3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the construct of employee engagement is discussed. Firstly, a background on employee engagement is given after which employee engagement is conceptualised and defined. The types and drivers of employee engagement also receive attention after which the difference between employee engagement and similar constructs is clarified. The chapter concludes with the consequences of employee engagement.
3.2 BACKGROUND
Employers all agree that the business world today is in dire need of a more competent and productive workforce. They are constantly looking for new ways to ensure that the organisation will stay ahead of competition. Employers have now come to the realisation that this goal can be achieved if they shift their focus on employee engagement (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Individuals spend more than a third of their lives and more than half of their days at work. It is thus clear that work is at the core of each individual’s existence. Many individuals also use work to define who they are. Work is thus the perfect place to engage them and motivate them to reach their goals and provide meaning (Van Zyl, Deacon & Rothmann, 2010). According to Luthans and Peterson (2002), employee engagement might not be the general cure for all the problems that organisations face daily, but implementing engagement strategies can help with overall organisational effectiveness as well as creating personal and career development opportunities for employees.
3.3 CONCEPTUALISING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
According to Perrin (2003), employee engagement is a never-ending process. The core ingredients of employee engagement are to provide an individual with an environment where he will have a meaningful and emotionally enriching work experience. Engagement is not about keeping people happy and rewarding them for the work that they have done. It is something much deeper (Perrin, 2003).
Kahn (1990) was the first person to use the term personal engagement. He believed that employees use different physical, emotional and cognitive levels of themselves in their work performance daily. He conducted two qualitative studies on summer camp counsellors and on architects and investigated what work conditions would be favourable for personal engagement. He focused on three components, namely meaningfulness, safety and availability.
‘ Meaningfulness. Kahn (1990) found that this was influenced by the type of task a person must carry out daily, the role he must fulfil and his interactions at work. Luthans (2008) stated that individuals find their jobs meaningful if they perceive their jobs as important, worthwhile and significant.
‘ Safety. This component was influenced by interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics, management style and organisational norms (Kahn, 1990). Luthans (2008) found that individuals have the need to feel secure enough to give their personal input without feeling that their career, status or image will be put in jeopardy.
‘ Availability. This is influenced by the depletion of emotional and physical energy as well as individual insecurity and outside lives (Kahn, 1990). Luthans (2008) argues that individuals are positive that there will be more than enough cognitive, physical and emotional resources available to them.
Perrin (2003) states that emotional and rational factors are of utmost importance to keep an employee engaged. The emotional factors consist of the sense of mission, pride and passion for what they are doing. The rationale factors consist of the resources, support and tools that are available to the individual in order for him to do his job properly.
According to Kahn (1990) and May, Gilson & Harter (2004), in order for the human spirit to flourish in its job, it must be engaged cognitively (employee’s beliefs about his or her place of work, leaders and working conditions), physically (physical energy used by the employee to fulfil their work role) and emotionally (feelings employees have about their place of work, leader and working conditions and whether they have a positive or negative attitude toward their place of work and leaders). Schaufeli et al. (2002) classified three dimensions of employee engagement, namely vigour, dedication and absorption. According to Kahn (1990) these three dimensions overlap with his: cognitive (absorption); physical (vigour); emotional (dedication).
Covey (2004, p. 21) claims that, ‘the fundamental reality is that human beings are not things needing to be motivated and controlled; they are four-dimensional ‘ body, mind, heart and spirit’. He claims that employees decide how much of themselves they want to give at their work. The degree of self-investment will depend on how they are treated at work and how much opportunity they will have to make most of the four parts of their nature.
According to Covey (2004, p. 22) ‘Organisations that honour and use all four dimensions of an employee’s nature will inspire their people to volunteer their highest talents and contributions’. Boverie and Kroth (2001, p.3) support this view saying that ‘finding work that is meaningful and enjoyable leads to mental, physical, spiritual and emotional health’.
