The paper "Impact of Employee Engagement on the Organisation " is a perfect example of management coursework. 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 exists 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 a 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 socioemotional 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 increase their level of engagement that is they engage themselves to varying 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).
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..