Employee Engagement - Essay Example

?Running Head: essay Employee Engagement of the of the of the Introduction Employee engagement is an umbrella concept which covers other popular individual behavior theories of motivation, team spirit, leadership, empowerment, etc. Thriving in specifications of organizational behavior, we often ignore the basics and implications of the wider domain giving birth to these critical components. Eminent researchers have talked a lot about human resources management and related concerns. However, employee engagement is fast emerging as the new buzzword in research arena owing to its greater significance and broad coverage in business and performance parlance. Practitioners are fast recognizing the benefits that could be reaped in by concentrating on fundamentals of employee engagement. In the meanwhile, challenges that are anticipated to be confronted in this journey make the topic of employee engagement interesting and worth analyzing. Meaning of employee engagement Engagement in layman terms means attached or associated with. Translating it to employee perspective, employee engagement refers to situation where employees are both physically and mentally linked to their jobs (Pati and Kumar 2010, 126). Engagement in job is measured in terms of motivation level, creativity, volunteerism, enthusiasm, absenteeism, customer satisfaction, retention and inspiration (Centaur Communication 2007, 40). Unlike unengaged employees, engaged employees are dedicated to their work and put in their best efforts into the tasks because they love their job. They feel happy and satisfied of their activities, accomplishments and efforts and are always striving to better their performance. An important component in employee engagement is the emotional connection between the employee and the work. In employee engagement, employees always feel attracted towards their work. Success delights them while failure encourages them. Not only time, employee engagement is characterized by heart and mind involvement by employees (Seijts and Crim 2006, 3). Managerial benefits associated with employee engagement The reason employee engagement is being emphasized upon by business and managerial community so aggressively lies in multifarious advantages accrued by this single ideology. Though employee engagement is a concept pointed towards individual behavioral patterns, implications of changes in this individual pattern get explicitly reflected in terms of organizational performance, profitability and productivity. Typically, employees are made aware of their job duties, roles and responsibilities the time they are inducted in the organization. However, clarity of function is one aspect achieved by engagement of employee in his/her work which implies ‘above and beyond’ involvement of employees in their black and white job roles. Nowadays, business and markets are marked by fast paced technology, cut throat competition and urge to be innovative in product and service offerings. In this light, the onus of transforming inputs into outputs with limited tangibles rest on employees. Cost effectiveness and efficiency matter the most now where making optimum use of productivity from employees forms the cornerstone to success. In this light, unanticipated and dynamic business environment pose multiple challenges in front of employees to cope up with decision making, maintaining commitment and motivation levels and be clear of the changing and broadened roles and responsibilities. Employee engagement serves as a tool which infuses interest, understanding and consistency in employee functioning which facilitates aligning individual goals with that of the corporate objectives (Masson et al. 2008, 56). Optimism is a direct benefit derived from employee engagement which refers to maintaining a positive mind set and feeling good about the processes and outcomes of unforeseen events. Optimism as a psychological term is very crucial for an individual, group or organization. Individually, optimism supplies with the requisite power and drive to stay focused on the set objectives and helps maintain the vigor and attitude no matter what may come. In group and organizational perspective, this component of employee engagement aids in establishing and maintaining a supportive and healthier workplace environment. A disengaged employee who is pessimistic about his activities and outcomes not only starts acting on his cloudy perceptions, but also affects the working and achievements of others. Optimistic engagement by employees leads to attention given on favorable aspects of situations and helps drive negative vibes out of the place. This is a direct factor behind enhanced employee, group and organizational performance (Medlin and Ken 2008, 52). Employee engagement also helps organizations in developing proper recruitment, training, development and compensation plans for their employees (Bonadio 2008, 3). This happens effectively and goes well because unlike top-down approach where plans trickle down the hierarchy levels and are imposed on employees, employee engagement allows bottom-up setting of organizational planning. This gives operational and real time insights to the top management from the actual observation of employees and leads to cost effective strategies and plans in place. Chances of acceptance are increased through this