Employee Engagement and Its Implications on Management - Essay Example

Employee engagement and its implications on management Introduction There have been significant shifts related to globalization of trade and economics. The shifts in the global economy have necessitated that organizations seek to establish innovative ways in order to be competitively viable in the currently ever-changing market, technological realities. Such innovations have cut across various organizational aspects influencing and responding to change. With respect to human capital and related costs, there is a need to do more production at less cost (Haid & Sims 2009, 3). This has necessitated re-evaluation of the talent-cost relationship. Mostly, and as reflected in the recent 2008 global, organizations have responded to crises by effecting cuts on HR related costs such as salaries, rewards, and bonuses. These comprise an array of short-term solutions. Whereas companies will keep up with either pro-active or reactive strategies, it is important that there are organizational strategies keen on maintaining high work performance. This makes it necessary to entrench employee engagement. This has become of interest in human resource related studies and practice, into which this paper intends to explore. It explores the subject in view of explaining it and its antecedents and the consequential implications on management practice. Employee engagement This term has been widely used and has been defined in various ways both in literature and HR management practice. The definitions revolve on the basic tenets of establishing organizational commitment and/ or citizenship. This has been related to the willingness of the employees and capability, both individual and corporate, in giving discretionary and sustained effort towards organizational success. It can be summed up relative to a positive relationship between an employee and organization. As such, engagement has been cited as having three aspects: feeling, thinking and doing which are encircled in organizational competitiveness (Cook 2008, 4). This denotes cognitive and affective or emotional and rational (Towers Perrin 2003, 5), respectively bases of definition. Under these bases, literature points out two important aspects that underlie engagement: absorption and energy. Absorption entails being absorbed and committed to ones work, from which the individual can draw energy. The absorption is cognitive whereas the energy is affective (Albrecht 2010, 75). Workforce engagement has been cited as having a direct link to a wide range of organizational success factors. This has been related by literature as being related to the energy inherent in the engagement. With reference to this energy, engagement has been described as psychic and behavioral energy. It is described as the “…the psychic kick of immersion, striving, absorption, focus, and involvement” (Macey, Schneider, and Barbera 2009, 4). As such, it has more to do with behavioral aspects than just emotional constructs. As psychic energy, engagement has to do with developing inherent energy in the mind of an employee. It has a focus on attitudes and a positive approach at work place. There is high relation of this to employee satisfaction which has direct role on the employee’s power. This is a psychological aspect whose energy is shown on the outside. In other literature, employee engagement is described as being a more psychological aspect than it is physical (Cook 2008, 3). This implies that the engagement can be described as being on a continuum of extremes. Employees are engaged, not engaged or actively engage across the continuum (Kotni 2011, 32). Such a view will make it possible to approach engagement in a way that is realistically sustainable. Psychic energy is built on the tenets of employee satisfaction and contentment. The affective aspect has much variance to this job satisfaction. As behavioral energy, it has to do with how engagement is seen by others as a result-producing behavior. The psychic energy and commitment expression are converted into results. As such, engaged employees are proactive in thinking and implementation of organizational strategic objectives. Engagement has been indicated as being a positive and fulfilling work-related cognitive state characterized by behavioral changes such as dedication to work, vigor and absorption (Albrecht 2010, 77). This emphasizes on the need for behavioral changes consummate to cognitive activation. Of essence is ensuring sustainability so the psychic energy is not short-lived or momentarily. In summation, there are two key aspects to consider: activation of a positive cognitive-affective state and likely resultant work behavior motivation. It is therefore motivational and leads to specific resource allocation by an employee (Albrecht 2010, 77). Critical Literature review: engagement implications There are several driving forces behind engagement noted in HR practice and empirical literature. From the onset, it is vital to underscore that these driving factors have far reaching implications on managers. The driving factors include the interest of senior management in the well-being of employers, challenging job descriptions, decision making authority, career growth, enabling and collaborative work conditions, organizational resources, and organizational strategies for the future (Saks 2006, 604). The perception of an employee about the managers influences the extent of engagement success. This denotes the role of leadership that expresses an acknowledgement of employees’ well-being importance. In the report by Towers Perrin (2003, 10) this was hailed as the most importance driving force. This is with respect to its role in enhancing organizational effectiveness. This effectiveness is described as involving organizational strategy, systems and processes, structure and capability and employee engagement (MacLeod and Clarke 2011, 6). Coupled with values and culture, there is enhanced customer experience and eventual organizational success. The second most important drives concerns job characteristics. Literature points out that there is a psychological meaningfulness employees use to appraise job charactersictics. In a study, Saks (2006, 604) reported that there is a positive relationship between job characteristics and both job and organization engagement. A challenging job has a role in enhancing employee engagement by enhancing the psychological meaningless achieved. Such a job displays an extent of challenge, variety skill needs, job identity and significance, and employee autonomy in the job. However, different companies have varied ways of developing this. This has also been highly related to job resources (Albrecht 2010, 112). Management should provide resources commensurate to the challenge of the task. These resources are those which are functional, reducing job demands and costs, and are capable of stimulating employee personal growth. The resources provide both cognitive and affective work motivation. The former relates to the opportunity to cater for the employee’s needs for autonomy, creativity, competence, and personal achievement. While refering to the job-demands resources (JD-R) model, Albrecht argues that lack of a consummerate relationship between the two causes fatigue and burn-out. This is supported by other literatures focusing on this model suggesting that there are two sides of the bargain: job demands and job resources. Job demands draw effort and thus are related to costs- psychological and physiological. On the other aspect, this needs to be matched with resources that encourage skill development, learning and personal growth, and thus be motivational (Bakker & Schaufeli 2008, 