Employee Engagement In The Global World And Its Challenges - Essay Example

Employee Engagement In The Global World And Its Challenges Employee engagement is basically descriptive of a person’s level of negative or positive emotional attachment to their establishment, their co-workers, and their job. This meaning of employee engagement has grown to be the accepted global standard for a number of reasons. These include: 1. It being measurable through the employment of a survey questionnaire certified to measure the fifteen engagement drivers 2. It supplying leadership with a cause and effect basis that can productively influence 3. It having the capacity to develop business performance when utilized as a function of leadership. Adopting a fundamental explanation of employee engagement is the first step to ensuring efficient management in an organization. Positive employee engagement is vital to the success of a business’s objectives. In most organizations today, in spite of earnest efforts to engage workers, many employees are losing faith in the abilities of their employers (Attridge, 2009). From a management standpoint, engagement describes the practice of leading workers by making it possible for them to actively desire to participate in functions and operations that are necessary for the continued success of a business establishment. From the workers’ standpoint engagement refers to their individual emotional and attitudinal state which comes from experiences that the workers believe are controlled by the management. These experiences are the processes that determine how much the workers desire to be engaged. If employers ensure that these experiences are positive, they will be successful in can stimulating a basic desire in their workers to consistently work to their greatest capacity. Employee engagement can actually be referred to as the opposite of an authoritative leadership that decides what work all workers should engage in, how they should do it, and with what attitude they should do it. The presumption in the business world is that a business’s engagement level forecasts the positive concentration as well as collective effort that a firm can expect from workers within job confines. Many businesses have also observed that having workers with enormous talent, but who are not engaged for their opinions is poor value. The economic value of engagement can comprise of higher quality goods, lower direct supervision costs, higher customer loyalty, higher revenue per employee, more innovation events, a steady increase in stock price, and higher return on human capital. Quality Employee Engagement Measurement Significant engagement evaluation is resultant from attitude categorization psychometrics and is gathered through survey responses to a whole list of questions regarding workers’ experiences and feelings toward established engagement “drivers” (Castillo and Cano, 2004). An employee study that correctly can measure employee engagement is empirically legalized to assess the 15 established drivers of engagement which deeply influence on-the-job effort and behaviour. The responses as well as the intensity of the workers’ responses to these drivers should be contrasted against important ranges that give the results meaning. Many times, business’s seeking to measure employee engagement will assess the wrong drivers and end up adjusting or altering the wrong things so that employee engagement levels continue to deteriorate. Engagement ratios indexes and are best calculated from workers’ responses to questions examining the 15 universal extrinsic and intrinsic engagement drivers (Berman, Bowman, West and Van Wart, 2006). This gives the basis for categorizing the engagement level, and every worker’s level of negative or positive emotional attachment to the business and its objectives. It is vital to automatically merge that information into different workgroup profiles to make sure that all respondents are guaranteed anonymity. Correct engagement profiles make it effortless to handle important opportunities for enhancement and give rise to valuable action plans that engage employees in better ways. What Engagement is not The subject of employee engagement is frequently confused with that of employee satisfaction. Satisfaction is basically a minimum attitude standard that was formed in the age of mass production which was began in the previous century to discourage militancy by recognizing and eliminating irritants. Satisfied workers are not endeared to their bosses in the same way that positively engaged workers are – they are merely not irritated. Nor does employee engagement comprise a score of attitude-based questions that can be manipulated. Having a close friend in one’s working place, though pleasant, is not a plausible aspect of engagement (Skemp-Arlt and Toupence, 2007). Employee engagement, when missing, is not a factor that employers can repair by constructing cleaner bathrooms or giving more time for lunch time breaks. Engagement awards and extravagant benefits do not improve either workers’ performance or engagement. To be beneficial and sustainable, employee engagement has to be scientifically measured, credibly defined and meticulously handled as a leadership performance necessity. As the CEO of the celebrated Southwest Airlines stated not so long ago “Leadership is efficiently supporting your team of workers” (Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt and Diehl, 2009). Engagement Measurement Management To successfully manage engagement, it is vital for leaders to fully comprehend engagement drivers and consider both group and individual engagement and when creating action plans. Doing so makes sure that there is a balance between workers’ personal needs at every engagement level and the corresponding unanimity at the group level. Hence, leaders have the information to complete an engagement survey’s commercial purpose, which is to enhance economic contribution along