Employee engagement

Employee engagement is a concept that is generally viewed as managing discretionary effort, that is, when employees have choices, they will act in a way that furthers their organization's interests. Engaged employees feel a strong emotional bond to the organization that employs them. (Robinson) This is associated with people demonstrating a willingness to recommend the organization to others and commit time and effort to help the organization succeed. (Harter) It suggests that people are motivated by intrinsic factors (e.g. personal growth, working to a common purpose, being part of a larger process) rather than simply focusing on extrinsic factors (e.g. pay / reward). (Ryan) The concept has gained popularity as various studies have demonstrated links with productivity.

In 1999, The Gallup Organization published research that showed that engaged employees are more productive, more profitable, more customer-focused, safer, and less likely to leave their employer. The review stated that “engagement with employees within a firm has shown to motivate the employee to work beyond personal factors and work more for the success of the firm.” (Harter) Watson Wyatt found that high-commitment organizations (one with loyal and dedicated employees) out-performed those with low commitment by 47% in the 2000 study and by 200% in the 2002 study. (Wyatt) In a study of professional service firms, the Hay Group found that offices with engaged employees were up to 43% more productive, based on a comparison of revenue generation. (Hay Group)

Recent research has focused on developing a better understanding of how variables such as quality of work relationships and values of the organization interact and their link to important work outcomes. (Hulme) From the perspective of the employee, “outcomes” range from strong commitment to the isolation of oneself from the organization. (Seijts) The study done by the Gallup Management Journal has shown that only 29 percent of employees are actively engaged in their jobs. Those “engaged” employees work with passion and feel a strong connection to their company. Moreover, 54 percent of employees are not engaged meaning that they go through each workday putting time but no passion into their work. Also, Seventeen percent of employees are actively disengaged, meaning that they are busy acting out of their own personal unhappiness, which undermines what their engaged co-workers are trying to accomplish. (Seijts)

Access to a reliable model enables organizations to conduct validation studies to establish the relationship of employee engagement to productivity/performance and other measures linked to effectiveness. (Hulme)

It is an important principle of occupational psychology (i.e. the application of psychological theories, research methods, and intervention strategies involving workplace issues) that validation studies should be anchored in reliable scales (i.e. organized and related groups of items) and not simply focus on individual elements in isolation. To understand how high levels of employee engagement affect organizational performance/productivity it is important to have an a priori model that demonstrates how the scales interact. (Konrad) There is also overlap between this concept and those relating to well-being at work and the psychological contract. (Robinson)

As employee productivity is clearly connected with employee engagement, creating an environment that encourages employee engagement is considered to be essential in the effective management of human capital. (Seijts)

Current studies suggest that employee engagement will be influenced by:

1. • Employee perceptions of job importance. This study has found that “…an employees attitude toward the job[‘s importance] and the company had the greatest impact on loyalty and customer service then all other employee factors combined.” (Seijts)

2. • Employee clarity of job expectations. “If expectations are not clear and basic materials and equipment not provided, negative emotions such as boredom or resentment may result, and the employee may then become focused on surviving more then thinking about how he can help the organization succeed.” (Harter)

3. • Career advancement/improvement opportunities. “Plant supervisors and managers indicated that many plant improvements were being made outside the suggestion system, where employees initiated changes in order to reap the bonuses generated by the subsequent cost savings.” (Konrad)

4. • Regular feedback and dialogue with superiors. “Feedback is the key to giving employees a sense of where they’re going, but many organizations are remarkably bad at giving it.” (Hay Group) “‘What I really wanted to hear was ‘Thanks. You did a good job.’ But all my boss did was hand me a check.’” (Hay Group)

5. • Quality of working relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates. “…if employee’s relationship with their managers is fractured, then no amount of perks will persuade the employees to perform at top levels. Employee engagement is a direct reflection of how employees feel about their relationship with the boss.” (Seijts)

6. • Perceptions of the ethos and values of the organization. “‘Inspiration and values’ is the most important of the six drivers in our Engaged Performance model. Inspirational leadership is the ultimate perk. In its absence, [it] is unlikely to engage employees.” (Hay Group)

As additional research becomes available, the significance of the various factors will become more evident.

See also

• Organizational commitment
• Empowerment
• Flow (psychology)
• Positive Psychology

The main article for this category is Human resource management.

See also: Category:Employee relations

Resources for Evidence

1. "Employee Commitment Remains Unchanged..." Watson Wyatt Worldwide. 2002. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
2. "Engage Employees and Boost Performance" (PDF). Hay Group. 2002. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
3. Harter, James K., Frank L. Schmidt, and Corey L. M. Keyes (2003). "Well-Being in the Workplace and its Relationships to Business Outcomes" (PDF). Flourishing: The Positive Person and the Good Life: 205–244. Retrieved 2006-11-08.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Hulme, Virginia A. (2006). "What Distinguishes the Best from the Rest". China Business Review. Retrieved 2006-11-14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
5. Konrad, Alison M (2006). "Engaging Employees through High-Involvement Work Practices". Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-14. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
6. Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday (2004). "The Drivers of Employee Engagement". Institute for Employment Studies. Retrieved 2006-11-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
7. Robinson, Dilys and Sue Hayday (2003). "Employee Engagement". In Brief (129). Retrieved 2006-11-06.
8. Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (2000). "Self-Determination Theory and Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being" (PDF). American Psychologist Association. 55: 68–78. Retrieved 2006-11-06. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
9. Seijts, Gerard H. and Dan Crim (2006). "The Ten C's of Employee Engagement". Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-09. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |journal= at position 15 (help)
10. Shaffer, Jim, The Leadership Solution (McGraw-Hill, 2006)