Employee engagement in Marks and Spencer - Essay Example

? HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - Employee engagement in Marks and Spencer Introduction The structure and the elements of organizational policies depend primarily on the needs of each organization. At the next level, the potential of an organization to respond to the demands of a particular plan needs to be carefully measured in advance, i.e. before implementing the initial phase of the plan. On the other hand, the response of employees to organizational changes cannot be precisely estimated in advance. This problem has been critical in the context of modern organizations; indeed, employee resistance to change is among the key problems of businesses in all industries. In practice it has been proved that when employees are urged to participate in organizational plans, their resistance to the changes initiated is limited. In this context, the use of various strategies for promoting employee participation can be characterized as unavoidable. Employee engagement is a concept reflecting the promotion of employee participation in critical organizational activities. Employee engagement has been described as ‘an individual’s sense of purpose and focused energy, evident to others in the display of personal initiative, adaptability, effort and persistence directed towards organizational goals’ (Macey et al. 2009, p.7, in Albrecht 2010, p.4). In accordance with another definition, employee engagement should be considered as ‘a work – related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al. 2002, p.74, in Albrecht 2010, p.4). From another point of ivew, employee engagement has been characterized as the view that each employee has in regard to his work experience (Finney 2008, p.204) The role of employee engagement in modern organizations is examined in this paper. Reference is made to the employee engagement policies of Marks and Spencer, a well-known British firm. The efforts of the firm to promote employee engagement across its departments are evaluated using the literature developed in the particular field. 2. Marks and Spencer Overview Marks and Spencer is a major competitor in the global retail industry. The firm’s employees are estimated to 78,000, referring to the firm’s stores in UK and worldwide (Marks and Spencer, About us, 2012). The organization is quite expanded in UK, with a network of about 700 stores, but also internationally (Marks and Spencer, About us, 2012). The firm operates in the food sector, with a percentage of 51%, while the activities of the organization in the clothing and homeware represent the 49% of the firm’s sales (Marks and Spencer, About us, 2012). The organization has been in the British market for quite a long period of time, being established in 1901 in Derby (Marks and Spencer, History 2012). Through the decades the growth of the organization has been impressive, as proved through its current position in the international market. 3. Employee engagement in Marks and Spencer - Plan A Employee Engagement scheme 3.1 Key aspects of employee engagement in Marks and Spencer – Presentation and analysis of Plan A Employee Engagement scheme Employee engagement in Marks and Spencer is promoted through a scheme known as Plan A. The specific scheme was introduced in 2007 and is based on 100 targets, which need to have been achieved within 5 years, meaning the period from 2010 up to 2015. The particular plan aims to increase the firm’s competitiveness by promoting the cooperation among employees in regard to the improvement of the firm’s performance in the following sectors: ‘Raw materials, ethical trading, climate change, health, and waste management’ (Marks and Spencer, Plan A, 2012). The above sectors are characterized as the ‘pillars’ (Marks and Spencer Plan A, 2012) on which the firm should focus in order to face all challenges related to the retailing industry. Up today, the performance of the firm’s specific initiative can be characterized as quite important, a view verified by the following fact: In the 6th International Green Awards, Marks and Spencer was nominated as the silver winner, in regard to the category: ‘Best Green Employee Engagement Award’ (6th International Green Awards 2011). In fact, the firm’s activities in regard to sustainability, fair trading and health, have been welcomed by the market, as reflected in a series of other awards given to the organization, as for example, the award of the Responsible Retailer of the Year of 2011, an award given in the context of the Oracle World Retail Awards (Marks and Spencer, Plan A 2012, Climate Change). In a report published in 2011, emphasis was given on the efforts of Marks and Spencer to promote employee engagement, a trend unique for the particular sector, as noted in the particular report (Environmental Leader 2011). It is made clear that employee engagement is highly promoted in Marks and Spencer. The efforts of the organization to increase its performance in the specific sector have positively influenced the organizational performance, as analyzed below. 