Introduction
One of the more prevalent business concepts today is the idea of “employee engagement”. The conventional wisdom points out that an “engaged” employee is an employee who is happy about his work and because of this enthusiastic view, will be working at a state that serves the business organization’s interests. There is a difference between employee satisfaction or employee motivation and employee engagement. Employee satisfaction is defined as an employee being satisfied with his daily tasks. This employee has needs and these needs are addressed by the organization he works for. Employee satisfaction means fulfilment but does not guarantee that the employee will extend beyond what is asked of him. On the other hand, employee engagement is that state wherein the employee has invested in the organization’s missions emotionally. They are committed to their jobs and they take it upon themselves to provide very high levels of performance, giving back the organization their personal legacies .
This business concept has risen in relevance in the last couple of years. Employee engagement affected performance and profitability and the intra-personal relationships in the workplace. Engaged employees often call their supervisors “sincere” and “well meaning” . While many claim that superior products and services or even innovative strategies that is brought about by new technologies or cost control structures make a company successful, these competitive advantages are short-lived and are normally copied by competitors thus negating their impact on the organization’s long-term viability. People in the business organization are what creates long-term company value and strength and creates the greatest return on any investment . More and more, the competitive business landscape looks for advantages that can be developed and in most case; businesses rely on their people to outperform people from competitors. It goes without saying that these organizations want engaged employees, those that would go beyond their job description to fulfil their tasks. According to Phelps (2013), employee engagement is statistically important because business organizations that provide the right kind of investments that improve workplace practices may increase their profits by as much as US$ 2,400 per employee. Earnings per share of 89 business organizations that were surveyed showed a strong growth rate. The same companies were found to have high employee engagement scores.
This includes the area of employee training which one out of 10 middle managers find to be wanting. Phelps adds that since employee engagement and managerial involvement are critical for change management, 9 of the 10 key success barriers are related to employees. If employees are engaged, these barriers are addressed. However, Phelps adds that about 75% of businesses in the United States do not have employee engagement strategies despite 90% of these businesses knowing that employee engagement is critical for business success.
In terms of business success, Phelps points out that those business organizations that have demonstrated and implemented effective employee engagement programs have improved their performance by as much as 20% and have reduced their employee turnover rate by 87%. Of the people that leave their jobs, Phelps states that 75% to 80% of this demographic cite relationship issues (manager – employee relationship) as the primary reason for leaving. About 75% of the people that leave their jobs are said to be quitting their bosses, not their jobs . Of those that quit their jobs, about 69% are “actively disengaged” which means that they were not actively pursued to be engaged in the philosophy of the organization.
The high level of inability of companies that experience disengaged employees may be due to the fact that about less than 50% of chief financial offers appreciate investments made in human resource development. This results in about an average of only 40% of the entire work force getting informed about the competitive positioning of the business organization. Of those companies that have engagement strategies, about 43% of their employees receive periodic feedback about their work and performance compared to a low 18% for companies that have weak or no employee engagement strategies.
Drivers of Employee Engagement
The facts presented above are results of employee engagement but there is a need to determine what drives employee engagement in the first place. In a study conducted by Dale Carnegie with MSW Research in 2012 using a sample of about 1,500 employees, the drivers of employee engagement were found to be the employee’s relationship with his/her immediate supervisor; the employee’s believe in the capability of senior leadership; and the employee’s pride in working for that business organization . These three factors indicate that all drivers of employee engagement deal with intimate psychological issues.
Of the three drivers, the immediate supervisor relationship is the main component of having engaged employees. Thus, great responsibility relies on the ability of the supervisor to create a work place or a work atmosphere that fosters engagement is critical. One of the key facets of this type of workplace is the belief in the command and leadership, which the immediate supervisor should be able to demonstrate sufficiently. The supervisor must also ensure that the employees feel that they are respected, that they are valued, and that the organization recognizes, understands and addresses their issues, if any. In building conducive working atmosphere for employee engagement, fairness is required. Fairness is a good measure of employee engagement and the issues of justice, trust and perception enable the employee to acquire a level of engagement that is needed for long-term success .
