This sandbox is being edited as part of a class assignment. This is directly copied from /info/en/?search=Employee_engagement
Employee engagement can be defined as the state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work. [1] Research conducted by Joshi and Sodhi (2011) [2] and Swetha et al. (2014) [3] found that employee engagement is the driving force for business success, as it fosters a positive work environment.
Bhuvanaiah et al. (2014) [4] found that “employee engagement is one of the emerging concepts addressing multiple challenges organisations face such as attrition, company reputation, customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, profitability, and business productivity”. Herzberg (1968) concluded there are six internal motivating factors driving employee performance and engagement: sense of achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, the opportunity for advancement and personal growth. [5] [2] Individual employee engagement can be influenced by culture, religion, sociological factors, economy, lifestyle, and other factors. [6]
A review of research by Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] identified that the single most important factor in driving employee engagement is the immediate manager working relationship with the employee. Academics who specialise in Human Resource Management believe that effective management is an essential factor that is positively correlated with retention rates and the ability to create an environment where employees feel engaged in their workplace. [7] For a manager to be effective in creating an engaged workforce academics have determined that they need possess specific skills required to keep employees aware of their job requirements, creating an effective feedback system to evaluate employee performance, and can provide opportunities for advancement. [7] Eichinger et al.'s (2009) research concludes that all these required managerial skill sets are all positively correlated in creating a positive work environment, and an engaged and productive workforce. [7] This suggests that an organisation with 'enhanced' employee engagement levels have an to expectation to outperform any organisation with reduced levels employee engagement, all else being equal. [8]
It should be noted that a variety of definitions have emerged around the complexity of employee engagement concepts. Research has studied in-depth the requirements, commitment and enhanced productivity of employees, concluding that many of these factors are interlinked. Generating engagement amongst a workforce is a central topic for organisations as opposed to finding different systems to measure it. As a result care must therefore be taken when looking at some of the statistics presented around engagement.
William Kahn created the first formal definition of employee engagement, characterising the term 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". [9] Roberts (2013) [1] later on refined the term as being a state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work for both themselves, their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole.
In 1993, Schmidt et al. proposed a bridge between the pre-existing concept of ' job satisfaction' and employee engagement with the definition: "an employee's involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with work. Employee engagement is a part of employee retention. [10] This definition integrates several components of job satisfaction [11], with organisational commitment. [12]
In his review of employee engagement literature in 2013, Chaplan [13] identified four main sub-concepts within the term:
Employee engagement practices has increased in popularity over the last 20 years,however there is still some variation with respect to academic definitions of employee engagement. [15] These different definitions vary in the weight they give to the individual versus the organisation in creating and maintaining engagement. Despite the variation in the definition of engagement business organisations need to predominantly focus on the actions and investments that they makes in order to bolster employee engagement. [16] [17]
The following theories are examples of team-based causes of employee engagement. They predominantly discuss the relationship between employees and their managers and how this drives employee engagement.
Seijts and Crim (2006) [8] summarise that there are ten "avenues for action" which drive employee engagement, otherwise known as the 'The Ten C's of Employee Engagement'. The Ten C's of Employee Engagement are:
Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] states that the single most important causing factor that drives employee engagement is the immediate manager working relationship. Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] conclude in their research that a good manager is skilled in informing employees of the required task, providing constructive performance feedback, recognising good performance and positive contributions, supporting career development and effective divination and allocation of tasks. [7] Combinations of these factors have been shown to foster positive work environments and increase levels of employee engagement. [7]
According to Frederick Herzberg, there are six internal motivating factors that drive employee engagement. [5] These are: [5]
Jobs which are diverse in nature, are significant, encourage autonomy, and provide performance appraisal are shown by studies to promote internal motivation, personal responsibility and job satisfaction, which are all linked to positive levels of employee engagement. [18] Considering that individuals are motivated and satisfied by different components of their career and work, academics suggest that customising job design based on an individual's characteristics and drivers should bolster employee engagement. [19] Literature concludes that effective job design is integral for an employee to work to the standards of managers and organisations with "undue stress", providing "enough challenge and variety to keep the job performer engaged and motivated".
An example of job design connected to employee engagement relates to the jobs at The Vet Group, which academics believe are designed to encourage specialisation. Work is divided into specific tasks, resulting in each employee becoming very competent and efficient at their assigned tasks. [19] However, specialisation is shown to have a negative impact on employee motivation. [19] Despite that the employee may become very competent at a particular task, lack of variety in work duties can result in boredom and reduced productivity. [19] From this study, a suggested implication is that managers should find the optimal level of specialisation that encourages both employee engagement and productivity. [19]
Each individual employee are motivated by a different set of factors that cause them to remain and continue to be engaged in their job. [5] According to Frederick Herzberg's Motivation and Hygiene factors, pay and remuneration strategies dissatisfy employees, as opposed to motivating them. [13]
There are several frameworks which categories the various levels of employee engagement.