with the corporate objectives while enhancing each worker’s desire to be fully committed to the organization. When business leaders are meticulous in executing their action plans based on employee engagement drivers, their workers slowly become intrinsically inspired to give their best efforts (Mone and London, 2010). The Business Case for Managing Engagement Business leaders should seek to fully appreciate the technicalities of employee engagement since this is why most engagement practices are unsuccessful. When measured appropriately, employee engagement drivers give the management statistical methods of capitalizing on return on human capital (ROHC) (Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt and Diehl, 2009). For example, a recent study conducted on employee engagement showed that the workers that are deemed as being positively engaged have a higher than standard rate of personal productivity and stay with their employers for longer periods of time than their disengaged counterparts. Additionally, the efforts of the employees who are fully engaged have a more positive intensity when compared to those of less-engaged workers. Employees who are engaged render their duties in such an efficient manner that their financial contributions to their organizations constantly surpass their employment costs. From the perspective of the worker’s quality of work life, positively engaged workers are usually enthusiastic and energetic. This makes them more productive in team efforts, and pleasant to work with. Past researches on employee engagement have also shown that fully engaged workers have lower instances of absenteeism and tend to solve problems on their own. Essentially, the higher the percentage of engaged employees in an organization, the higher the likelihood of that organization enjoying continued success (Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt and Diehl, 2009). In the present business world of shifting markets and intellectual capital that is difficult to measure, true employee engagement is perceived as being a decisive competitive advantage. Talent, when combined with employee engagement, generates premium value and team engagement is the driving force which will ensure the success of most business establishments. When correctly described, calculated and managed, employee engagement is a consistent forecaster of future employee performance as well as the efforts that might propel a company to new heights. Challenges to Effective Employee Engagement There are some factors that can make employee engagement a difficult undertaking. Sometimes employers use engagement initiatives that are totally unsuitable to the business environment. This may be a result of not consulting with employees about what might be necessary to engage the labour force. Even if such initiatives are successful in realizing some objectives, it is important for employers to ensure that they use the right methods. Employees can develop an entitlement culture if they are awarded or recognized for initiatives that they had nothing to do with. Employers may also seek to get information or encourage practices among employees that are not feasible. For example, if employers decide that all workers can be engaged or stimulated by motivational speeches, they may be unsuccessful in stirring workers who have never engaged in any self reflection and, therefore, are unaware of what might motivate them (Skemp-Arlt and Toupence, 2007). In such cases, employers of company chief executives might need to hire experienced industrial psychologists who are in a position to understand the stage at which the employees are as well as how to inspire or motivate them to do their best. Company heads and managers should also strive to make sure that tasks that have to do with employee engagement are not viewed as being the responsibility of the human resources department. All the department heads should contribute towards ensuring that their employees feel engaged. When other department heads are reluctant to take responsibility for making such decisions, they will usually procrastinate. The reasons they usually give for doing this include the fact that they are still searching for the ideal engagement solutions before determining how to effectively implement them. This will simply make the final implementation of engagement objectives a harder task to accomplish. The challenges to employee engagement can be divided into five different categories: 1. Issues Related to Proving Its Business Impact While employee engagement may result in enhanced productivity, it is not the equal of productivity. Workers may be highly engaged in their workplaces, and have emotional connections to their responsibilities, but may not deliver well on the matter of corporate objectives (Mone and London, 2010). On the other hand, it’s possible for a worker to perform outstandingly, but not be interested or fully engaged in their duties. External aspects can also have an effect on engagement. Concerns like personal crises, the cost of living, and life stresses can all influence a worker’s engagement, though none of these issues are directly associated with the worker’s feelings about work. 2. Issues about the Actions taken to improve Engagement Research results from employee engagement studies may not be practical. Engagement as measured by researches, usually discloses employees’ engagement levels, but not the fundamental causes of those engagement levels. It is hard to tell the actions that result in the strongest actions that advance engagement, and even once they are acknowledged, it may take time for the effects of the actions to be felt. In addition, diverse generations in the same workplace are usually engaged by different factors. This is a fact that increases the complicatedness present in deciding which action steps to take in order to improve engagement. 