 25-31.

Xu, Jessica, and Helena Cooper Thomas. 2011. "How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?" Leadership and Organization Development Journal: 399-416.

Critically examine the managerial implications of employee engagement

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

How can an organisation create and manage employee engagement?

Key Theory for Internal Corporate Communication in the Context of Employee...

To what extent is leadership dependant on the personality of the individual...

What are the sources of managerial power?