International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
A Study on Employee Engagement Models for Sustainability of Organisation
1Bhagyasree Padhi, 2Aruna Kumar Panda
1Gandhi Engineering College, Bhubaneswar
2International Society for Social Services (ISSS) Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7 (Odisha)
Abstract ; Out of several resources available to the organizations, management of human resource, in general, and keeping the employees engaged in the work place, in particular, has become the most sensitive aspect that plays a crucial role in the success or failure of the business today.
Dealing with employee engagement is nothing but handling successfully the complex feelings, emotions and psychological state of minds of the employees. While engaged employees have a positive attitude and self- commitment to deliver better outcomes for the success of the organization; an imbalance in the ‘effort-reward’ or
‘work-life’ would essentially generate higher stress among the employees that may result burnout and further staff- turnover in the organization. In this study, attempts have been made to discuss the meaning and significance of the employee engagement in the organization. Further, various models related to employee engagement have been discussed and the factors that keep the employees motivated and engaged have been highlighted. The study suggests that the management should be cautious enough to take care of the employees in the way that they should feel valued and involved in the work. The emotional and psychological availability and a cordial relationship of the employees with their co-workers and supervisors should be the essence of employee engagement.
Key Words :Employee engagement, Employee engagement models, Drivers of employee engagement, Rewards and recognitions, Community and social support, Fairness and justice, Sustainable workload, Supportive work community, Effort-reward imbalance, Work-life-work imbalance, stress, Job burnout.
I. INTRODUCTION
Employees are the key component of every organization as they are critical to its viability and the competitiveness. Engaged employees are considered as most valuable asset for every organization (Kumar and Sia, 2012; Khan, 2013). High level of employee engagement in domestic and global firms promotes retention of talent, fosters customer loyalty, and improves organizational performance and stakeholder‟s value (Harter et al., 2002; Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006;
Lockwood, 2007; Molinaro and Weiss, 2008; Markos and Sridevi, 2010). Engaged employees deliver better outcome with a positive attitude towards the organization and its values, which is important for its
growth and development (Robinson et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). Thus communicating to the employees, making them feel valued and inculcating a strong corporate culture have been considered vital for the management of every organization (Kontakos, 2007; Holwerda, 2007;
Sengupta and Ramadoss, 2010; Panda, 2011; Xu and Thomas, 2011; Shuck and Herd, 2012).
II. UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Employee engagement was conceptualized during the Nineteen Century and became more prominent in the present era of turbo-globalism and hyper-competition, keeping in mind the productivity and prosperity of both the employees and the organizations, as a whole. In the World of research, several postulates were formulated in relation to employee engagement and definitions were derived from various perspectives. Kahn (1990) viewed
„engagement‟ to be the simultaneous employment and expression of a person‟s preferred self in task behaviours that promote connections to work and others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance. Further, Rothbard (2001) explained it as the „psychological‟ presence including attention, or cognitive availability of the employee spending time in thinking about a role and his intensity of focus on the role. It refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by a personal involvement with enthusiasm, vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2002). Essentially, it is a two- way relationship between the employer and the employees, where the employees are positively, emotionally and intellectually committed to their organization and its success, largely by providing discretionary effort on a sustainable basis (Tower-Perrin, 2003; Hewitt Associates, 2004; Robinson et al., 2004).
On this context, Vaijayanthi et al., (2011) expressed
„employee engagement‟ as a measurable degree of an employee‟s positive or negative emotional attachment to his job, colleagues and organization which profoundly influences his willingness to learn and perform at work.
Further, Mercer (2007) expressed it as a state of mind in which employees feel a vested interest in the company‟s
success and are both willing and motivated to perform to levels that exceed the stated job requirements. It is the result of how employees feel about the work experience – the organization, its leaders, the work and the work environment. They must feel positive emotions toward their work to be personally meaningful, consider their work-load to be manageable, and have hope about the future of their work (Nelson and Simmons, 2003).
III. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT MODELS
While elaborating the concept of employee engagement, researchers like Khan (1990), Maslach et al. (2001), Robinson et al. (2004), Saks (2006) and Aon Hewitt (2011) formulated different models that categorically discussed about the various dimensions of employee engagement. Those essentially highlighted about the engaged employees, the environment and facilities that keep them motivated and dedicated to work for a mutual benefit while establishing a work-life balance in the day-
to-day schedule. On this context, a detail investigation about these models have been made here and the outcomes are hereunder-
1. Kahn’s Model
Kahn‟s model (1990) of employee engagement is considered to be the oldest model of employee engagement. His model emphasizes that there are three psychological conditions that are associated with personal engagement and disengagement of work:
meaningfulness, availability and safety (Refer: Figure- 1.1). For the purpose of his study, Kahn interviewed summer camp counselors and organizational members of an architectural firm about their moments of engagement and disengagement at work. He found that, workers were more engaged at work situations that offered them more psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety, and when they were psychologically available.
Figure - 1.1
Kahn’s Model on Employee Engagement
2. Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter Model Another model of engagement comes from the research work of Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter on “Job Burnout” in the year 2001. According to them, six areas of work-life lead to burnout and engagement: (I) work load (II) control (III) rewards and recognitions (IV) community and social support (V) perceived fairness, and (VI) values. In their model, they argued that job engagement is associated with various characteristics
like (i) sustainable workload (ii) feeling of choice and control (iii) appropriate recognition and reward (iv) a
supportive work community (v) fairness and justice, and (vi) meaningful and valued work (Refer: Figure-1.2). It
came to light that like burnout, engagement is expected to mediate the link between the six work-life factors and various works out-comes. Further, they argued that job characteristics, especially feedback and autonomy, have been constantly related to burnout.
Figure- 1.2
Maslach, Schaufelli and Leiter Model on Job Burnout
3. Robinson, Perryman and Hayday Model The model developed by Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) (here after Robinson et al., 2004) described engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employees (Hewitt Associates, 2004). Their model was described in the research work entitled “The drivers of employee engagement”, where they suggested that employee
engagement is a positive attitude held by the employees towards the organization and its values. The model further identified that an engaged employee is one who is aware of business context and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job to add value to the organization. The model emphasizes, the commitment of employees is possible when the organization continues to focus on developing and nurturing the employees (Refer: Figure-1.3)
Fig: 1.3
Robinson, Perryman and Hayday Model on Employee Engagement
4. Saks Model
A conceptual model was developed by Saks in the year 2006 in the context of his research work on
“Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement” that focused on three basic aspects of employee engagement: (i) the employees and their psychological makeup and experience (ii) the ability of the employer to create a conducive environment that
promotes employee engagement, and (iii) interaction between employees at all levels. The researcher developed an evaluation process and showed the inter- connection between three parameters: antecedents, employee engagement and consequences (Refer: Figure- 1.4). Factors like job satisfaction, training and development, reward and recognition, and assertive relationship with peers and supervisors have been taken
as antecedents that impact directly the state of engagement of employees that can be attributed to the factors like commitment, ownership, satisfaction, participation etc. The „consequences‟ are the end result
of the evaluation process that can be evaluated with customer satisfaction and enhanced performance measures.
Fig. 1.4
Saks Model on Employee Engagement
5. Aon Hewitt Model
The Aon Hewitt model (2011) examines both the individual state of engagement as well as the organizational antecedents. It states „engagement‟ as the state of emotional and intellectual involvement that motivates employees to do their best work. The model has a global validation supported by over 15 years of research in the area of organizational psychology.
According to this model, engagement is an individual, psychological and behavioral state and the behavior of the engaged employees demonstrates positive outcomes in the business like customer satisfaction, increased sales, and other positive extra role behaviours (Refer:
Figure-1.5).
Figure-1.5
Aon Hewitt’s Engagement Behaviour Model
Further, according to this model, there are typically six engagement drivers and twenty two organizational antecedents attached to these drivers that lead to individual‟s engagement in an organization (Refer:
Figure-1.6). The engagement drivers are identified as (i) quality of life (ii) work (iii) people (iv) opportunities (v)
total rewards, and (vi) company practices. However, apart from the people factor rests are resulting through the people factor itself. Hence the people factor is the most crucial element driving the rest of the factors.
Further, the model says that the engagement drivers are interrelated, and they do not operate in isolation.