3. Issues concerning the Survey Process Many surveys expose workers’ discernments on engagement levels, and not the real causes of employee disengagement. Also, the responses provided by employees may be undependable. The anonymity required means that engagement efforts cannot be aimed at the particular individuals or groups that need them most (Federman, 2009). 4. Manager Concerns This point has to do with the real ‘owner’ of the engagement process. Managers usually feel that employee engagement is something that ought to be dealt with by the human resources department. Moreover, the people at the HR department are not the ones that are involved with workers on a daily basis. Managers have to take ownership of engagement initiatives (Berman, Bowman, West and Van Wart, 2006). They should also be rewarded for the efforts they make in this respect. Past researches have shown that managers are not usually recognized for any efforts they make in terms of encouraging employee engagement, and so they are less willing to be part of that process in many organizations. 5. Issues concerning Engagement Program Administration Specific metrics and objectives of employee engagement plans are usually limited. Many corporations employ the companywide engagement score to measure employee engagement. This makes it difficult for engagement initiatives to get the time and attention they require as it is hard to show all of the special areas in which employee engagement initiatives are having a definitive effect (Castillo and Cano, 2004). Employee engagement essentially serves to offer a positive environment where workers are free to contribute, and yearn to contribute, more of their efforts, energy, and thought processes in ways that considerably affect corporate objectives. The Towers Perrin report has in the past given evidence that corporations that choose to invest attention as well as time in career development, leadership, relevant rewards, and management will ultimately be perceived as being the employers of choice and are likely to be able to successfully engage their personnel (Towers, 2006). Such investment is not easily realized, but it is worth considering. Among different behavioural theories that have long been used by different companies are those of Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg. Herzberg, a psychologist, came up with a theory about job factors that inspire workers. Maslow, a contemporary of Herzberg's and a behavioural scientist, came up with a theory about the importance and satisfaction of different human needs and how individuals base these needs (Latham, 2011). Maslow’s motivational theory is typically used to solve issues by understanding every worker’s human motivation (Ramlall, 2004). This is because the human needs that have been met will no longer give motivation to the workers. In Maslow’s hierarchy there are five needs mentioned-from safety, physiological, social esteem, to self - actualization. In this assumption, the personal growth of workers is vital to the corporation’s success (Latham, 2011). Supervisors have to identify workers’ needs and use them to advance job satisfaction. If they accomplish this, the workers will move towards self-actualization, and will develop the institution further in the process. The practices, rewards, and programs that corporate supervisors or managers can use to meet employee needs include: Physiological (Basic) Needs providing an agreeable and comfortable working environment offering an adequate salary Security Needs observing safety regulations reducing the number of layoffs offering well-articulated job descriptions Minimize instances of threatening behaviour expressed by senior managers offering information about the business's economic status as well as future projections offering "just" compensation and fringe benefits Social Needs Using the team concept to accomplish different projects Making use of job satisfaction assessments sponsoring social meetings and office businesses conventions supplying close personal leadership styles encouraging participation of workers in community as well as professional groups compensating workers on the basis of total group performance (Ramlall, 2004) Self-Esteem Needs including workers in decision-making as well as goal-setting procedures offering opportunities to exhibit talents and skills supplying recognition symbols like print names on stationery giving opportunities for further development of workers as well as coaching making use of a constructive reinforcement programs Pay attention to office location, office size, and parking spaces establishing a mentorship program Self-Actualization Needs Encouraging workers to develop a career-development map using job rotation to expand the experiences of individual workers as well as give them exposure proffering the most favourable risk-taking opportunities stimulating direct-access communication with customers, clients, vendors, and suppliers offering challenging external as well as internal professional growth opportunities giving supportive leadership that inspires an elevated level of self-control (Latham, 2011) Herzberg’s Hygiene Motivator Theory Herzberg’s hygiene motivator theory states that the lack of definite basics in the workplace will function as a de-motivator of a company’s workers, even though the presence of these same aspects does not actually motivate workers in any workplace or organization. Herzberg called certain elements “hygiene” elements, instead of using the expression ‘true motivators’ (Smerek and Marvin, 2007). These hygiene basics include security, pay, peer relationships, status, supervisor and subordinate associations, company administration and policy, supervision and work conditions. According to Herzberg’s hypothesis, the hygiene factors only have an effect on job dissatisfaction, but not the improvement of job satisfaction (Bernstein 2011). These hygiene factors will not generate positive motivation or methods of creating constructive employee engagement (Smerek and Marvin, 2007). Herzberg’s