A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Venkateswarlu Karumuri Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies Gayatri Vidya Parishad College for Degree and PG courses Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530045 ABSTRACT In this globalised scenario, where change is inevitable on a frequent basis, the organisations realized that the only strategic resource that can change its condition if properly utilised is human resources and their talents. The employees should be fully motivated and engaged to give optimum results to the organisations with their effective and efficient performance which is a tough concept for HR. It is very tough for HR to involve employees physically, emotionally and psychologically at work place. It is only possible through the intervention of the concept of employee engagement in the organizations. Several organisations defined the term employee engagement in their own way and in a different way. Some organisations equate it with motivation, where as some organisations with job satisfaction, some equate it with emotional commitment towards the organisation, job involvement, and organisational citizenship behaviour. The present study majorly focuses on the theoretical frame work of employee engagement with special emphasis on drivers and categories of employee engagement. The study also proposes a model of employee engagement. Keywords: engagement, employee engagement, motivation, drivers of employee engagement. INTRODUCTION In this globalised scenario, where change is inevitable on a frequent basis, the organisations realized that the only strategic resource that can change its condition if properly utilised is human resources and their talents. At this juncture the role of HR is obvious as a strategic partner in terms of decision making and making people to contribute whole heartedly. The employees should be fully motivated and engaged to give optimum results to the organisations with their effective and efficient performance which is a tough concept for HR and making them to check in the organisation and work from all dimensions such as physically, emotionally and psychologically. This is possible only with effective implementation of engagement practices in their respective organizations. The origin of the term engagement lies in research into the extent to which people employ or leave out their personal selves when performing work roles (Kahn, 1990). These days every organisation understood the importance of employee engagement and is trying to implement the concept for getting the desired results and performance. 150
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This paper is thoroughly based on a systematic review of literature about the concept of employee engagement that helps to understand the concept of employee engagement in-depth. The study focuses on various drivers of employee engagement proposed by different studies. The study also throws a light on outcomes of employee engagement. METHODOLOGY Literature for this study was mainly collected from various management journal databases such as Google Scholar, EBSCO, Elsevier and SCOPUS. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Several organisations defined the term employee engagement in their own way and in a different way. Some organisations equate it with motivation, where as some organisations with job satisfaction, some equate it with emotional commitment towards the organisation, job involvement, and organisational citizenship behaviour. The study conducted by Kahn (1990) highlights this aspect. Kahn(1990) defined engagement in terms of a psychological state as the harnessing of organisation members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances (p. 694). They will work with ultimate job satisfaction with maximum contribution. Schaufeli et al (2002) define engagement as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001, pp. 417) refer to engagement as a psychological and emotional state, a persistent, positive affective motivational state of fulfilment. According to International Survey Research (2003), employee engagement is a practice by which any firm increases the contribution and commitment of its employees to achieve greater business outcomes. Employee engagement is a mixture of an employee s cognitive, behavioural and affective dedication towards the organization. Hewitt Associates (2004) developed an 18-item scale to measure employee engagement. It defines engagement as the state in which individuals are emotionally and intellectually committed to the organisation or group, as measured by three primary behaviours: Say (Employees speak positively about the organisation to others inside and out), Stay (Employees display an intense desire to be a member of the organisation) and Strive (Employees exert extra effort and engage in behaviours that contribute to business success). According to Briggs (2005) et al., There are clear links between employee engagement and effectiveness, which, in turn, affect productivity. Employee engagement goes to the heart of organisational capability issues.csikszentmihalyi (1982) expressed employee engagement as a flow concept, wherein flow is a holistic sensation which employees experience when they are totally involved in their work. According to Right Management (2006), Organisation s success depends on people s true engagement. Research has shown that engaged employees make for a stronger organisation and better business results. Employee engagement is pivotal to business performance where engaged employees are the backbone of good working environment where people are industrious, ethical and accountable. (Levinson, 2007: Cleland et al, 2008). Truly engaged