Employee Engagement: Self Determination Theory
Macey and Schneider (2008) explains that employee engagement is similar to the constructed frameworks prevalent in literature concerning organizational behaviour. This view is supported by an initial study conducted by Saks (2006) but is the question posed by Robinson et.al earlier in 2004. Robinson (2004) says that engagement may be similar to organizational behaviour studies but the concept of employee engagement is not perfectly fitted to the theories behind organizational behaviour. The unifying theory for employee engagement and organizational behaviour is provided by Mayer & Gagne (2008). They present the Self Determination Theory as the perspective that rightfully defines employee engagement. According to them, there are two forms of motivation, an intrinsic motivation where the activity that the individual does is enjoyed being an intrinsic (natural) interest of the person. There is also an extrinsic type of motivation wherein the activity that the person does is “instrumental” for that person to reach a goal or objective. This type of motivation is seen in the workplace and may appear in different forms .
The Self Determination Theory says that the external motivation (extrinsic) is seen in the work place as a reaction to a person wanting to gain rewards, avoid any type of punishment or ill will, improve self-esteem, identify with the organization or integrate the person to the business organization. The motivations are varied on their application as well with the employee identifying and integrating himself with the business organization considered to be a very high level of autonomous (self-directed) type of regulation or motivation. The other types of motivation are introduced externally and are controls that are normally imposed to regulate social behaviour. Employee engagement is a form of autonomous self-regulation. The Self Determination Theory suggests that autonomous self-regulation happens when the basic psychological needs of a person are achieved. These psychological needs include the validation of competency, autonomy and relatedness . The Self Determination Theory is the proposed unifying theory connecting the various psychological frameworks explaining employee engagement. The similarities and differences presented in the Self Determination Theory identify its value in explaining employee engagement. For example, motivation and employee engagement are clearly two different concepts. Motivation has been defined as the intensity to do work. Employee engagement adds on to this concept and defines work based on how well a form it has taken (quality of work). An employee may be motivated to go to the office everyday but may not be motivated to stay after hours for additional work. The employee who buys into extended work hours is more committed to the organization and is characterized as “engaged”.
Dimensions of Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is recognized by the business community as a very powerful strategy that will provide the necessary competitive edge required by business organizations to succeed in the short run and in the long run. According to Hickman (2010), there are five core dimensions to employee engagement that employees consider. Knowing these core dimensions is important for creating an employee engagement strategy for any business organization.
The first core dimension of employee engagement is “belonging”. According to Hickman, engaged employees are corrected to the business organization on more than on level. Engaged employees are found to have a very good understanding of the company’s strategic positioning (company mission and vision). Managers should find a way to incorporate the strategic position of the company to their employees daily goings-on thus become part of the employees personal work culture.
The second core dimension of employee engagement is “inspiration”. When employees feel that they work with a sense of purpose and that their contributions to the company are important, they are said to be engaged employees. This happens when the employee has grown to be trustful of its leaders and has developed pride in working for the organization. All of these inspire the employee.
The third core dimension of employee engagement is “understanding” and is a product of “belonging” and “inspiration”. When the strategic position of the company is communicated to employees, it takes time for the employees to develop trust and confidence in the company leadership, and pride in working for the organization. Communication with employees should be frequent and transparent. This creates an “understanding” of the present situation of the organization and its future plans and the employee becomes engaged when the employee begins to understand his role in the successful implementation of the company’s plans.
The fourth core dimension of employee engagement is “support”. A good working relationship with immediate supervisors and company leaders result in employees believing that they have the “support” of key management.
The fifth and last core dimension of employee engagement is called “appreciation”. If an employee feels appreciated, meaning he is compensated adequately and competitively and he is given the tools and opportunities for growth, then the employee will understand and appreciate the company leading to a very high state of engagement.
Why Employee Engagement Strategies Fail
Companies develop good engagement strategies for harnessing the potential of their people but end up failing. According to Cuccureddu (2013), most companies fail to succeed because the companies fail to implement the strategy effectively and in some cases fail to translate the strategy into implementable actions. Agress (2011) adds that a good engagement strategy should be an explicitly defined engagement strategy and should have a diagnosis of the employment engagement issues, a guiding principle that would help evaluate possible solutions, and of course a coherent action plan that will resolve the identified issues.
For companies to succeed in developing and deploying their employee engagement programs, the following components should be present. Firstly there should be coordination throughout the organization. Most business organizations are excellent at planning but do not focus on the delivery of the plan. This is manifested through lack of coordination among members of the organization and can be resolved in the critical members of the organization are aware of the strategic objectives, plans of actions and performance tracking mechanisms that should have been designed as part of the strategic formulation process. Secondly, a good engagement strategy must be fully committed to by management. Managers have to be the first person to commit to the strategy and lead their subordinates through example. To do so, managers must also be equipped with the right skills for planning, communicating, delegating and resolving work issues that validate the employee engagement strategy.
