"Burnout antithesis" approach, in which energy, involvement, efficacy are presented

as the opposites of established "burnout" constructs: exhaustion, cynicism and lack

of accomplishment.
"Needs satisfying" approach, in which engagement is the expression of one's
preferred self in task behaviours.
Administrative: A focus on survey administration, data gathering and analysis of
results (rather than taking action) may also damage engagement efforts.
Organizations that survey their workforce without acting on the feedback appear to
negatively impact engagement scores.[24] The reporting and oversight
requirements of engagement initiatives represent a claim on the scarcest resources
(time and money) of the organisation, and therefore requires management time to
demonstrate value added. At the same time, actions on the basis of engagement
surveys are usually devolved to local management, where any 'value add' is
counted in local performance. Central administration of 'employee engagement' is
therefore challenging to maintain over time.
Career advancement / improvement opportunities "Plant supervisors and
managers indicated that many plant improvements were being made outside the
suggestion system, where employees initiated changes in order to reap the bonuses
generated by the subsequent cost savings."[18]
Commitment theories are rather based on creating conditions, under which the
employee will feel compelled to work for an organization, whereas engagement
theories aim to bring about a situation in which the employee by free choice has an
intrinsic desire to work in the best interests of the organization.[21]
Commitment[edit]
Contributors[edit]
Correlates[edit]
Defining employee engagement remains problematic. In their review of the
literature in 2011, Wollard and Shuck[3] identify four main sub-concepts within the
term:
Definitions of engagement vary in the weight they give to the individual vs the
organisation in creating engagement. Recent practice has situated the drivers of
engagement across this spectrum, from within the psyche of the individual
employee (for example, promising recruitment services that will filter out
'disengaged' job applicants [5]) to focusing mainly on the actions and investments
the organisation makes to support engagement.[6]
Dilbert comic strip #1
Dilbert comic strip #2
Does employee engagement really predict sustainable shareholder value? Current
metrics remain lag indicators, not lead indicators, so it is possible engagement is
caused by success, rather than being its cause.
Does human nature or neuroscience have a role in employee engagement
programs?
Does the concept of work-life balance need to be revisited?
Drivers of engagement[edit]
Effective internal employee communications which convey a clear description of
"what's going on". "'
Eileen Appelbaum and her colleagues (2000) studied 15 steel mills, 17 apparel
manufacturers, and 10 electronic instrument and imaging equipment producers.
Their purpose was to compare traditional production systems with flexible high-
performance production systems involving teams, training, and incentive pay
systems. In all three industries, the plants utilizing high-involvement practices
showed superior performance. In addition, workers in the high-involvement plants
showed more positive attitudes, including trust, organizational commitment and
intrinsic enjoyment of the work.[10] The concept has gained popularity as various
studies have demonstrated links with productivity. It is often linked to the notion of
employee voice and empowerment.[11]
Employee clarity of job expectations "If expectations are not clear and basic
materials and equipment are not provided, negative emotions such as boredom or
resentment may result, and the employee may then become focused on surviving
more than thinking about how he can help the organization succeed."[17]
Employee engagement has opened for industry debate, with questions such as:
Employee perceptions of job importance "...an employee's attitude toward the
job's importance and the company had the greatest impact on loyalty and customer
service than all other employee factors combined."[16]
Employees with the highest level of commitment perform 20% better and are 87%
less likely to leave the organization, which indicates that engagement is linked to
organizational performance.[13]
Ethical: Were it proven possible to alter employees' attitudes and behaviours in the
manner intended, and with the expected value-adding results for the organisation, a
question remains [25] whether it would be ethical to do so. Practitioners generally
acknowledge that the old model of the psychological contract is gone, but
attempting to programme a one-way identification in its place, from employee to
organization, may be seen as morally and perhaps politically loaded.
Generating engagement[edit]
Hazards[edit]
In 1993, Schmidt et al. proposed a bridge between the pre-existing concept of 'job
satisfaction' and employee engagement with the definition: "an employee's
involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with work. Employee
engagement is a part of employee retention." This definition integrates the classic
constructs of job satisfaction (Smith et al., 1969), and organizational commitment
(Meyer & Allen, 1991).