According to Hewit (2012), engagement is the measure of an employee’s emotional and intellectual commitment to their organisation and its success, in other words, a heart and mind philosophy. He views engagement as an outcome of the organisational experiences of an employee. These experiences are characterised by behaviours that are grouped into three groups: say, stay and strive. Engaged employees only have positive things to say about their job, their employer and their organisation. They are more than willing to tell others about their positive experiences in order to convince candidates to join the company. These individuals are more likely to be emotionally attached to the organisation and will stay with the organisation for a long time. Engaged employees will do much more than what is expected of them and are willing to be flexible in order to ensure the company’s success (Hewit, 2012). These three groups are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2:
Engagement Experiences
Source: Adapted from Hewitt, A. (2012) 2012 Trends in global employee engagement. Aon Hewitt Engagement 2.0 Report.
According to Thomas (2000, p. 9) ‘we are now at the point where the biggest gains will come from systematically improving intrinsic rewards ‘ making the work itself more fulfilling and energising so that workers don’t want to leave’.
Grensing-Pophal (2002) argues that today’s workers are well educated, less loyal to one organisation, not interested in organisations with autocratic and hierarchal types of leadership. They are much more concerned with self-development and meeting their own individual needs. Employees of the twenty-first century are very confident that they have the necessary skills to compete in the workplace. They know what they want and what they need and are therefore much more demanding about what they expect from their work experience. It has become a necessity for management to implement strategies that will keep their workforce actively engaged.
Boverie and Kroth (2001, p.1) suggest that,
‘there has never been a more important time for leaders to develop working environments that are humane, challenging and rewarding. There has never been a more important time for leaders to create places where individuals come to work each day, charged up and excited about the work they are asked to do, places where people are passionate about their work.’
According to Podsakoff et al. (1990) engaged employees are committed to their job. They feel inspired, motivated and proud of what they are doing. These individuals will give a hundred percent even when they are faced with difficulties. According to them it is clear that an employee is engaged in his job when he connects physically, cognitively and emotionally when he is executing the task at hand. This view is supported by Stander and Rothman (2010) who state that such employees have positive and strong interpersonal relations at work.
Markos and Sridevi (2010, p.90) report that engagement is about, ‘passion and commitment ‘ the willingness to invest oneself and expand one’s discretionary effort to help the employer succeed, which is beyond the simple satisfaction with the employment arrangement or basic loyalty to the employer.
Coetzee & Schreuder (2010) state that engaged employees can increase performance by 20 percent and they are also less likely to leave the organisation.
Engaged employees will put a lot of effort into their work because they can identify with it. Organisations today expect their employees to be engaged, committed, proactive, take responsibility for self-development in their own hands and who are dedicated to high quality performance and standards (Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010).
3.4 DEFINING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Lately, work engagement has become a well-known construct to both practitioners and academics (Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011). Although it might be a construct that is regularly used in practice, defining it remains a challenge (Saks, 2006).
Kahn (1990, p.694) defines personal engagement as ‘the harnessing of organisation members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances.’ Kahn (1990) thus meant that engagement is when an individual is psychologically present when occupying and performing his job.
Rothbard (2001, p.656) also defines engagement as psychological presence, but he brings in two new elements: attention and absorption. Attention refers to ‘cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role.’ Absorption refers to ‘being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one’s focus on a role.’
Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (2003, p.1) defines employee engagement as an ’employees’ willingness and ability to help their company succeed, largely by providing discretionary effort on a sustainable basis.’ This study revealed that engagement is influenced by many factors which include rational and emotional factors relating to work and the overall work experience.
Robinson, Perryman & Hayday (2004, p.9) define employee engagement as:
‘a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation and its value. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of organisation. The organisation must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee.’
According to Melcrum (2005), employee engagement consists of three components:
‘ A think component (cognitive dimension). This refers to the intellectual connection that the employee has with the organisation and how strongly they believe in and support the main goals and objectives of the organisation.
‘ A feel component (emotional dimension). This refers to the emotional connection that the employee has with the organisation. These employees are loyal to the organisation; they have a sense of belonging and feel very proud to be working for the organisation.
‘ An act component (behavioural dimension). Employees will behave in ways that will support the organisation on its way to success. They will be willing to stay with the organisation regardless of other opportunities that may emerge. They will also give more than what is expected of them to ensure that the company reaches its goals.
According to Markos and Sridevi (2010, p.90), the Gallup organisation defines employee engagement as; ‘the involvement with and enthusiasm for work’.