theory named factual motivating factors like recognition, achievement, responsibility, the work itself, opportunities for growth, and advancement (Smerek and Marvin, 2007). These are the aspects that result in extreme job satisfaction. Herzberg affirmed that a manager’s attention must move from hygiene factors and be centred on satisfier/motivator factors. Increased employee engagement does not take place just because the corporate management wishes for it to occur. In the first place, the selection and employment procedure can assist in setting the stage for the anticipation of employee engagement (Smerek and Marvin, 2007). Realistically, such engagement does not take place every time a worker is employed, but the quality of hiring is decisive. A Towers Perrin study illustrated the fact that higher employee engagement leads to lower labour costs, greater customer satisfaction, and a favourable effect on the business’s bottom line (Towers, 2006). Towers Perrin has come up with a corporate based survey for assessing the level of employee engagement. It uses some nine factors to delineate employee engagement in any given institution. These nine factors are: The understanding that the senior management has a deep interest in their workers’ well being The corporation offers challenging work Workers have the authority to make appropriate decisions concerning their duties The business cares a deeply about achieving consumer satisfaction Workers have excellent opportunities for career growth The business has a reputation as a first-rate employer Workers regularly participate in and function well in team work Workers have the necessary assets to execute jobs through high quality means Workers regularly contribute to decision-making The business’s senior management communicates a comprehensible vision to its workers in order to ensure long-term success (Smerek and Marvin, 2007). All these nine elements relate to the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory. They illustrate how constructing a positive corporate culture is not an accidental undertaking but a lot of effort. The implementation of any kind of change usually calls for a constructive leadership style as well as the management’s commitment in order to influence the whole corporate culture. Usually, an outsider who is working with the senior management is needed, particularly when a corporation is looking to raise employee engagement. Afterwards, sporadic episodes of adjustment and re-evaluation are necessary to ensure that the level of engagement has not begun to decline. This process can be referred to as ‘planned performance management for optimizing employee engagement’ (Attridge, 2009). Outside consultant are useful when undertaking practices that develop employee engagement because if elements from the organization are used, self-serving agendas and internal politics from within the corporation can hamper the results. Most corporations require a master architect to assist in making the whole employee engagement idea a reality. This architect must have a background in organizational development and design. He or she initially makes out and identifies the puzzle pieces of a particular business. After this, a gap analysis has to be performed. This investigation will identify the present state of the corporation’s dynamics and culture against the desired end state. Conclusion There will probably be sensitive barriers that have to be overcome when a corporation seeks to encourage employee engagement. Usually, the impediments include long-standing worker mind sets and attitudes. Resistance, particularly among the workers, to change is usually quite difficult to conquer. Only an experienced consultant can assist in trouncing this resistance. Frequent feedback and contact sessions with the high ranking executives has to be a common occurrence for such efforts to be successful. If this does not take place, it is likely that something will jeopardize the whole project. References Attridge, M. (2009) ‘Measuring and managing employee work engagement: a review of the research and business literature,’ Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, vol. 24, pp. 383-398. Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P. & Van Wart, M. (2006) Human resource management in public service: paradoxes, processes, and problems, Sage Publications, Inc, New York. Bernstein, A.M. (2011) ‘A Herzbergian look at academic librarians and job satisfaction’, Georgia Library Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, p. 6. Castillo, J.X. & Cano, J. (2004) ‘Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty’, Journal of Agricultural Education, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 74-75. Federman, B. (2009) Employee engagement: a roadmap for creating profits, optimizing performance, and increasing loyalty, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Latham, G. (2011) Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, New York. Mone, E.M. & London, M. (2010) Employee engagement through effective performance management: a practical guide for managers, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York Ramlall, S. (2004) ‘A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations,’ American Academy of Business, vol. 5, pp. 52–63. Skemp-Arlt, K.M. & Toupence, R. (2007) ‘The administrator’s role in employee motivation,’ Coach & Athletic Director, vol. 76, no. 7, p. 28. Smerek, R. & Marvin, P. (2007) ‘Examining Herzberg’s theory: improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at university’, Research in Higher Education, vol. 48, no. 2, p. 229. Towers, P. (2006) ‘Rapid engagement diagnostic survey,’ Compensation and Benefits Network of Greater St. Louis. Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D. & Diehl, J. (2009) ‘Beyond engagement: toward a framework and operational definition for employee work passion,’ Human Resource Development Review, vol. 8, pp. 300-326. Read More