Drivers of Employee Engagement

 Introduction

What drives employee engagement is a topic researched over the years. Discerning enablers of behavior for engagement is as challenging as finding a single definition for employee engagement. Reason for this is because a variety of drivers are suggested among consultancy literature and academic literature (Smith & Markwick, 2009).

Drivers of Employee Engagement

There are three main physiological factors suggested by Khan (1990, p. 718), that influences employee engagement; meaningfulness, safety and availability. These factors influence employees at different situational levels as individual, interpersonal, group, intergroup and organizational. This implies that engagement is based on employee perception of the situation experienced (Khan, 1990). This theory is further supported by Robinson, Perryman & Hayday (2004, p. 21), stating ‘that strongest driver of engagement is a sense of feeling valued and involved’. Therefore, an employee who can convey his views and managers who listen and value this contribution, employees involved in decision making and can develop in their jobs are considered engaged. The organizations concern for the employee’s health and wellbeing also has an impact on engagement (Robinson, Perryman & Hayday, 2004).

From a practitioner’s perspective; based on multiple research conducted, many conclusions are drawn on what drives’ employee engagement. Conference Board (2006), identified 26 different drivers of engagement. Commonly reported drivers are; trust, integrity, nature of the job, line of sight between individual and company performance, career growth opportunities, pride in the company, relationships with co‐workers/team members, employee development and the personal relationship with one’s manager (Smith & Markwick, 2009).  

The Global Workforce Study conducted by Tower Watson (2012), identified 5 top drivers that impact engagement as shown in table 3.0. This indicates that culture and relational aspects of the work experience are the major factors impacting engagement and these are felt through by employees from daily interactions across the organization (Tower Watson, 2012).

 Table 3.0 – Top 5 drivers of Sustainable Engagement

(Source: Tower Watson, 2012, p. 7)

Engagement Drivers at my work place

In support of the above theories, I would like to highlight few observations from my work place. These practices evidence the organization’s effort to sustain and improve employee engagement. The organization I work for is a leading quad-play connectivity provider in Sri -Lanka. There are 7 corporate values, which we believe and work towards, of which ‘One Team, Responsible Leadership, Uncompromising Integrity’ can be considered as having a direct relationship to engagement. On a quarterly basis CEO conducts direct discussions, separately with all portfolios; of which company performance, achievements, roadblocks, goals and objective for the next quarter are discussed. Employees can directly interact with the CEO for any clarifications at these sessions. This build’s employees trust, moral, a sense of belonging and value. The company has a range of benefits focusing on employee and their family’s health, education, loans, insurance and few more benefits that provides employee with a sense of caring by the organization. The bond between teams are highly encouraged with team outings sponsored by the company with varies of activities and gathering held throughout the year to engage all levels of staff.  The company also conducts an annual engagement survey to keep abreast of employees evolving sentiments and to continuously act on areas impacting engagement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it could be stated; there are multiple factors that drive employee engagement, and this differs from person to person and could be situational based. For this reason, organizations must identify these enablers that are relevant to them, which drives engagement for a sustainable business.

References 

Armstrong, M & Taylor, S 1977, Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 13^th edn, Kogan Page Limited, London

Global Workforce Study: Engagement at Risk: Driving Strong Performance in a Volatile Global Environment, 2012, Tower Watson, viewed 31^st October 2020,

<https://www.philanthropyohio.org/resources/2012-global-workforce-study-engagement-risk-driving-strong-performance-volatile-global>

Kahn, WA 1990, ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no.04, pp. 692–724

Robinson, D, Perryman, S & Hayday, S 2004, ‘Drivers of Employee Engagement’, report 408, Institute for Employment Studies, viewed 23^rd October 2020,

< https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/408.pdf> 

Smith, GR & Markwick, C 2009, ‘Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking’, report 469, Institute for Employment Studies, viewed 17^th October 2020,

< https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/resource/employee-engagement-review-current-thinking

Employee Engagement vs Organizational Performance

Introduction

Employee Engagement is vital for excellent performance and organization of all sizes world over invests heavily to raise the bar and develop engagement and commitment of their employees. Jack Welch, the former general Electric CEO cited employee engagement as the first driver to best measure a company’s health (Vance, 2017). An engaged employee provides the organization with added advantages of employee loyalty, which results in longer stay increasing staff retention and thereby improving the bottom-line profit. An engaged employee will also play an active role in improving customer satisfaction and will be the key pillar in implementing organizational change (Smith & Markwick, 2009)

Engagement and Business Performance

The level of engagement by an employee can be categorized in to three as: Engaged, Not-Engaged and Actively Disengaged (Krueger & Killham, 2006). Figure 2.0 details the traits for individuals in each of these engagement levels. Therefore, it is important for organizations to understand the level of engagement of their employees. Knowledge is half the battle won, as it would give a holistic view of what works, what does not, the existing gaps and in turn organizations could understand what drives and promotes engagement that will ultimately foster productivity (Lockwood, 2007).