BlessingWhite's framework classifies employee engagement into five categories. These categories are defined by the level of individual contribution towards organisational achievement and satisfaction received from the job. [4]
The Gallup Institute's model is a simplified version of BlessingWhite's framework. [4] It concludes there are three types of engagement levels: [4]
Engagement surveys are a broadly applied approach that enable employees to rate their own levels of engagement. [20] Assuming that all questions are answered truthfully, these surveys provide a qualitative insight into the drivers and inhibitors of employee engagement. [20] The questions for these surveys vary depending on the values of the organisation and the industry in which it is situated. [20] The Gallup Institute's annual employee engagement survey is based on the following criteria: [21]
Organisations cannot ensure that employees' answers are objective using survey-based measurement. [20] Answers can be also be time sensitive due to availability bias, as employees may only think of recent events. [20] There is also the potential for gamed results, where employees tell you what they think you want to know, instead of their true feelings and opinions. [20]
People analytics is a recently developed technology related to big data generation. When applied to employee engagement, organisations can examine engagement levels by analysing quantitative metrics (actual engagement levels) as opposed to qualitative data (self-perceived engagement). [20] Some example metrics include: [20]
Big data technology can be used to determine which factors contribute to the organisation's overall employee engagement levels. [20]
Many managers consider investing in employee engagement an important component of reaching organisational success, as academics have concluded that talent management is strongly correlated with improved business performance. [6] Research has found that organisations that achieve a standard deviation of 0.43 above the median in regards to employee engagement levels experience a "103% higher success rate at the business level" compared to employees situated at the lower end of the median. [15] The following are samples of various organisational consequences.
Several consequences exist at the personal level which employees face in terms of employee engagement. The following are samples of these consequences.
In order to maintain employee engagement, academics believe that managers must keep up with the ever-changing skills of its employees so they can adapt their management style to suit and drive engagement. [6] Managers who express care and concern for their employees' well being, who encourage the development of new key skills, and actively cultivate a supportive work environment, are found to be those who most maintain and increase engagement levels of employees. [29]
Anitha (2013) [29] believes that effective leadership is a crucial skill for managers to utilise in order to effectively drive employee engagement. Effective leadership (being self aware, making decisions carefully and effectively, transparency with employees, consistent moral standards) is found to naturally foster employee engagement, thus is considered by academics to be a more effective method of raising employee engagement levels. [29]
A survey by the Harvard Business Review found that companies who actively seek to foster high levels of employee engagement ensure that goal alignment is clearly communicated by managers (both senior and middle) throughout every level of the organisation. [35] They also implement a variety of engagement initiatives to improve performance such as customer satisfaction surveys and feedback to ensure appropriate alignment of activities linked to high levels of performance. [15]
Involvement Case Studies
In 2000, a group of academics studied 15 steel mills, 17 apparel manufacturers, and 10 electronic instrument and imaging equipment producers, with the intention of comparing traditional production systems with flexible high-performance production systems (designed to increase employee engagement through training, teamwork, and pay and renumeration strategies). [37] The results concluded that in each industry, plants that utilised high-involvement practices performed exceptionally compared to those which utilised traditional systems. [37] Employees at the high-involvement plants exhibited greater positivity for their work and the organisation (including organisational commitment, trust between colleagues, and genuinely enjoying their work). [37] This study is also linked to productivity, employee voice and empowerment. [38]
Several other studies have examined employees in the life insurance industry and the impact of perception (when employees thought they had the autonomy and power to make decisions regarding their work, were sufficiently proficient at their job, and were rewarded for exceptional work). Results concluded that high-involvement management practices were linked positively to retention of employees, morale, and the organisation's financial performance. [37]
Organisational Performance Case Study: Caterpillar [39]
Caterpillar, a construction-equipment maker has achieved notable results from its employee engagement initiatives. The results included:
Aon Hewiitt Case Studies [1]
Aon Hewitt worked with a larger retailer (with over 1000 stores) to analyse linkages between employee engagement and performance measures (sales growth, loss prevention, and customer satisfaction). Their report also discussed key employee engagement drivers and the factors that were deemed most likely to improve and maintain engagement. It was discovered that:
The data analysed was compiled from 2011 to 2012, which means that researchers were able to examine links and relationships within the data over a period of time. It is possible that these results were affected by several factors including type of store and location.