3.2 Influence of employee engagement on organization In accordance with Wiley (2010) the effectiveness of employee engagement schemes is likely to be reflected in different organizational aspects, depending the sector in which a firm operates. In the retail sector, the success of employee engagement schemes is usually proved through ‘the increase of sales and of net profit’ (Wiley 2010, p.62). In a research developed across the employees of Federal services, it was proved that a high percentage of engaged employees, 87%, ‘perceived that their supervisor had good management skills’ (Marrelli 2010, p.11), meaning that employee engagement is related to effective leadership. The increase of Marks and Spencer competitiveness, as a result of Plan A scheme, is reflected to the following facts: due to its performance in regard to its commitments, as included in Plan A, Marks and Spencer has become an attractive place for work. In fact, in accordance with a report published in 2011, the range and the quality of candidates for positions in Marks and Spencer have been increased; at the same time, the organization’s managers focus on hiring those individuals who are capable to respond to the demands of the organization in regard to employee engagement (Recruiter 2011). At the same time, high skilled individuals seem to prefer Marks and Spencer, compared to other firms operating in the same industry, being positively influenced by the firm’s performance in regard to its commitments, a phenomenon not common in the retail sector where most organizations are likely to ignore the needs of their employees (Sunderland 2010). The financial results of the firm, as presented through its financial statement, indicate that the emphasis on employee engagement has benefited the organization not only in regard to its market image, but also in regard to its profits (Figure 1 & 2, Appendix). 3.3 Evaluation of Marks and Spencer’s engagement policies using relevant theories and examples The effectiveness of Marks and Spencer’s employee engagement policy would be evaluated by referring to the relevant literature. In terms of its theoretical perspectives, employee engagement is usually related to employee motivation. In fact, the theories focusing on employee motivation are likely to be used to evaluate employee engagement, but only if the conditions in the organizational environment allow such initiative. For example, in a firm where employee motivation is not promoted, there would be no use of employee motivation theories for evaluating the organization’s potentials or prospects to develop an effective employee engagement scheme. In accordance with Evans (2010) employee engagement in a specific business could be possibly evaluated using the acquired need theory; the specific theory, which refers primarily to employee motivation, is based on the assumption that within each organization people are motivated only if they are engaged in activities, i.e. tasks, that ‘fulfill their needs’ (Evans 2010, p.368). On the other hand, employee engagement is not necessarily related to employee satisfaction (Cook 2008, p.18). In practice, this means that employees can be loyal to the organization, but they may not be engaged in the organization. At the same level, the satisfaction of employees do not indicate a high level of employee engagement, since the two above concepts are based on different requirements (Cook 2008, p.18). Another, well known, theory that could be possibly used for evaluating the performance of Marks and Spencer employee engagement policy is the goal setting theory. The above theory, which was first introduced in 1911 by Taylor, is based on the view that ‘goals can improve performance’ (Champion 2008, p.17). Reference is made to the goals setting by the employer; these goals need to be achieved by the employees within the time framework that the employer defined (Champion 2008, p.17). Another aspect of employee engagement is reflected in the equity theory; the specific theory is based on the view that employees are likely to be motivated only when they feel that ‘their rewards in regard to their work are in balance with their inputs’ (Champion 2008, p.18). From another point of view, employee engagement has been regarded as having similarities with talent management (Caplan 2011, p.13), in the sense that both the above concepts emphasize on the potentials of employees to develop their capabilities, even if most of them are likely to be related to one or more organizational tasks. Another important tool for evaluating the employee engagement policy of Marks and Spencer would be the X and Y theory of motivation, as developed by McGregor in 1960. The X theory promotes the idea that employee are motivated just because of the money involved (Macey et al. 2011). On the contrary, the Y theory refers to employee motivation as related to the commitment of employees to their role, meaning that employees are motivated not because of economic reasons but because they like to participate in organizational plans, putting all their efforts in accomplishing the tasks assigned to them (Macey et al. 2011). Other theories, like the Hierarchy of needs theory of Maslow and the Two Factor Theory of Herzberg, which are also related to employee motivation, can be also used for evaluating the level of employee engagement within a particular organization (Baker 2009). The use of the above theories for evaluating the performance of Marks and Spencer in regard to employee