According to Shaufeli and Bakker (2003), employee engagement can be described by the following three elements:
‘ Vigour. Individuals that score high on vigour have high levels of enthusiasm, stamina and energy.
‘ Dedication. The individuals derive a sense of significance from their work. They also feel enthusiastic, proud, inspired and challenged by it.
‘ Absorption. Individuals that score high on this are happily engrossed in their work, they feel immersed by their work and have difficulties detaching from it because they get carried away. As a consequence, everything else around them is forgotten and time seems to fly.
Given all the above definitions, this researcher concludes that employee engagement is about employees who are passionate and devoted to their work. These individuals also have strong interpersonal relations at work and a strong sense of loyalty to the Company they work for. Employees who experience high levels of engagement would not think twice to go beyond the duties stipulated in their employment contract. Engaged employees are also intrinsically motivated, display increased levels of performance, take pride in their work and take complete ownership of their job.
After reviewing all the definitions of employee engagement, this researcher is of the opinion that the definition by Schaufeli et al. (2002, p.74) is the most concise, yet comprehensive definition and as such will be used for the purposes of this study: ‘Employee engagement is a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption’.
3.5 TYPES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
According to Meesala (2011), there are three types of employee engagement namely engaged; (2) disengaged; (3) actively disengaged.
3.5.1 Engaged
Engaged employees are enthusiastic, passionate and completely absorbed in their work. They always act in ways that are in the best interest of their organisation. They are driven and will always ensure that they know what their role in the organisation is. These individuals are known to have high levels of performance. They want to use their skills, abilities and competencies every day at work (Meesala, 2011). Engaged employees are committed to their organisation, tend to stay with the organisation longer and are more committed to quality and growth. These employees are very proud of their organisation and will tell everybody about their organisation (Accord Management Systems, 2004).
Employees are engaged when:
‘ They have a strong relationship with their manager
‘ There is clear communication between them and their manager
‘ They have clear goals set for them; they thus know where they are going
‘ They have strong interpersonal relationships with colleagues
‘ They encourage and motivate others to take risks and strive for excellence (Accord Management Systems, 2004).
3.5.2 Disengaged
Employees who are not engaged will put in the necessary time to finish a task, but will have no energy or passion for their work. They have no positive or negative feelings about their organisation and go through the motions daily without committing themselves. These individuals are task orientated rather than goal orientated. They expect to be told what to do, rather than take initiative and do something of their own accord. These employees tend to feel that their efforts are not appreciated and that their full potential is not being tapped (Meesala, 2011).
Disengaged will most likely cost an organisation a lot of money. They will miss more or less 3,5 days per year and they are much less productive than engaged employees. (Accord Management Systems, 2004).
3.5.3 Actively disengaged
These individuals are opposed to everything. They are not just unhappy at work, but they are actively living out their unhappiness at work. These individuals will not miss a chance to spread negativity. Actively disengaged employees are not interested in the goals and mission of the company; they rather openly express feelings of mistrust and hatred towards it. Employees that are highly disengaged will hold back physically, cognitively and emotionally. When they work they behave in a robotic, passive and detached way. These types of employees can hurt the image and functioning of the organisation (Meesala, 2011).
According to Wolfe (2006) the following could be possible causes of actively disengaged employees:
‘ Poor management. These managers are unprofessional and uncaring. They overwork their workforce, have no respect, are not interested in listening to their employees and constantly put the wrong people in the wrong jobs. They are only interested in getting the job done as fast as possible.
‘ Lack of career growth and advancement opportunities. These opportunities are not discussed at all. Job openings are not posted or filled from within. Employees see no career paths.
‘ Poor communication. Communication is problematic. There is difficulty communicating from the top down and between various departments.
‘ Lack of recognition.
‘ Pay. Employees’ salaries are not market-related. They do not receive regular raises. Favouritism pops up when decisions are made for bonuses or raises. There is no or ineffective appraisal systems in place.
‘ Lack of training. Training is non-existent. No training is given to new employees or managers.
‘ Constant work overload.
‘ Lack of tools and resources.
‘ Lack of teamwork.