150). Employee autonomy, discretion and involvement in decision making is also vital. This is refered in literature as the freedom to engage (Macey & Schneider 2008, 12). It is inherent in involving the employees in decision making as well as empowering them to take initiative and be proactive. Engagement happens when employees can comfortably and feels safe to be self-driven. The importance of this element is central especially in todays global business conditions when there is diversity of responsibilities and risks, increasing competition and career development focus. It is also inherent in what Nohria, Groysberg, and Lee (2008, 2) describes as the ‘Four drives’: drive to acquire, to bond, comprehend and to defend. They need to feel and experience a sense of control and decision making authority. Being in control of one’s decisions and work, and being involved in organizational decision making is partinent in enhancing engagement and one’s belongingness. The four aspects may also be refered to as power, information, rewards and knowledge (Konrad 2006, 2). Similarly enshrined in the ‘four drives’ and other literature is the concern for career development. It is central in the drive to acquire. This drive is relative and insatiable implying that management should provide a stimulating environment in which there are career movements. Relative to the drive to defend, the employees will not only be motivated by prospects of growth, but also job security. This demands management attention on creation of personal development opportnities such as skill and ability development, knowledge acquisation and learning. There is also a need for the management to entrench an effective talent development and utilization. The motivation to engage will also require an understanding of employees’ individual drives so that one can develop a commensurate reward and recognition system. This is the most easy way of addressing the drive to acquire. Its tenets are on discriminating good and poor performance and relating performance to rewards. In their report, MacLeod and Clarke (2011, 23-24) explored a case study delineating the impact of having an effective reward system: The VT Group. This company developed a performance-related scheme of appraisal. The scheme was focused on designing rewards specific to organizational strategy-friendly behavior. This was complemented with a client survey. This system has been cited as being instrumental in VT’s continued improvement of financial performance. The reward system should also, importantly, demonstrate specificity to identified employee drives. Rewards and sanctions are only impactful if the employee attaches importance to them. Refelective Evaluation on Engagement Overall, there are implications on management to match employee engagement ventures with a focus on strategic management. This is with respect to the impact of engagement on organizational success. Whereas it is driven by organizational aspects, on one hand, it is reciprocative on the other and drives performance. There is a strong positive relationship between the extent of engagement and performance. Engagement is strongly linked to a range of success factors (MacLeod and Clarke 2011, 23). However, a management’s orientation in demonstrating the impact should be based on performance metrics relevant to an organizations. For instance, this suggests an appraisal difference between public and private sectors, and between profit and non-profit organizations. The metrics may entail financial performance, customer satisfaction with respect to sales volumes, employee turn over rates and shareholder return (Russell & Russell 2010, 7). As such, it is vital that management ensures that energy and resources are channeled in a strategy that enhances competitive advantage. The engagement form pursued ought to be specific to organizational strategies. Literaturesuggest that there should also be a differentiation between general engagement levels and specific ones (Macey, Schneider, and Barbera 2009, 13). To that effect, there are implications on the type of strategy pursued. As there is a difference in overall organizational strategy with respect to general strategy and specific to strategic position, this should also be reflected in line with specificity of engagement behavior. In addition, such strategies require the involvment of the emloyees. This is one way of fulfilling the drive to comprehend. Engagement will only work when employees can relate work expectations with beneficial organizational outcomes. They will always try to align personal goals to organizational pursuits. Any mismatch is detrimental to engagement levels. Conclusions In globalized business operations that are today’s hallmark, managers need to agree that competitive edge critical difference heavily relies on human resources. There are forms of capital in an organization. However, they all must depend on employee who transform them into organizational gains. This implies a need for managements to develop business environement that attracts, develops and keeps dedicated and creative employees. Literature and practise have delineated employee engagement as one of the key alternative strategies for organiations to explore. This is the focus of modern human capital management whose value surpasses the traditional principles such as efficiency, cost cutting, and cash flow. Engagement focuses on having an employee that is dedicated, motivated, proactive in self initiative, and committed. This denotes having an employee who shows cognitive, emotional and physical engagement. Overall, in order to meet the need for organizational results through employee engagement, management may do the following. Managers require to measure engagement levels, determine drivers, relate to business outcomes, track changes and benchmark competitors. This is to meet the implications enshrined in engagement drives as well accrue the related benefits. References Albrecht, Simon. 2010. Handbook of employee engagement : perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham: Elgar. Bakker, Arnold, and Wilmar Schaufeli. 2008. "Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourishing organizations ." Journal of Organizational Behavior 29: 147-154. Cook, Sarah. 2008. The essential guide to employee engagement : better business performance through staff satisfaction. London: Kogan Page. Haid, Michael, and Jamie Sims. 2009. Employee Engagement: Maximizing Organizational Performance. Philadelphia: Right Management Inc. Konrad, Alison. 2006. "Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices." Ivey Business Journal, 2006 March/April: 1-6. Kotni, Devi. 2011. "Dynamics of Employee Engagement: A case study." International journal of management and business studies 1 (2): 31-35. Macey, William, and Benjamin Schneider. 2008. "The meaning of employee Engagement ." Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1: 3-30. Macey, William, Benjamin Schneider, and Karen Barbera. 2009. Employee Engagement : Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. MacLeod, David, and Clarke, N. 2011. Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement, a report to Government. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Nohria, Nitin, Boris Groysberg, and Linda Lee. 2008. "Employee Motivation: A powerful new model ." Havard business review, 2008: 1-8. Russell, Linda, and Russell, J. 2010. Engage your workforce. Alexandria: American Society for Training & Development. Saks, Alan. 2006. "Antecedents and consequences of employee engagements ." Journal of management psychology 21 (7): 600-619. Towers Perrin. 2003. Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. United States : Towers Perrin. Read More