setting. Monitoring and feedback are two essential management techniques used to keep check on employee performance and account for any deviations. With employee engagement intact, employees become active brand ambassadors of the company and regard organizational growth and success as their own. Engaged employee automatically keeps a check on his surrounding activities and performances of his colleagues and co-workers without any specific command to do so. This is because his own activity and task success in directly or indirectly related and influenced by works done and accomplished by others. Thus, a sense of inter-dependency and bonding is established between the employee and the work settings (Vazirani 2007, 4). Another theory supporting employee engagement is the social setting of businesses in which employer-employee relationship nurtures. Traditionally, a contractual agreement follows between employer and employee which is guided by brief and succinct directions, commands and authority. In the absence of employee engagement, chances are less likely that employee will take initiatives; feel empowered or come out as a creative being in the furtherance of business progress. This is so because the emotional construct is still not developed between the employee and his job and he regards power and authority as the prima facie evidence of the job which is percolating down from the employer end. In the presence of employee engagement, collaborative relationship replaces the authoritarian agreement and employees feel free to take on greater challenges, diverse roles, handle greater pressures and incorporate leadership in their own activity arena. Further revelations of employee engagement benefits turn out to be financial, managerial, and strategical. Employee engagement is an intangible asset for an organization which culminates in higher employee productivity and retention, better financial performance, increased customer satisfaction and loyalty and overall image of the company in terms of quality, responsiveness and efficiency (Vazirani 2007, 6). With people and knowledge management emerging as the most frequently talked about management discoveries, employee engagement holds a prioritized position in this category whereby exchange of knowledge- technical, tacit and interpersonal, all takes place when employees are enthusiastic and are willing to add value to the business by improving their existing skill set and contributing the same for their peers and co-workers. Managerial challenges associated with employee engagement Nothing is as smooth as it seems to be. Likewise, benefits derived from employee engagement are not that easy to be administered. Though being an individual concern, yet complete organizational dynamics works behind the scenes to assure that employee engagement is actually present in the organization. As for instance, a talented employee came up with some innovative ideas during a workshop which he did not let his boss know earlier. On asking the reason, it came out to be insufficient pay for his job. Superficially, this dilemma can be attributed to the psyche of the employee but on careful analysis, it brings forth the organizational culture and the work settings which prevented him to act a bar raised of his job standard. With regard to managerial challenges faced while ensuring optimum levels of employee engagement, several factors work in tandem and include culture, competence, control, clarity, composition, cooperation, communication, conflicts, change and compensation. In a way, entire management gets poured down into this single concept of employee engagement when challenges are being discussed. The Banff Centre (n.d, 1) strikes the most critical cord of employee engagement challenge when he describes how employee engagement is getting affected by a conflict in the professional and work life balance of employees. While most of the employees are feeling overburdened by odd working hours, paradoxical situation of un-extracted creativity, passion and ingenuity also follows. Thus, organizational settings are not providing the requisite workplaces to their employees which could get the maximum devotion and dedication from the employees in the pre-defined time and work limits. Further, increased work load and multiple business scenarios have lead to increased expectations and demands from employees proving detrimental to their health and development. Burgeoning expectations has led employees compare and contrast the returns received with a balance between equity and emotion of their and peer’s jobs. With widespread use of information and communication technology, employees are already feeling out of place and context with no competency and ability left to compete. Obvious repercussions are cynicism, absenteeism, ambiguity in work roles, frustration, distrust and disillusionment (Cartwright and Holmes 2006, 200). Now most of the employees feel their qualifications obsolete and trend of ‘Young Turks’ holding the pulse of innovation and success in organizations is fast driving away experienced engagement from work. Employee engagement is influenced to a greater extent by the age composition of the coworker group (Avery et al. 2007, 1552). Employees tend to feel more comfortable in their similar age group and feel more satisfied working together with people sharing same perception and work