employees are not only committed and involved, they are connected to vision and mission of the organisation from all dimensions. CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: The following give a clear picture of categories of employees categorized by various experts. According to the Gallup the Consulting organization there are there are different types of people: Engaged--"Engaged" employees are builders with natural curiosity about their company and their place in it. They perform at consistently high levels. They want to use their talents and strengths at work every day and deliver performance consistently at high levels with passion and commitment with innovation and move their organization forward. Not Engaged--- Not-engaged employees concentrate on tasks rather than the goals and outcomes. Employees who are not-engaged tend to feel their contributions are being overlooked, and their potential is not being fully tapped. They feel that they don't have any productive relationships with their managers or with their co-workers. Actively Disengaged--The "actively disengaged" employees are the "cave dwellers." They're not just unhappy at work; they're busy acting out their unhappiness. Actively disengaged workers chip away at what their engaged co-workers achieve. As workers 151
rely on each other to generate products and services, the problems and tensions that are fostered by actively disengaged workers can cause great damage to an organization's effective operations. According to Meere (2005) employee engagement has three levels: Engaged - employees who work with passion and feel a profound connection to their organisation. They drive innovation and move the organisation forward; Not engaged employees who attend and participate at work but are timeserving and put no passion or energy into their work; and Disengaged employees who are unhappy at work and who act out their unhappiness at work. According to these employees undermine the work of their engaged colleagues on a daily basis According to employee engagement report (2011) conducted by BlessingWhite research, engagement has five levels: The engaged (high contribution and high satisfaction): These people align their personal interests and organisational interests. They contribute optimum to the organisation with ultimate satisfaction in their work. They can exert discretionary efforts for the success of the organisations. The organisations should clearly devise strategies to engage these categories of employees otherwise they may be going to any of the three adjacent segments. Almost engaged (medium to high contribution and satisfaction): These employees are among high performers and are reasonably satisfied in their jobs. If they are engaged properly they can work like the earlier category with ultimate productivity. Honeymooners and hamsters (medium to high satisfaction but low contribution): Honeymooners are the employees who join the organisation and to their roles. They have to clearly understand their alignment with organisation in terms of work. They will be happy with the present status and should understand how to be connected to organisation fully. Hamsters are the employees who may work hard but give little because of their focus on non essential tasks that give little success to the organisation but they are satisfied with their jobs. Crash and burners (medium to high contribution but low satisfaction): these are potentially exhausted employees. These are the employees who are not achieving their personal definition of success. They will always complain about the bosses by telling that decisions taken are wrong or bad and their colleagues are not working up to the mark. They contribute very less in terms of work and they make the people come down who work along with them The disengaged (low to medium contribution and satisfaction): these are the most disconnected people from organisational priorities. They feel that they are underutilised and do not know what exactly they need to give to the organisation. They are sceptical about everything and indulge in deep negativity. They look for other jobs if they are not fully engaged. Drivers of employee engagement: The following briefly present the literature review on drivers of employee engagement 1. A Study by Hewitt Associates (2004) identified three predictors of employee engagement: Say, Stay and Strive. 2. A study on drivers of engagement by Mani (2011) predicted four drivers, namely employee welfare, empowerment, employee growth and interpersonal relationships. 3. Seijit, G. M. & Crim, D (2006) explained employee Engagement in the form of 10Cs, namely Connect, Career, Clarity, Convey, Congratulate, Contribute, Control, Collaborate, Credibility and Confidence. 4. Britt et al (2001) predicted employee involvement and commitment as engagement drivers. 5. A Study by IES (2005) identified job satisfaction, feeling valued and involved, equal opportunity, health and safety, length of service, communication and co-operation as engagement drivers. 6. According to Royal Bank of Scotland model(cited in IES report 408) identified engagement drivers as recognition, performance and development opportunities, relationships, total rewards, work itself, product brand and reputation, leadership and work life balance and physical environment. 7. Towers Watson (2009) identified the following as predictors of employee engagement. They are rationality (employee understanding his roles and responsibilities clearly), emotional (passion and commitment employee brings to work), motivational (willingness of the employee in discharging his duties and exerting discretionary efforts in the work). 152