Bain & Company: Trends in Employee Engagement [40]
A survey conducted by Bain & Company in conjunction with Netsurvey found several negative trends associated with employee engagement. This survey analysed responses from 200 000 employees across 40 companies in 60 countries. [40] The major trends consisted of the following: [40]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
This sandbox is being edited as part of a class assignment. This is directly copied from /info/en/?search=Employee_engagement
Employee engagement can be defined as the state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work. [1] Research conducted by Joshi and Sodhi (2011) [2] and Swetha et al. (2014) [3] found that employee engagement is the driving force for business success, as it fosters a positive work environment.
Bhuvanaiah et al. (2014) [4] found that “employee engagement is one of the emerging concepts addressing multiple challenges organisations face such as attrition, company reputation, customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, profitability, and business productivity”. Herzberg (1968) concluded there are six internal motivating factors driving employee performance and engagement: sense of achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, the opportunity for advancement and personal growth. [5] [2] Individual employee engagement can be influenced by culture, religion, sociological factors, economy, lifestyle, and other factors. [6]
A review of research by Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] identified that the single most important factor in driving employee engagement is the immediate manager working relationship with the employee. Academics who specialise in Human Resource Management believe that effective management is an essential factor that is positively correlated with retention rates and the ability to create an environment where employees feel engaged in their workplace. [7] For a manager to be effective in creating an engaged workforce academics have determined that they need possess specific skills required to keep employees aware of their job requirements, creating an effective feedback system to evaluate employee performance, and can provide opportunities for advancement. [7] Eichinger et al.'s (2009) research concludes that all these required managerial skill sets are all positively correlated in creating a positive work environment, and an engaged and productive workforce. [7] This suggests that an organisation with 'enhanced' employee engagement levels have an to expectation to outperform any organisation with reduced levels employee engagement, all else being equal. [8]
It should be noted that a variety of definitions have emerged around the complexity of employee engagement concepts. Research has studied in-depth the requirements, commitment and enhanced productivity of employees, concluding that many of these factors are interlinked. Generating engagement amongst a workforce is a central topic for organisations as opposed to finding different systems to measure it. As a result care must therefore be taken when looking at some of the statistics presented around engagement.
William Kahn created the first formal definition of employee engagement, characterising the term 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". [9] Roberts (2013) [1] later on refined the term as being a state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work for both themselves, their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole.
In 1993, Schmidt et al. proposed a bridge between the pre-existing concept of ' job satisfaction' and employee engagement with the definition: "an employee's involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with work. Employee engagement is a part of employee retention. [10] This definition integrates several components of job satisfaction [11], with organisational commitment. [12]
In his review of employee engagement literature in 2013, Chaplan [13] identified four main sub-concepts within the term:
Employee engagement practices has increased in popularity over the last 20 years,however there is still some variation with respect to academic definitions of employee engagement. [15] These different definitions vary in the weight they give to the individual versus the organisation in creating and maintaining engagement. Despite the variation in the definition of engagement business organisations need to predominantly focus on the actions and investments that they makes in order to bolster employee engagement. [16] [17]
The following theories are examples of team-based causes of employee engagement. They predominantly discuss the relationship between employees and their managers and how this drives employee engagement.
Seijts and Crim (2006) [8] summarise that there are ten "avenues for action" which drive employee engagement, otherwise known as the 'The Ten C's of Employee Engagement'. The Ten C's of Employee Engagement are:
Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] states that the single most important causing factor that drives employee engagement is the immediate manager working relationship. Eichinger et al. (2009) [7] conclude in their research that a good manager is skilled in informing employees of the required task, providing constructive performance feedback, recognising good performance and positive contributions, supporting career development and effective divination and allocation of tasks. [7] Combinations of these factors have been shown to foster positive work environments and increase levels of employee engagement. [7]
According to Frederick Herzberg, there are six internal motivating factors that drive employee engagement. [5] These are: [5]
Jobs which are diverse in nature, are significant, encourage autonomy, and provide performance appraisal are shown by studies to promote internal motivation, personal responsibility and job satisfaction, which are all linked to positive levels of employee engagement. [18] Considering that individuals are motivated and satisfied by different components of their career and work, academics suggest that customising job design based on an individual's characteristics and drivers should bolster employee engagement. [19] Literature concludes that effective job design is integral for an employee to work to the standards of managers and organisations with "undue stress", providing "enough challenge and variety to keep the job performer engaged and motivated".
An example of job design connected to employee engagement relates to the jobs at The Vet Group, which academics believe are designed to encourage specialisation. Work is divided into specific tasks, resulting in each employee becoming very competent and efficient at their assigned tasks. [19] However, specialisation is shown to have a negative impact on employee motivation. [19] Despite that the employee may become very competent at a particular task, lack of variety in work duties can result in boredom and reduced productivity. [19] From this study, a suggested implication is that managers should find the optimal level of specialisation that encourages both employee engagement and productivity. [19]
Each individual employee are motivated by a different set of factors that cause them to remain and continue to be engaged in their job. [5] According to Frederick Herzberg's Motivation and Hygiene factors, pay and remuneration strategies dissatisfy employees, as opposed to motivating them. [13]
There are several frameworks which categories the various levels of employee engagement.