knowledge. However, present times highlight widened gap between such similarities and two groups of older and younger workforce can be seen in almost every organization. While older are proud of their experience and feel no need to change at this stage of their professional life, younger workforce is all set to defeat the experienced lot with their ambitious plans and tactics. Bringing these two elements of successful workplace together seems to be one of the biggest challenges in ensuring employee engagement. In this light, leadership is the prime culprit making most of the worsening. Leadership is all about making work meaningful to the followers and letting employees know their worth and role in the organization. As mentioned earlier, leaders till now have been trying to engage only the hands of employees into the work whereas demand is of engaging both their heads and hearts into it (The Banff Centre n.d, 2). When talking of leadership, it is an on going process in an organization which accounts for maintaining organizational trust, driving out cynicism from the workplace by encouraging employees and appraising them for their accomplishment, helping employees to become self-reliant and making arrangements in the organizational management to link job demands of employees with the available resources (Crawford et al. 2010, 835). Attachment theory defines the affection and bonding which is developed between humans as a natural tendency. If attachment between two individuals is based on quality, rapport and security, individuals’ belief in the work and behavior gets firmly anchored. In the case of leader and follower too, a leader is entrusted with the task of building the feeling of organizational trust among employees (Lin 2010, 519). Organizational trust comes from the assurance that utilitarian approach will be taken while considering the economic benefits of employees, they will be considered as stakeholders in the organization, corporate citizenship will be accorded to the employees and ethical stance will be taken in case of illegitimate happenings. Evidence of such factors in place confirms the involvement of employees in their work settings because the security aspect is dealt with in depth. It is a universal fact that every job has its own risk factors, demands and resources, but what enables an employee to remain consistent and stable to all kinds of requirements is the self-efficacy and support received from all levels of management in the organization. Self efficacy is the phenomenon when the employee is himself aware of the desirous effects of the work and puts in the best efforts to derive maximum results (Pati and Kumar 2010, 127). If supervisory and organizational support gets attached, chances of burnout are minimized (Crawford et al. 2010, 834). Conclusion Analyzing the pros and cons of employee engagement, one thing that was pretty much obvious is the role of leadership which could turn things around. Leadership is one function which can create wonders and mould the behavior of employees in the desired manner. In this regard, the ten Cs of leadership which can ensure employee engagement are connect, career, clarity, convey, congratulate, contribute, control, collaborate, credibility and confidence (Seijts and Crim 2006, 3). The more these ten Cs are adhered to by leaders in the organization, the higher the employee engagement will be. References Avery, Derek. R, McKay, Patrick. F and David, C. Wilson. 2007. “Engaging the Aging Workforce: The Relationship between Perceived Age Similarity, Satisfaction with Coworkers, and Employee Engagement.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6): 1542-1556 Bonadio, Steve. 2008. “Improving Employee Engagement to Drive Business Performance.” Softscape White Paper Cartwright, Susan and Nicola Holmes. 2006. “The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism.” Human Resource Management Review, 16: 199-208 Crawford, Eean. R, LePine, Jeffery. A and Rich, L. Bruce. 2010. “Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytical Test.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (5): 834-848 “Employee Engagement”. 2007. Centaur Communication. Accessed January 23, 2011. http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk Lin, Chieh-Peng. 2010. “Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust and Work Engagement based on Attachment Theory.” Journal of Business Ethics, 94: 517-531 Masson, Rebecca. C, Royal, Mark. A, Agnew, Tom. G and Saul Fine. 2008. “Leveraging Employee Engagement: The Practical Implications.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 56-59 Medlin, Bobby and Jr. Green Ken. 2008. “The Relationship among Goal Setting, Optimism, and Engagement: The Impact on Employee Performance.” Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13 (1): 51-56 Molinaro, Vince and David, Weiss. “Driving Employee Engagement”. The Banff Centre. Accessed January 23, 2011. http://www.banffleadership.com Pati, Surya. P and Pankaj Kumar. 2010. “Employee Engagement: Role of Self-efficacy, Organizational Support and Supervisor Support.” The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (1): 126-137 Seijts, Gerald. H and Dan Crim. 2006. “What engages employees the most or, The Ten C’s of Employee Engagement.” IVEY Business Journal, 1-5 Vazirani, Nitin. 2007. “Employee Engagement.” SIES Working Paper Series, 1-17 Read More