OUTCOMES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Effective employee engagement practices will lead to increased employee engagement and commitment in the organisation that ultimately leads to different outcomes which are helpful to the organisation. They are increased employee performance leads to excellent service delivery leads to customer satisfaction leads to customer loyalty leads to increased business performance that ultimately delivers increased business profits. PRACTICES LEADS TO OUTCOMES Effective training and development Effective recruitment selection practices Right performance practices Effective communication practices Provision of career development chances Feeling valued and involved Provision of equal opportunities Fair treatment of employees Co operation in the organisation Leadership Increased employee engagement and Commitment Employee retention Increased employee performance Excellent service delivery Customer satisfaction Increased business performance Customer loyalty Increased business profits Figure 1: Model of Employee engagement Employee engagement also leads to employee retention where individual intends to stay in the organisation for a long time. This can save huge amount of time and money incurs due to the dangers associated with employee attrition. CONCLUSION Review of literature on employee engagement while understanding current trends being followed in terms of employee engagement made to understand the roles employee engagement play in the organizations. Employees are the human capital assets if not treated properly a sense of disengagement occurs that ultimately creates troubles to organization in terms of employee attrition, reduced commitment towards work etc. The organisations should cleverly design the strategies that suits for both employees and organisation for giving excellent results 153
REFERENCES: 1. Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B. & Bartone, P.T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: the role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,pp 53-63. 2. Buchanan, Leigh (2004). The Things They Do for Love, IN Harvard Business Review, Vol 82 No 12, Dec 2004, p. 19(2). 3. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2006c) Working Life: Employee attitudes and engagement 2006 Research Report. 4. Cleland A, Mitchinson W, Townend A (2008). Engagement, Assertiveness and Business Performance A New Perspective. Ixia Consultancy Ltd. 5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey Bass 6. Dilys Robinson, Sarah Perryman, Sue Hayday (2004). The drivers of employee engagement, Institute for employment studies report 408. 7. Hewitt Associates LLC (2004). Research Brief: employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies at www.hewitt.com. 8. http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/industrysolutions/ee/reports/employee%20e gagement%20industry%20briefing%20paper%20dec%202005%20.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007] 9. International Survey Research (2003). Engaged Employee Drives the Bottom Line. Research Summary, Chicago, Illinois, 10-35. 10. Kahn WA (1990), ʹPsychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at workʹ, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692 724. 11. Levinson E (2007a), Developing High Employee Engagement Makes Good Business Sense, www.interactionassociates.com/ideas/2007/05/developing_high_employee_engagement_makes_good_business_sense.ph p 12. Levinson, E. (2007). Developing High Employee Engagement Makes Good Business Sense, accessed from www.interactionassociates.com/ideas/2007/05/developing_high_employee_engagement_makes_good_business_sense.ph p, on April 27.2013. 13. Madhura Bedarkar, Deepika Pandita(2014), A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 133, pp.106 115. 14. Mani, V. (2011). Analysis of Employee Engagement and its predictors, International Journal of Human Resource Studies. Vol.1. No.2 15. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001), ʹJob burnoutʹ, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397 422 16. Meere, Michael (December 2005 ) High cost of disengaged employees Victoria: Swinburne University of Technology. Available online at 154
17. Meere, Michael (December 2005) High cost of disengaged employees Victoria: Swinburne University of Technology. Available online at http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/industrysolutions/ee/reports/employee%20engagement%20industry%20briefin g%20paper%20dec%202005%20.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]. 18. Richman, A. Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Work span, 2006, Vol. 49, p. 36-9 19. Right Management (2006). Measuring True Employee Engagement,Philadelphia: Right Management. 20. Right Management (2006) Measuring True Employee Engagement. Philadelphia: Right Management. 21. Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for Employment Studies 22. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies 23. Seijit, G. M. & Crim, D. (2006). What engages the employees the most or, the ten C's of employee engagement, Ivey Business Journal Online. 24. Shaufeli.W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez, R. V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagementand burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of Happiness Studies.3, pp. 71-92. 25. Towers Perrin (2003), Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee Engagement, Towers Perrin HR Services 26. Towers Watson (2009). Turbo-Charging Employee Engagement: The power of recongition from managers-part I, accessed at http://www.towerswatson.com/en-gb/insights/ic-types/survey-research-results/2009/12/turbocharging-employee-en gagement-the-power-of-recognition-from-managers-part-1. on April 2, 2013. 155