Figure-1.6
Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement
IV. CONCLUSION
„Engagement‟ basically describes the conditions under which people work (Macey and Schneider, 2008). It reflects the positive emotional and intellectual connection of an employee with his work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). It is normative, affective and continuance commitment of an employee. If employees are engaged they are inspired to go above and beyond the call of duty to meet organizational requirements. Further, they reinforce and support the organization‟s culture and values.
From the examination of various models, several propositions have also come to light that categorically stated about the significance of engagement as a corporate practice and the different parameters that would keep the employees engaged, motivated and inspired, reduce turnover and improve well-being of the employees (Wright and Cropanzano, 2000; Taris et al., 2004; Griffith, 2004; Michie and West, 2004; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Robinson et al., 2004; Hakanen et al., 2008). However, measuring engagement has remained highly crucial for the fact that it deals with the complex feelings, emotions and psychological state of mind of the employees (Macey and Schneider, 2008).
At the same time, the imbalance related to the „effort- reward‟ or „work-life‟ would generate stress that may result burnout, and further staff-turnover in the organization. However, it is important to remember that engagement and burnout are two different and opposite concepts. With the dynamic environment and the era of hyper-competition, keeping the employees engaged and
organizations sustainable is perhaps the biggest challenge of this Millennium.
REFERENCES
[1] Aon Hewitt (2011). “OCL Employee Engagement Survey”. Results Presentation and Action Planning Workshop held on 8 June.
Available at the library, OCL, Rajgangpur, Orissa.
[2] Aon Hewitt (2015). “Aon Hewitt‟s Model of Employee Engagement”. Research Report.
Available [online] at:
<file:///C:/Users/ANU/Downloads/2015-Aon- Hewitt-model-of-employee-engagement.pdf>
[Accessed: 12 May, 2015].
[3] Bates, S. (2004). “Getting Engaged”. HR Magazine, 49(2): 44-51.
[4] Griffith, J. (2004). “Relation of Principal Transformational Leadership to School Staff Job Satisfaction, Staff Turnover and School Performance”. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3): 333-356.
[5] Graber, A.C. (2014). “What is Employee Engagement in Three Words?”. Research Article.
Available [online] at:
<http://organizationalmanagment.blogspot.in/201 4/03/what-is-employee-engagement-in-
three.html> [Accessed: 20 June, 2015].
[6] Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L. and Hayes, T. L.
(2002). “Business-Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.
[7] Hewitt Associates (2004). Employee Engagement Higher at Double-Digit Growth Companies.
Research Brief. Hewitt Associates LLC.
[8] Holwerda, J. (2007). “Communicating for Engagement”. In: Stepp, P.L. (2007). “Employee Engagement: What do We Really Know? What do We Need to Know to Take Action?”. The research report prepared for the Centre for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS), Spring sponsor meeting, May 20-23, Paris, France.
[9] Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W. and Ahola, K., (2008). “The Job Demands Resources model: A Three-year Cross-lagged Study of Burnout, Depression, Commitment and Work Engagement”. Work and Stress, 22(3): 224-241.
[10] Hämmig, O, Brauchli, R. and Bauer, G.F. (2012).
“Effort-reward and work-life imbalance, general stress and burnout among employees of a large public hospital in Switzerland”. Swiss Med Wkly. 142: w13577. Available [online] at:
<http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2012-13577/>
[Accessed: 18 July, 2015].
[11] Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692- 724.
[12] Kontakos, A.M. (2007). “Seeing Clarity:
Employee Engagement and Line of Sight”. In:
Stepp, P.L. (2007). “Employee Engagement:
What Do We Really Know? What Do We Need to Know to Take Action?”. The research report prepared for Centre for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS), Spring sponsor meeting, May 20-23, Paris, France.
[13] Khan, N. (2013). “Employee Engagement Drivers for Organizational Success”. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(6): 675-680.
[14] Lockwood, N.R. (2007). “Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR‟s Strategic Role”. SHRM Research Quarterly, March: 2-10. Available [online] at:
<https://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Article s/Documents/07MarResearchQuarterly.pdf>
[Accessed: 24 April 2015].
[15] Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P.
(2001). “Job Burnout”. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1): 397-422.