3.6 DRIVERS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Wildermuth & Pauken (2011) identified environment, leadership, job, and individual factors as drivers of engagement. Environmental factors include a fit between organisational and personal values, interpersonal relations at work, work-life balance. Leadership factors include vision and integrity. Job factors include meaningful work, challenging and interesting work, and the amount of control an employee has on the job. Finally, individual factors include resilience, locus of control, coping style, self-esteem and extraversion.
The Blessing White Study (2006) found that almost 60 percent of the surveyed employees wanted career advancement opportunities to stay satisfied with their job. The relationship between the manager and employee is very important in order to keep employees engaged.
The Towers Perrin Talent Report (2003) identified the top ten work elements that would result in employee engagement. These elements are:
(a) Senior management’s interest in employees’ well-being. Employees want to know what management thinks and what they believe. They also want the opportunity to give their input; this will give them responsibility and accountability. A very damaging fact is that sometimes there is a huge gap between what management say and do. This can destroy trust and engagement very quickly.
(b) Challenging work. Some jobs are repetitive and mundane by nature. There are, however, ways how employers can promote a stimulating and challenging environment. These include encouraging people to take initiative, being open and accepting change, coaching and developing individual’s skills, and holding people accountable for their performance.
(c) Decision-making authority. Employees will accept increased risk much easier if they think that they have control over decisions; have the relevant information and tools to make a sound decision.
(d) Evidence that the company is focused on customers.
(e) Career advancement opportunities;
(f) The company’s reputation as a good employer;
(g) A collaborative work environment where people work well in teams
(h) Resources to get the job done;
(i) Input on decision-making and
(j) A clear vision from senior management about future success.
The stronger these elements are in the workplace the stronger the employee engagement will be. This study found that pay and benefits played a huge role in attracting employees and to some extend caused employees to stay with the company, but it has a minor role in driving engagement itself (Perrin, 2003).
CIPD (2006) did a survey on 2000 employees across Great Britain and found that communication is one of the main elements that will lead employees to engagement. Employees considered it very important to be able to give their views and inputs to management. The survey also found that it was very important to keep employees informed about what is going on in the organisation.
Gallup organisation found that the manager of the organisation is the key element to employee engagement. The CEO of this organisation, James Clifton, said that employees who have close friends at work are more likely to be engaged workers (Clifton, 2008).
According to Markos and Sridevi (2010) the following are a few things that managers can do to increase the levels of employee engagement in their organisation: They must align efforts with the goals of an organisation, empower employees, promote and support teamwork and cooperation. Employers must support employees and encourage them to commit to lifelong learning in order to develop themselves. Employees flourish when their employers show appreciation for their efforts. If employers shift their focus to employee engagement chances are that they will be able to get a competitive edge on the competition. Literature shows us that there are many positive factors associated with employee engagement.
It is thus clear that individuals who experience a strong sense of purpose at the work-place, who believe that they have all the necessary competencies to effectively do their work, who believe that they have the ability to influence the system they are in and who have self-endorsed goals are more engaged in their work.
3.7 CLARIFYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND SIMILAR CONSTRUCTS
Constructs which have received a large amount of attention in the literature lately and which are often confused with employee engagement include job involvement, organisational commitment and workaholism (Diefendorf, Kamin & Lord, 2002; Khan et al., 2011; Field & Buitendach, 2011; Christian et al. 2011; Schaufeli, Bakker & Rhenen, 2008; Gorgievski & Bakker , 2010). In order to clearly understand the construct of employee engagement this researcher has identified the need to clarify the difference between these constructs.
3.7.1 Employee engagement, job involvement, job commitment
Existing definitions of employee engagement refer to psychological states, traits, behaviours, their antecedents and outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Robinson et al. (2004) mentioned that very little academic and empirical research has been done on a construct that has become so popular. This resulted in people believing that researchers took constructs like organisational commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour and gave them a new name. Engagement thus has the appearance of what some may call, ‘old wine in a new bottle’. Organisational commitment and job involvement differ from engagement in that they refer to attitudes towards an organisation and perceptions of how the job will satisfy personal and job related needs respectively (Robinson et al., 2004).
To clearly distinguish between job involvement, organisational commitment, and employee engagement the researcher took a closer look at the definitions of each individual construct:
Christian et al. (2011, p.97) stated that organisational commitment is, ‘characterized by an emotional attachment to one’s organisation that results from shared values and interests.’
Khan et al. (2011, p.253) define job involvement, ‘as the degree to which one shows emotional or mental identification with his/her job.’
Engagement has to do with psychological state and how deeply a person is engrossed in his job (Saks, 2006). Engagement can clearly be differentiated from constructs like organisational commitment and job involvement. In practitioner literature these constructs overlap, but in academic literature it is clearly set out as a unique construct consisting of cognitive, behavioural and emotional components. The last-mentioned components are all connected to individual role performance (Saks, 2006).
3.7.2 Employee engagement and workaholism
Bakker et al. (2011, p.18) state that ‘enduring work engagement may create workaholics’. However, according to Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) this statement is not true. Work engagement and workaholism may seem similar at first glance, but the truth is that they are two completely opposite constructs.
According to Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) the difference between work engagement and workaholism is that workaholism is an addiction. Employees are driven by guilt and compulsion. Engaged employees on the other hand work because it is fun for them. They work hard, because they enjoy what they do and not because they are driven by a feeling of guilt when they are not working (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011). Workaholism is rooted in negative behaviours. Workaholics spend large amounts of time on work and work related activities. They are thus compulsive workers. They have difficulty tearing themselves away from work and when they do manage to stop working, their thoughts are on work the whole time. Workaholics are completely obsessed with their work. These individuals exhibit these behaviours not because they necessarily enjoy what they are doing, but because of the guilt they feel when they are not working (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2011).
3.8 CONSEQUENCES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
From the literature it is clear that engagement has many positive benefits (Kahn, 1990; Perrin, 2003; Covey, 2004; Hewitt, 2012; Stander & Rothman, 2010; Coetzee & Schreuder, 2010; Podsakoff et al.,1990; Rothman & Rothman, 2010). Engaged employees have psychological capital; they create their own resources, perform better than the rest and have happy clients. One could then ask whether there is a dark side to employee engagement.
Bakker, Albrecht and Leitter (2011) suggest that there might be a few areas of concern for engaged employees. Engaged employees may become so engaged in their work that they take work home and this may have a negative impact on their family life. Beckers, Van Yperen, Van Veldhoven, Kompier, Smulders & Van der Linden (2004) did a study on a Dutch workforce and found that there was a strong correlation between engagement and working overtime. Work-home interferences may undermine recovery, and may in turn lead to health problems. They also found that the possibility exists that if an employee is deeply engaged in his job he might work at a very fast pace and this might have a negative effect on his performance, especially when it comes to detailed, controlled information processing jobs (Bakker et al., 2011).
George (2011) argues that high levels of engagement could come with a cost for an employee. He states that this could require the employee to give up some or sometimes most of his free time for work related purposes. Although the employee would not mind because he really loves what he does, this could interfere with his work-family life balance. If the employee doesn’t ensure that he takes proper care of himself and allow himself to rest, he might start feeling overworked, stressed and has work-non-work conflict. With the current rise in layoffs and high levels of unemployment, it must be considered that job loss to an engaged employee might be traumatising. This might be because they have sacrificed other parts of their lives for their jobs and their self-identity might be linked to the job (George, 2011).
This view is supported by Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) who state that due to the fact that work engagement is characterised by energy, absorption and dedication, the possibility exists that an individual gives so much of himself over a period of time that he is at risk of burnout.
According to Halbesleben (2011), engaged employees may craft their jobs in such a way that it leads to greater resources and greater challenges. Although this concept might sound attractive, Halbesleben (2011) states that we must consider that there might be a negative side to this as well. Employees might craft their jobs so as to only receive positive outcomes, while cutting out less desirable aspects that are important. It is thus clear that engaged employees could craft their jobs in order to avoid tasks that they dislike. They do not work around these disliked tasks, they cut it out completely.
3.10 SUMMARY
In this chapter the construct of employee engagement was discussed. The discussion started off with the background on employee engagement after which employee engagement was conceptualised and defined. The types of drivers of employee engagement received attention after which similar constructs were clarified. The researcher concluded with the consequences of employee engagement.