Figure 2.0: Levels of Employee Engagement and their Behaviors

(Source: Krueger & Killham,2006)

According to Harvard Business Review Analytics Services (2016), Employee Engagement tops as the 3^rd highest factor that’s more likely to bring in success as viewed by business leaders; indicated below in figure 3.0. The research conducted around the subject also demonstrates, a highly engaged workforce, while maximizing the investment in human capital and improving productivity can also significantly reduce cost and directly impacts bottom-line.

Figure 3.0: Factors most likely to bring Business Success

(Source: Harvard Business Review Analytics Services, 2016, p. 4)

The latest Gallup (2020), Mete analysis brief on Employee Engagement and Team performance, notes a significant relationship between engagement and performance across countries, industries, organizations and teams. Figure 4.0 indicates specific business-related outcomes with few negative and more positive and better success for the organization.   

Figure 4.0: Outcomes of Highly Engaged Business Units and Teams

(Source: Gallup, 2020, p. 3)

However, Gallup (2017), reports worldwide 85% of employees are either not engaged or actively disengaged, which is rather alarming to note as the business performance we currently see are brought in by only 15% of the workforce. Krueger & Killham (2006), estimates $328 Billion as the cost incurred by US economy as a result of actively disengaged employees.

Conclusion

Employee engagement plays a major role in improving business performance. Organizations still has much work to be done to retain the engaged employees and raise the bar for disengaged and actively disengaged to become engaged if they are to remain in business.

Reference

Employee Engagement and Performance: Latest Insights from the World’s Largest Study, 2020, Gallup, viewed 21^st October 2020,

<https://www.gallup.com/workplace/321029/employee-engagement-meta-brief-pdf.aspx?utm_source=report&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ee_meta_analysis_mini_report&utm_content=download_now_cta_1&elqTrackId=d29145551c7346019348c46c64b812dd&elq=9c8bf2d896a64680885beaf22123759e&elqaid=5075&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=>

Impact of Employee Engagement on Performance – by Harvard Business Review Analytics Services, 2016, Achievers, viewed 21^st October 2020,

< https://hbr.org/sponsored/2016/04/the-impact-of-employee-engagement-on-performance>

Krueger, J & Killham, E (2006), Whose Driving Innovation at your company, Gallup – Business Journal, viewed 21^st October 2020,

< https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/24472/whos-driving-innovation-your-company.aspx> 

Lockwood, NR (2007), Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role, SHRM Research Quarterly 

Smith, GR & Markwick, C. (2009) ‘Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking’, report 469, Institute for Employment Studies, viewed 17^th October 2020,

< https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/resource/employee-engagement-review-current-thinking>

State of the Global Work Place (2017), Gallup, viewed 21^st October 2020,

< https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238079/state-global-workplace-2017.aspx#formheader>

Vance, RJ 2017, Employee Engagement and Commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization, SHRM Foundation – Special reports and expert views, viewed on 21^st October 2020,

<https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/documents/employee-engagement-commitment.pdf>

Employee Engagement

Introduction – Origin and Evolution 

Employee Engagement is a relatively new term in the concepts of Human Resource Management practices. The term was first noted by Kahn (1990). Khan (1990, p. 700) defined engagement as ‘the simultaneous employment and expression of a person's "preferred self" in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive and emotional), and active, full role performance’. In summary, engagement is de­fined as bringing one’s personal skills and interests to the job.

During the time period of 1963 to 1980, the Social Issue era, personal management was transformed to human resources (Tubey, Rotich & Kurgat, 2015). During this era of 70’s and 80’s organizations looked at employee satisfaction from the perspective of employee without trying to identify the relationship of the employee with the organization and then focus was changed from satisfaction to commitment (Chandel, 2018). However, with the Technological advancement era (Tubey, Rotich & Kurgat, 2015), where globalization a force to reckoned, with rapid technological advancements, change of economy from manufacturing to service sector both employers and organizations had to change their way of work and mentality. For employees their existing jobs were either no longer available or their skills no longer valid, and they were required to acquire the skills and move for better opportunities. This made organizations lose their people rapidly which was costing them money for new hires and affecting the organizations ability to effectively compete in the market (Chandel, 2018).

Thus, the concept of employee engagement matured, where it was identified, engaged employees are an important asset to any organization for its sustainability and successfulness (Chandel, 2018)

Definition

Employee engagement does not have a single definition. Each party; Organizations, Institutes and Scholars have conceptualized engagement in various ways. The concept has developed over a period of 28 years; therefore, it is difficult to find two parties defining it the same way (Smith & Markwick, 2009).

Following examples will provide an understanding of how different organizations view employee engagement, where the concept is put into practice.

Smith & Markwick (2009, p.7), Dell refers to being engaged as ‘giving time and talent to team building activities’

Smith & Markwick (2009, p. 7), Johnson and Johnson define employee engagement as ‘the degree to which employees are satisfied with their jobs, feel valued, and experience collaboration and trust. Engaged employees will stay with the company longer and continually find smarter, more effective ways to add value to the organization. The end result is a high performing company where people are flourishing, and productivity is increased and sustained’

Following definition as proposed by a professional body:

Smith & Markwick (2009, p. 12), the CIPD suggests engagement ‘is a combination of commitment to the organization and its values plus a willingness to help out colleagues (organizational citizenship). It goes beyond job satisfaction and is not simply motivation. Engagement is something the employee has to offer: it cannot be ‘required’ as part of the employment contract’.

Scholars have provided different definitions for the term employee engagement as stated in table 1.0

Table 1.0: Definitions of Employee Engagement by Different Researchers

    (source: Chandel , 2018 , p. 209)

As such it could be stated that the best fit or a definitive definition for the model engagement has not been agreed upon in the literature (Smith & Markwick, 2009). 

Uptake of Employee Engagement by Organizations

The most common and one of the best method’s used by organizations to measure engagement is employee surveys and having regular employee surveys is considered a High-performance HR practice. Facebook’s internal research team acclaims three reasons as to why it would be a big mistake to abandon conducting employee surveys (Judd, O'Rourke & Grant, 2018).

1. Employee behaviors can be predicted
2. Employees get the feeling of being heard
3. Surveys are tool’s to bring in change of behaviors

Organizations believe that having engaged employees is the key to success. FastTrack 360 research findings states ‘71% of Executives cite, employee engagement as critical to their company’s success’. In Gallup’s  State of the Global Workplace report indicates, in today’s organizations 85% employees are not engaged in the work place thus making engaged employees as a challenge seen globally (Jouany& Mäkipää, 2020).

As shown in figure 1.0, in the US labor market nearly two out of five (38%) HR professionals said maintaining high levels of employee engagement is currently their organization’s greatest human capital challenge, and one out of five (20%) said it would remain the greatest challenge for the next 10 years to come. Table 2.0 indicates on research done for few countries, where employee engagement has also become a priority in which most urgent action is required. (SHRM Research Overview: Employee Engagement, 2016).    

Figure 1.0: Organizations Greatest Human Capital Challenges (HR Professionals views)

 (Source: SHRM Research Overview: Employee Engagement, 2016, p.7)

Table 2.0: Urgency Ranking of Selected HR Subtopics by Country

 (Source: SHRM Research Overview: Employee Engagement, 2016, p.7)

References

Chandel, P (2018) ‘The Evolution of Employee Engagement: A Unique Construct’, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research (IJHRMR), vol 8, issue 6, pp. 199-216, viewed 15^th October 2020,  

<http://www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/2-34-1545628595-22.IJHRMRDEC201822.pdf>

Jouany, V & Mäkipää, M (2020), 8 Employee engagement statistics you need to know in 2020, Smarp blog , weblog post Aug 11 2020, viewed 17^th October 2020 ,

< https://blog.smarp.com/employee-engagement-8-statistics-you-need-to-know>

 

Judd, S , O'Rourke, E & Grant, A (2018) ‘Employee Surveys are  Still One of the Best Ways to Measure Engagement’ , Harvard Business Review, viewed 18^th October 2020,

<https://hbr.org/2018/03/employee-surveys-are-still-one-of-the-best-ways-to-measure-engagement>

 

Kahn, WA (1990) ‘Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no.04, pp. 692–724, viewed 17^th October 2020

 

SHRM Research Overview: Employee Engagement, 2016, Society for Human Resource Management, viewed 17^th October 2020,

<https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/pages/research-overviews.aspx>

 

Smith, GR & Markwick, C. (2009) ‘Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking’, report 469, Institute for Employment Studies, viewed 17^th October 2020,

<https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/resource/employee-engagement-review-current-thinking>

 

Tubey, R, Rotich, KJ & Kurgat, A (2015) ‘History, Evolution and Development of Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Perspective’, European Journal of Business and Management, vol 7, no.9 , viewed 17^th October 2020