[16] Michie, S. and West, M.A. (2004). “Managing People and Performance: An Evidence Based Framework applied to Health Service Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5-6(2): 91-111.
[17] Mercer HR Consulting (2007). Exploring the Global Drivers of Employee Engagement.
Research Article [online]. Available at:
<www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idCont ent=1281670> [Accessed: 24 April, 2015].
[18] Macey, W. H. and Schneider, B. (2008). “The Meaning of the Employee Engagement”.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1(1): 3-30.
[19] Molinaro, V. and Weiss, D. (2008). “Driving Employee Engagement”. An excerpt of the book by Molinaro, V. and Weiss, D. (2005). The Leadership Gap: Developing Leaders for Competitive Advantages. Wiley. Available
[online] at:
<http://www.docsrush.net/2816322/driving- employee-engagement-banff-centre.html>
[Accessed: 16 June, 2015].
[20] Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010). “Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance”. International Journal of Business Management, 5(12): 89-96.
[21] Morgan, C.A. (2015). “ Employee Satisfaction Surveys: Measuring Staff Engagement”.
B2B International Publications. Beyond Knowledge. Available [online] at:
<https://www.b2binternational.com/publications/
employee-satisfaction/> [Accessed: 14 June 2015].
[22] Nelson, D. and Simmons, B. (2003), “Eustress:
An Elusive Construct and Engaging Pursuit”. In:
Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds.) Emotional and Physiological Processes and Positive Intervention Strategies. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3: 265-322.
[23] NHRD (2011). “Employee Engagement: A Road Map for Optimising Performance and Driving Commitment”. National HRD Network Presentation. Available [online] at:
<http://www.slideshare.net/hrtalksblog/employee -engagement-9147086> [Accessed: 12 June, 2015].
[24] Panda, A.K. (2011). “Entrepreneurship under Threat: A Case Study on Kich Group of Companies, Rajkot, Gujarat (India)”. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and Entrepreneurship (SMEE) Review, University of Regina, Canada, 4(1): 15-20.
[25] Rothbard, N.P. (2001). “Enriching or Depleting?
The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and
Family Roles”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4): 655-84.
[26] Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S.
(2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement.
Brighton (UK): Institute for Employment Studies.
[27] Richman, A. (2006). “Everyone Wants an Engaged Workforce: How Can You Treat It?”.
Work Span, 49(1): 36-39.
[28] Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1): 71-92.
[29] Saks, A.M. (2006). “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement”.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 21(7): 600-619.
[30] Sengupta, D. and Ramadoss, S. (2010).
Employee Engagement: Unlocking the Secrets to Nurturing a Productive Workforce. New Delhi (India): Biztantra Publishers.
[31] Kumar, R. and Sia, S.K. (2012). “Employee Engagement: Explicating the Contribution of Work Environment”. Management and Labour Studies. SAGE Publications, 37(1): 31-43.
[32] Shuck, B. and Herd, A.M. (2012). “Employee Engagement and Leadership: Exploring the Convergence of Two Frameworks and Implications for Leadership Development in
HRD”. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2): 156-181.
[33] Sohrabizadeh, S. and Sayfouri, N. (2014).
“Antecedents and Consequences of Work Engagement among Nurses”. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal (IRCMJ), 16(11):
e16351. Available [online] at:
<http://ircmj.com/16351.fulltext> [Accessed: 16 July, 2015].
[34] Towers-Perrin (2003). “Working Today:
Understanding What Drives Employee Engagement. Global Work force Study.
Stamford, CT:Author.
[35] Taris, T.W., Van Horn, J, Schaufeli, W.B and Schreursp, J.G. (2004). “Inequity, Burnout and Psychological Withdrawal among Teachers: A Dynamic Exchange Model”. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(1): 103-122.
[36] Vaijayanthi, P. P., Shreenivasan, K. A. and Prabhakaran, S. (2011). “Employee Engagement Predictors: A Study at GE Power and Water”.
International Journal of Global Business, 4(2), 60-72.
[37] Wright, T. A. and Cropanzano, R. (2000).
“Psychological Well-being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Performance”. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1): 84–94.
[38] Xu, J. and Thomas, H. (2011). “How Can Leaders Achieve High Employee Engagement?”.
Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 32(4): 399-416.