Of course it is plausible for the employee engagement strategy to fail due to the fact that there will be members of the organization who may not be able to follow the plan. It is why tracking performance and instilling a back-up plan to the engagement strategy will have to be developed early on. This should be included in the engagement plan’s budget. As reported by Phelps (2013), not a lot of CFOs understand or invest in human resource development. If these companies are to win through the sharpening of their human resource base, adequate funds must be invested in the engagement strategy. The funds must include remuneration either in terms of money or in terms of time. Engaged employees must feel the sense of satisfaction and must be recognized and appreciated. Recognition of course, requires remuneration and a good employee engagement strategy must develop this necessary feature as well.
Most employee engagement strategies fail either because the expectations are not framed correctly. Most managers believe that employee engagement is a short-term program that yields long-term results. However, new strategic plans take time to work and are found to be very rarely successful immediately. Thus managing the expectations of the organization by realizing the time element of the engagement strategy is critical. Additionally, it may be best to understand that the employment engagement strategy will not instantly make the business organization overtly profitable. Stakeholders may get demoralized if the strategy fails to deliver overly impressive results and therefore a careful analysis and projection of expected outcomes is also necessary.
It is possible however those employees are happy and satisfied, even committed to their jobs but are not fully engaged. The psychological basis outlined in the preceding section explains the theories behind employee satisfaction and employee engagement thus explaining that it is possible for cases such as this to be evident. It is also very possible that these employees are motivated, and as explained earlier their motivation can either be autonomous or regulated. If an employee is motivated to work for his own personal gains, such as money, recognition, authority, etc., he may be working at a high level but he may not be engaged in the whole vision of the organization. An organization needs its people to buy into its vision and thereby become emotionally invested in the company. When it does so, it contributes at a pace and quality levels that even the most motivated employee can. The employee commits all his capabilities for the betterment of his organization, with this betterment being an integral part of his personal satisfaction. While employee engagement sounds to be a very difficult process, it actually can be achieved through very practical ways. Lauby (2012) says that the best way is to let the employees own their jobs. This means that managers are more facilitators of the direction that employees want to make of their jobs, instead of directing employees towards a path. In summary, employee engagement thus becomes more of a relationship directive, with managers and leaders becoming more personally involved in people rather than in just these people’s tasks.
Works Cited
Agress, K., 2011. Define the Engagement Strategy First. [Online] Available at: http://blogs.gartner.com/ken-agress/2011/09/30/define-the-engagement-strategy-first/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Baldoni, J., 2013. Employee Engagement Does More than Boost Productivity. [Online] Available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/07/employee-engagement-does-more/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Christenesen, C. & Micheli, M., 2013. What’s the Difference Between Employee Engagement and Employee Satisfaction?. [Online] Available at: http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2013/03/whats-difference-between-employee-engagement-and-employee-satisfaction/62080/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Cuccureddu, G., 2013. The Key to Strategy Implementation. [Online] Available at: http://www.damarque.com/blog/gianluigi-cuccureddu/keys-strategy-implementation-success-engagement-and-collaboration#sthash.7H9APpDq.dpuf[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Dale Carnegie Training White Paper, 2012. What Drives Employee Engagement And Why It Matters. [Online] Available at: http://www.dalecarnegie.com/assets/1/7/driveengagement_101612_wp.pdf[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Dicke, C., Holwerda, J. & Kontakos, A.-M., 2007. Employee Engagement: What do We Really Know?, Paris, France: CAHRS, Mariott Paris Champs-Elysees.
Hickman, N., 2010. The Five Dimensions of Employee Engagement. [Online] Available at: http://texasceomagazine.com/departments/people-matters/the-five-dimensions-of-employee-engagement/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Lauby, S., 2012. Happy Employees are not Engaged Employees. [Online] Available at: http://www.hrbartender.com/2012/recruiting/happy-employees-are-not-engaged-employees/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Macey, W. & Schnieder, B., 2008. The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 3 - 30.
Meyer, J. & Gagne, M., 2008. Employee Engagement From a Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 60 - 62.
Phelps, S., 2013. Ten statistics reveal why employee engagement is more important than ever. [Online] Available at: http://www.9inchmarketing.com/2013/02/18/ten-statistics-reveal-why-employee-engagement-is-more-important-than-ever/[Accessed 9 October 2013].
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S., 2004. The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Saks, A., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), pp. 600 -619.
