Characteristics of an Engaged Employee
Figure 2: Characteristics of an engaged employee
Definition of Employee Engagement
Figure 3: Definition of employee engagement
(Source: GMJ, 2006)
Theoretical Model of Employee Engagement
Figure 3: A theoretical model to measure employee engagement
(Source: Imandin, Bisschoff and Botha, 2014)
An Example of Employee Engagement
John Lewis is an example of an organization that
includes a mission that determines the organization's method of operating and
its management style (Cook, 2008). John Lewis Partnership is a company owned by
its employees. The company has a
multi-layered approach to employee engagement and voice. The Partnership
promotes engagement during a number of the way, by sharing knowledge, creating a huge amount
of information accessible to partners (employees) and taking time to confirm
people perceive it; sharing power, operating a variety of councils and
committees with which partners can become involved; and sharing profit through the variety of
means that including an annual bonus, and non-contributory final earnings pensions scheme.
Partners are oversight
of strategic business problems through the Partnership Council - this body is able to hold the chairman of the business to account
and to question senior management during a similar method as shareholders would
in a PLC. Partners are informed about strategic business
decisions through a wide range of communications, and may influence their
working environments through the open structure, significantly freshly revamped
branch-level for a; the suggestion
scheme, and through management consultations on key areas and problems such as
performance management (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009).
References
Cook, S. (2008) The Essesntial Guide to Employee Engagement - Better business performance through staff satisfaction. 1st ed. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page Limited.
Gallup Management Journal (2006) Engaged employees inspire company innovation. Gallup Management Journal , http://gmj.gallup.com.
Imandin, L., Botha, C. & Bisschoff, C.A. (2014) A model to measure employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(4), p.9 [ONLINE]. Available at <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282708038_A_model_to_measure_employee_engagement>.[Accessed on 8th May 2019].
MacLeod, D. & Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement. Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) [ONLINE). Available at <https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090723180303/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf>. [Accessed on 9th May 2019].
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, p.20 [ONLINE]. Available at <https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/408.pdf>.[Accessed on 7th May 2019].
In addition to what you have discussed above I would like to share something about Employee Engagement.
ReplyDeleteHewitt Organization (2001) referred to employee engagement as the extent employees are
willing to stay in the company and work hard for the company, reflected in three aspects:
1) Say : employees use a positive language to describe their company, colleagues, and their
jobs.
2) Stay: employees strongly hope to be a member of the company, want to stay in the
company for a long time, instead of using existing jobs as a temporary transition.
3) Strive:employees are willing to devote extra effort to work for the success of the company.
Towers organization (2001) defined employee engagement as the degree of willingness and ability of employees to help companies succeed, dividing it into rational engagement and sensuous engagement. Rational engagement generally involves the relationship between individuals and companies, such as the degree of employees’ understanding of their roles and departmental roles.
HR professionals and academicians agree that employee engagement is also strengthened when organizations
Deletebecome aware of the fluidity of the labor market. Today, employees have developed different views on work-life balance (WLB) and they can easily switch to other organizations when the conditions they desire are not met (Memon & Kolachi, 2012). In fact, WLB has been found to be a crucial factor for HRM in promoting individual engagement and organizational effectiveness (Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010). Consequently, many organizations today try to offer different work arrangements so as to develop a better work-life balance between the domains of work and “the rest of life” (Guest, 2002) in order to improve employee retention and engagement. These interventions that enhance employee branding can deliver competitive advantage to organizations (Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010).
There are some moral elements to employee engagement, pre- dominately the attribution of some free will and respect to the workers and existence of some element of procedural justice of the process (Rothschild 2000). Clearly, unless employees are to some extent voluntary and active in the process, and the process is seen as fair and just by them, then engagement cannot be said to occur (the process would be more akin to manipulation or indoctrination). However, there are other moral elements that may be assumed or implied as part of engagement process (employee involvement as being necessarily ‘good’ for employees) which is not necessarily present. The intent of the actors may be taken for granted erroneously. Just because someone communicates or consults with another does not mean that they have any interest in fulfilling the other’s desires or wants. In the organizational setting, employee participation in decision-making is rarely undertaken to achieve the goals of employees, but rather done to further the objectives of the organization. Likewise the virtue of the actors may be incorrectly assumed. Just because managers act in a fair and respectful manner in an engagement process does not mean that these are virtues that they value or nurture. Finally, it is often incorrectly assumed that the outcome sought is that which will provide the best utility for all parties involved. A conflation between the justness of the process (procedural justice) and the justness of the outcome (distributive justice) may occur. Once more, the power differential between the parties, and the potential for abuse of power under such circumstances, has not been taken into account. Thus, it is claimed that the engagement process per se should be considered as independent of the intentions of the actors, the virtue of the actors, and the fairness of the outcomes and, as such (with the qualification identified earlier), can be depicted as largely morally neutral or unaligned (as opposed to amoral or value free) (Pinnington, Macklin and Campbell, 2007
ReplyDeleteEmployees also will stay longer and contribute more to organizations where they have good relationships and open dialogue with their immediate supervisors (Johnson, 2011). According to Schroeder-Saulnier (2010) building trust through effective communications is absolutely essential. Employees need to trust that their leaders have the capability to make the organization successful. To win that trust, leaders must show that they have a plan, articulate that plan clearly to employees, and demonstrate that that plan is being implemented effectively. Trust is a two-way street. Leaders must also show that they, in turn, trust employees to help drive organizational success. They must make employees valued partners in a common enterprise. Employees want not only to know what the bigger picture is, but also to feel that they are a part of that picture.
DeleteEmployee engagement is the result of two-way relationship between employer and employee pointing out that there are
ReplyDeletethings to be done by both sides. Furthermore, Fernandez (2007) shows the distinction between job satisfaction,
the well-known construct in management, and engagement contending that employee satisfaction is not the
same as employee engagement and since managers can not rely on employee satisfaction to help retain the best
and the brightest, employee engagement becomes a critical concept. Other researchers take job satisfaction as a
part of engagement, but it can merely reflect a superficial, transactional relationship that is only as good as the
organization’s last round of perks and bonuses; Engagement is about passion and commitment-the willingness to
invest oneself and expand one’s discretionary effort to help the employer succeed, which is beyond simple
satisfaction with the employment arrangement or basic loyalty to the employer (BlessingWhite, 2008; Erickson,
2005; Macey and Schnieder ,2008). Therefore, the full engagement equation is obtained by aligning maximum
job satisfaction and maximum job contribution. Stephen Young, the executive director of Towers Perrin, also
distinguishes between job satisfaction and engagement contending that only engagement (not satisfaction) is the
strongest predictor of organizational performance (Human Resources, 2007).
The measurement of the employee satisfaction at work needs careful observation of their opinion, feelings and experience among the working environment. Kelloway and Iverson (2003) proved in their study that satisfaction with work was connected to small numbers of injuries at work. It is possible to carry out observation from an employer's point of view. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) proved a positive correlation between job satisfaction and productivity, profit, safety and fluctuation of employees. Schneider as well as Hanges and Salvaggio (2003) found out that the success of an organisation increases general satisfaction with work and strongly increases correlation between joy and productivity at work.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNYC Blog! The knowledge you share it was really wonderful. Do you know we provide Online Employee Engagement, Online Virtual Party, Team Building Activities and many more services. For more info visit our website sosparty.io!
ReplyDelete