BlessingWhite's framework classifies employee engagement into five categories. These categories are defined by the level of individual contribution towards organisational achievement and satisfaction received from the job. [4]
The Gallup Institute's model is a simplified version of BlessingWhite's framework. [4] It concludes there are three types of engagement levels: [4]
Engagement surveys are a broadly applied approach that enable employees to rate their own levels of engagement. [20] Assuming that all questions are answered truthfully, these surveys provide a qualitative insight into the drivers and inhibitors of employee engagement. [20] The questions for these surveys vary depending on the values of the organisation and the industry in which it is situated. [20] The Gallup Institute's annual employee engagement survey is based on the following criteria: [21]
Organisations cannot ensure that employees' answers are objective using survey-based measurement. [20] Answers can be also be time sensitive due to availability bias, as employees may only think of recent events. [20] There is also the potential for gamed results, where employees tell you what they think you want to know, instead of their true feelings and opinions. [20]
People analytics is a recently developed technology related to big data generation. When applied to employee engagement, organisations can examine engagement levels by analysing quantitative metrics (actual engagement levels) as opposed to qualitative data (self-perceived engagement). [20] Some example metrics include: [20]
Big data technology can be used to determine which factors contribute to the organisation's overall employee engagement levels. [20]
Many managers consider investing in employee engagement an important component of reaching organisational success, as academics have concluded that talent management is strongly correlated with improved business performance. [6] Research has found that organisations that achieve a standard deviation of 0.43 above the median in regards to employee engagement levels experience a "103% higher success rate at the business level" compared to employees situated at the lower end of the median. [15] The following are samples of various organisational consequences.
Several consequences exist at the personal level which employees face in terms of employee engagement. The following are samples of these consequences.
In order to maintain employee engagement, academics believe that managers must keep up with the ever-changing skills of its employees so they can adapt their management style to suit and drive engagement. [6] Managers who express care and concern for their employees' well being, who encourage the development of new key skills, and actively cultivate a supportive work environment, are found to be those who most maintain and increase engagement levels of employees. [29]
Anitha (2013) [29] believes that effective leadership is a crucial skill for managers to utilise in order to effectively drive employee engagement. Effective leadership (being self aware, making decisions carefully and effectively, transparency with employees, consistent moral standards) is found to naturally foster employee engagement, thus is considered by academics to be a more effective method of raising employee engagement levels. [29]
A survey by the Harvard Business Review found that companies who actively seek to foster high levels of employee engagement ensure that goal alignment is clearly communicated by managers (both senior and middle) throughout every level of the organisation. [35] They also implement a variety of engagement initiatives to improve performance such as customer satisfaction surveys and feedback to ensure appropriate alignment of activities linked to high levels of performance. [15]
Involvement Case Studies
In 2000, a group of academics studied 15 steel mills, 17 apparel manufacturers, and 10 electronic instrument and imaging equipment producers, with the intention of comparing traditional production systems with flexible high-performance production systems (designed to increase employee engagement through training, teamwork, and pay and renumeration strategies). [37] The results concluded that in each industry, plants that utilised high-involvement practices performed exceptionally compared to those which utilised traditional systems. [37] Employees at the high-involvement plants exhibited greater positivity for their work and the organisation (including organisational commitment, trust between colleagues, and genuinely enjoying their work). [37] This study is also linked to productivity, employee voice and empowerment. [38]
Several other studies have examined employees in the life insurance industry and the impact of perception (when employees thought they had the autonomy and power to make decisions regarding their work, were sufficiently proficient at their job, and were rewarded for exceptional work). Results concluded that high-involvement management practices were linked positively to retention of employees, morale, and the organisation's financial performance. [37]
Organisational Performance Case Study: Caterpillar [39]
Caterpillar, a construction-equipment maker has achieved notable results from its employee engagement initiatives. The results included:
Aon Hewiitt Case Studies [1]
Aon Hewitt worked with a larger retailer (with over 1000 stores) to analyse linkages between employee engagement and performance measures (sales growth, loss prevention, and customer satisfaction). Their report also discussed key employee engagement drivers and the factors that were deemed most likely to improve and maintain engagement. It was discovered that:
The data analysed was compiled from 2011 to 2012, which means that researchers were able to examine links and relationships within the data over a period of time. It is possible that these results were affected by several factors including type of store and location.
Bain & Company: Trends in Employee Engagement [40]
A survey conducted by Bain & Company in conjunction with Netsurvey found several negative trends associated with employee engagement. This survey analysed responses from 200 000 employees across 40 companies in 60 countries. [40] The major trends consisted of the following: [40]
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)