engagement would lead to the following assumptions: a) employees in Marks and Spencer are given the chance to participate in a wide range of key organizational initiatives which are not related just to the organization but also to the employees, as for example, the efforts for controlling waste or provide healthy food, benefits not only the customers, i.e. the organization, but also the employees, who also become aware of the benefits of such practices. In this context, the terms of the acquired need theory (as described in Evans) and of Y theory of McGregor, are met. Through Plan A employees in Marks and Spencer are also given the chance to discover their talent in regard to a series of activities, a fact that verifies the applicability of the view of Caplan, explained earlier. From a similar point of view, the employee engagement practices of Marks and Spencer can be considered as meeting the terms of the goal setting theory, at the point that the goals in regard to Plan A are set by the organization. However, they are the employees of the firm who mostly initiate the achievement of the goals set. 4. Conclusion The use of employee engagement as a tool for increasing employee performance can be considered as an effective organizational strategy, even if its results within each organization may be differentiated. In Marks and Spencer employee engagement has been used in order to achieve a series of targets: for increasing the commitment of employees to the organization, for supporting communication and cooperation in the internal organizational environment and for improving the firm’s image in the market. The evaluation of the firm’s plan in regard to employee engagement has been based on the following criteria: the findings of the literature in regard to the particular issue, the performance of the organization, as related to employee performance, and the responses of the market to the specific business initiative, as reflected in the firm’s awarding in regard to the specific strategy. It is concluded the plan that Marks and Spencer’s leaders used for promoting employee engagement is quite effective; however, its viability in the future cannot be secured. The turbulences in the firm’s performance during the last years, as indicated in the firm’s financial statements, could possibly affect the firm’s efforts for enhancing employee engagement. Therefore, apart from the measures taken for increasing employee engagement, measures should be also developed for securing employee engagement within the particular organization, even if the relevant risks would be quite difficult to be eliminated. References 6th International Green Awards. 2011. INTERNATIONAL GREEN AWARDS™ 2011. [online] Available at [Accessed 12 February 2012] Albrecht, S. 2010. Handbook of employee engagement: perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Baker, T. 2009. The 8 Values of Highly Productive Companies: Creating Wealth from a New Employment Relationship. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press. Caplan, J. 2011. The Value of Talent: Promoting Talent Management Across the Organization. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Champion, M. 2008. Creating engagement: The use of Expectancy Theory in corporate customer service teams. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Cook, S. 2008. The Essential Guide to Employee Engagement: Better Business Performance Through Staff Satisfaction. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Environmental Leader. 2011. Burt’s Bees, Marks & Spencer Share Staff Engagement Tactics. [online] Available at < http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/31/burts-bees-marks-spencer-share-staff-engagement-tactics/> [Accessed 12 February 2012] Evans, J. 2010. Quality & Performance Excellence. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Finney, M. 2008. Building High-performance People and Organizations: The new employer-employee relationship. Westport: ABC-CLIO. Macey, W., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., and Young, S. 2011. Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Marks and Spencer. 2012. Plan A. [online] Available at < http://plana.marksandspencer.com/> [Accessed 12 February 2012] Marks and Spencer. 2012. Careers. [online] Available at < http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/mscareers> [Accessed 12 February 2012] Marrelli, A. 2010. Managing for Engagement -- Communication, Connection, and Courage. Darby: DIANE Publishing. Recruiter. 2011. Employee engagement key in hiring for M&S. [online] Available at [Accessed 12 February 2012] Storey, J. 2009. The Routledge companion to strategic human resource management. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Sunderland, R. 2010. Employee engagement: are more firms listening to their staff, or are they just paying lip service? [online] The Observer. Available at [Accessed 12 February 2012] Wiley, J. 2010. Strategic Employee Surveys: Evidence-based Guidelines for Driving Organizational Success. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Appendix Figure 1 – Total shareholder return in Marks and Spencer, 2006-2011 (Source: 2011 Annual Report, p.64) Figure 2 – Income of Marks and Spencer, 2010-2011 (Source: 2011 Annual Report, p.76) Read More