In a study of professional service firms, the Hay Group found that offices with
engaged employees were up to 43% more productive.[14] Job satisfaction is also
linked to productivity.[15]
Increasing engagement is a primary objective of organizations seeking to
understand and measure engagement.
Industry Discussion, Debates and Dialogues[edit]
Involvement[edit]
Is there a need to rethink how employee engagement could be approached?
Debates range over the value of intermittent surveys versus other techniques
(micro surveys, open feedback fora, etc)
Methodological: Bad use of statistics: practitioners face a number of risks in working
with engagement data, which are typically drawn from survey evidence. These
include the risk of mistaking correlations for causation, making invalid comparisons
between similar-sounding data drawn from diverging methodologies and/or
incomparable populations, misunderstanding or misrepresented basic concepts and
assumptions, and accurately establishing margins of error in data (ensuring signal
and noise are kept distinct).[23]
Perceptions of the ethos and values of the organization "'Inspiration and values' is
the most important of the six drivers in our Engaged Performance model.
Inspirational leadership is the ultimate perk. In its absence, [it] is unlikely to engage
employees."
Prior to Kahn's use of the term in the mid-1990s, a series of concepts relating to
employee engagement had been investigated in management theory. Employee
morale, work ethic, productivity, and motivation had been explored in a line dating
back to the work of Mary Parker Follett in the early 1920s. Survey-based World War
II studies on leadership and group morale sparked further confidence that such
properties could be investigated and measured.[8] Later, Frederick Herzberg
concluded[9] that positive motivation is driven by managers giving their employees
developmental opportunities, activity he termed 'vertical enrichment'.
Productivity[edit]
Quality of working relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates "...if
employees' relationship with their managers is fractured, then no amount of perks
will persuade the employees to perform at top levels. Employee engagement is a
direct reflection of how employees feel about their relationship with the boss."[20]
Recent research has focused on developing a better understanding of how variables
such as quality of work relationships and values of the organization interact, and
their link to important work outcomes.[22] From the perspective of the employee,
"outcomes" range from strong commitment to the isolation of oneself from the
organization.[20]
References in popular culture[edit]
Regular feedback and dialogue with superiors "Feedback is the key to giving
employees a sense of where theyre going, but many organizations are remarkably
bad at giving it."[17] "'What I really wanted to hear was 'Thanks.[19] You did a good
job.' But all my boss did was hand me a cheque.'"[14]
Satisfaction-engagement approach, in which engagement is a more technical
version of job satisfaction, evidenced by Gallup's own Q12 engagement survey
which gives an r=.91 correlation with one (job satisfaction) measure.[4]
Some additional points from research into drivers of engagement are presented
below:
The multidimensional approach, in which a clear distinction is maintained between
job and organisational engagement, usually with the primary focus on antecedents
and consequents to role performance rather than organisational identification.
These definitional issues are potentially severe for practitioners. With different (and
often proprietary) definitions of the object being measured, statistics from different
sources are not readily comparable. Engagement work remains open to the
challenge that its basic assumptions are, as Tom Keenoy describes them,
'normative' and 'aspirational', rather than analytic or operational - and so risk being
seen by other organizational participants as "motherhood and apple pie" rhetoric.[7]
To what extent are employees motivated by the mission statement of an
organisation?
Two studies of employees in the life insurance industry examined the impact of
employee perceptions that they had the power to make decisions, sufficient
knowledge and information to do the job effectively, and rewards for high
performance. Both studies included large samples of employees (3,570 employees
in 49 organizations and 4,828 employees in 92 organizations). In both studies, high-
involvement management practices were positively associated with employee
morale, employee retention, and firm financial performance.[10] Watson Wyatt
found that high-commitment organizations (one with loyal and dedicated
employees) out-performed those with low commitment by 47% in the 2000 study
and by 200% in the 2002 study.[12]
William Kahn provided the first formal definition of personnel 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.[2]"
With the wide range of definitions comes a variety of potential contributors to
desirable levels of employee engagement. Some examples: