Impact of Employee Engagement on the Organisation - Coursework Example

Impact of employee engagement on the organisation Name College Impact of employee engagement on the organisation Employee engagement comes into play when there is a good relationship between an organisation and the employees of the organisation. The concept of employee engagement is viewed as an employee who is fully absorbed into the system and therefore he/she is enthusiastic about his/her work, and because of this he/she takes the necessary steps of furthering the interests of the organisation. Corporations that enhance high employee engagement always outperform those exhibiting low employee engagements. Basing on Wollard and Shuck literature review (2011), employee engagement displayed four subconcepts. First of all employee engagement has to have the needs satisfying approach, that is to mean that the commitment expresses the preferred self in performing task behaviours. Secondly, in the engagement, there is an approach of burnout antithesis where involvement and energy are products of burnout constructs like exhaustion and cynicism. The third approach is the satisfaction where engagement is a special version of job satisfaction this is according to Bakker (2010). Lastly, employee engagement exhibits the multidimensional approach whereby there is a distinction between the job and the organisational management. The primary focus based on the approach is usually the consequents to the performance of role and not corporation identification. Recent practices have seen organisations base their drivers of engagement on the investments and actions the enterprises are making to aid engagement, according to the chartered institute of personnel and development (2014) unlike previously where the drivers were placed from the psyche of the employees. Most academics and practitioners if not all seem to agree that there are positive consequences when there are employees' engagements according to Saks (2006). The first impact of employee engagement is that there exist a correlation between performance and the participation of the employees (Truss et al. 2014). According to improving employee engagement has a significant connection with improving returns exhibited by the employees. Base on Gallups findings (2008), higher earnings were recorded in public business where there was a strong workplace engagement. Companies that have their workers engaged always experience growth in their incomes. As a result of high engagement being associated with the performance that is high, then low levels of engagement has cost the UK in the lost returns. According to Gallup, the year 2008, exhibited a cost due to engagement of $59.4 and 64.7 billion Tumkin et al. (2008). The Corporate Leadership Council recorded that organisations that had their employees engaged experienced their profits growing three times faster than that of their competitors. When employees show satisfaction as a result of high engagement the consequences bear important business that is of higher magnitude hence crucial for organisations. Another reason for higher earnings due to the engagements is that engagement always bring about positive outcomes for an individual, hence results is that the quality of employees works increases leading to the growth of the organisations Keenoy (2013). Employee engagement correlates with innovation. The research from the Chartered Management Institute in 2007 asserted that there existed a strong connection between engagement and innovation. In any work situation, workers always have some level of discretion and choice over how they can do their jobs and perform their responsibilities Robinson (2008). This means that employees always contribute at their discretion. Employees who their organisations have embraced engagement tend to show discretionary characters. The reason for the discretionary characters is that engagement closely connected to perceptions and feelings of being valued and involved, hence in the long run discretionary efforts are generated that in turn enhance performance (Konrad 2006).Basing on these findings, the management ought to share control so that employees can influence some vital decisions. Through engagement whereby employees get economic and socio-emotional resources from their organisation as a way of engagement, employees always feel indebted to the organisation and tend to find ways of reciprocating. One way of reciprocating is by employees increasing their level of engagement that is they engage themselves to vary degrees. The response is a result of the resources from the organisation. By committing their work roles and devoting their best to the companies they always innovate innovations and ideas that are good for the enterprise. Even in instances where there is an external controlling structure, no role can be entirely specific; there is always some discretion remaining. Companies maximise on the discretions through engagements by giving employees some freedom over how their jobs should be done poses greater benefits. Reason being that the employees will feel as having power over their destiny while at work making them more focused on the responsibilities. The practices that are high involving always develop positive attitudes and beliefs that are connected to workers engagement, eventually the practices unleashes the behaviours that are indiscretion and eventually innovation that enhances the company performance is displayed. The reason why the practices give an employee innovation is that the places that are high involving always use special management practice that gives employee’s information, motivation and skills those results in a workforce that are highly competitive (Shuck 2011). Engagement also has a positive consequence on the public sector. Departments with high engagement also do good in capability reviews by exhibiting the same when giving services to the customers. Employing employee engagement strategies like the improvement of the experiences at work, ensuring availability of all necessities for achieving success in their roles, employees tend to reciprocate by delivering improved public services and also good results for all the citizens. According to reports, 70% of employees that are engaged display an understanding in meeting customer needs; this fosters trust and confidence by customers to the company. This is in contrast to 17% of employees who are not engaged who have the capability of understanding their customer needs. Disengaged employees always display effortlessness towards an activity and also a lot of incomplete performances of roles. Strengthening employee’s voice through sharing of responsibility between the employees and management over certain subject builds a sense of belonging among the employees. Due to the reason of employees having an opportunity input their ideas about products of the company when they do the marketing of the same they are well placed to explain to customers so as to suit their needs. In return, customer confidence is built and hence maintaining the market. Where there is an absence of management control systems that restrain employee’s engagement to work like perception to safety which is a psychological hindrance, employees tend to solve work-related problems. The employees also regulate their actions for them not to taint the image of their company. An employee tends to feel proud and loyal to hi/her company hence they advocate their company's interest to customers (Keeble Ramsay 2014). Employee engagements pose a positive result to the management of organisations. The reason is that 87% of engaged employees have a less likelihood of leaving the organisation than the disengaged. The total cost of such high turnover amount the disengaged enterprises is a big burden as some of the estimates have the cost of replacing each employee compared to an annual salary. The engaged businesses do not have to incur such huge cost, hence the benefit of engaging employees to the management. A desire to leave a particular organisation is always seen as a crucial way of understanding the impression of one towards their work. The employees who are engaged tend to possess a grater attachment to the companies (Truss et al. 2006). Therefore it is good that an organisation engages its employees as through that the organisation turnover is reduced and hence no recruitment cost. In the same vein, research shows that employees who stay long in an organisation become less engaged in the long run (Ferguson 2007). To deal with such an issue, institutions ought to ensure that employees are engaged in the long-term through the assessment of issues that matters to them and also address the issue so that the engagement does not become stale. Perceptions of people about the definition of ‘'meaning' of their work toward their workplace are linked to their engagement and at the end their performance. The employee always seeks meaning or value through their work, and whenever organisations fail to provide the sense of meaning to their work, employees always decide to quit. In the broader picture, to avoid this, high level of engagement should be built as most employees will only embrace workplaces that exhibit a shared sense of destiny and purpose that connects the employees and raises their aspirations. Engagement has been a medium for driving performance in companies and also the welfare of public servants within the public sector. The evidence of the same is seen in the decision of the Civil Service to do its first service-wide survey of engagement of employee in the previous year. The survey is one of the largest in the UK to have been carried out, with about 500,000 civil servants. The engagement policies help employees to be the best they can be at their various stations. In turn, the workers feel respected, recognised and involved in the workplace. Engagement stages mutual benefit where the company values the employee and the worker values the company. Opportunities are created where employees can connect with the wider organisation. Workers always feel connected to their work, and they mind when it is not done well, so they struggle to better their work (Gatenby et al. 2009). Due to engagement, managing change in institutions has not been a problem. The reason is that involvement and employee engagement are very critical in the enacting of the desired change. Personal relationships always affect the work engagement. Work related stress always has an impact on the ‘'meaningfulness'' of work. Employers possess relationship needs hence managers who have rewarding interpersonal integrations with their fellow employees always provide greater ‘'meaning'' of their work. The fact is that employee relationship plays a greater responsibility in creating a work experience that is meaningful. Organisations that have put in place strategies to improve workers interactions as a way of engagement do not experience problems when the agency wants to enact a change (Worrel 2007). Creation of an engagement environment where positive emotions like involvement and pride are encouraged makes individual to have an open mind and flexible. When employees feel their positive emotions, they can cope more efficiently with the desired change being enacted (Robinson 2006). A casual relationship that is holistic to management issues and considers emotions and employees needs is health. When emotions are managed well rather than being prohibited, they always breed to loyalty, trust and commitment among the team hence due to the good management of it good decision are made. Employee engagements set the stage for management that fosters a supportive environment and puts to consideration the feelings and feeds back of workers. Therefore there is a built trust, and hence mistakes and new ways of doing things can be discussed freely and agreed upon for enactment. Employees of companies with strong engagement strategies have their lives transformed for better-engaged corporations display authentic and strong values that are full of fairness and trust, and they have their basement on mutual respect in existence (Bockerman 2012). In conclusion, there is a strong link between engagement and the performance of organisations. Despite the presence of common drivers of employee engagement, various workers are influenced by various factors. Hence companies should put in place mechanisms in place for continual engagement with their employers so that another scope of the driver to engagement is identified depending on the employee. Human resource practices that empower engagement display a very significant result in financial performance improved productivity and satisfaction. Engagement should be embraced by all organisations as a strategy involving a string of steps and actions that are requisite of organisational members input. In the engagement, a consistent and clear communication should be maintained to avoid stale employer to employer relationship. Engagement makes the stage for the growth of good behaviours in employees. The employees always display a desire to work hard and make things better. Workers develop a strong belief in their companies, respect among colleagues and finally, they tend to go an extra mile to further the company. References Shuck, B & Wollard, &Karen K. (2011). Antecedents to Employee Engagement. Structured Review of the Literature". Advances in Developing Human Resources. Bakker & Arnold B, ( 2010). Defining and measuring work engagement. Bringing clarity to the concept".A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Taylor & Francis. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-203-85304-0 Keeble-Ramsay, D. &Armitage, A., (2014), HRD challenges when faced by disengaged UK workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26:3/4, pp.217-231 Truss, C. & Alfes, R. & Delbridge, R.& Shantz, A, & Sloan, E., (2014), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London.Routledge Keenoy, Tom ( 2013). A murmuration of objects. In Truss, Catherine. Engagement in Theory and Practice. Routledge. pp. 197–220. Right Management (2006). Measuring True Employee Engagement. A CIPD Report Corporate Leadership Council /Corporate Executive Board (2008). ‘Improving Employee Performance in the Economic Downturn Worrall, L. & Cooper, C. L. (2007). The Quality of Working Life. Managers’ health, motivation and productivity. Chartered Management Institute. Tamkin P,& Cowling M,& Hunt W (2008). People and the Bottom Line Report 448. Institute for Employment Studies. Gallup (2008). UK retailer – 174 stores over two years. Gallup Management Journal. Robinson, D. (2008). Employee engagement an IES perspective. Presentation to the IES HR Network.Institute of Personnel and Development Gatenby, M. & Rees, C.& Soane, E. & Truss, C (2009). Employee engagement in context. London: Chartered. Konrad, A.M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices’. Ivey Business Journal, March/April, pp1-6 Bockerman, Petri & Ilmakunnas, Pekka (2012). Job Satisfaction-productivity Nexus. A Study Using Matched Survey Register Data". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 65 (2): 244–262.. Read More