An Investigation of Employee Engagement at Cooper Coil

Employee engagement is often seen as a very crucial part of a company and their progress towards success in the industry. The challenge is usually how the Human Resource management is supposed to quantify and measure employee engagement. To what extent should employee engagement be indulged in order to see results and better coordination and flow of work at the work place. The paper tackles the various dynamics of employee engagement at Copper Coil industry, and how it can lead to higher turnover for the finances in the company. It also delves into the disengagement of employees and how that influences the workplace and the trust and commitment that employees have to their company. The employee engagement in relation to leadership will also be assessed and how it can affect the general organizational workflow and compliance from the employees. Emotional attachment to the workplace promotes loyalty and enthusiasm that in turn increases production, and profits for the company. 

Keywords: employee engagement, turnover, job satisfaction 

Employee Engagement: 

An Investigation of Employee Engagement at Copper Coil 

Employee engagement is a subject that has baffled many human resource professionals. How do we measure employee engagement and how do we improve it? There have been many studies throughout the last twenty years and there continues to be a lack of consensus on the meaning and concerns about the validity of measuring employee engagement. Employee engagement is a strong predictor of positive organizational performance clearly showing the two-way relationship between employer and employee. Engaged employees are emotionally attached to their organization and highly involved in their job with great enthusiasm for the success of their employer, going the extra mile beyond the employment contractual agreement. (Kompaso, Markos, & Sridevi 2010). 

Copper Coil is a medium-sized manufacturing company that provides specialty metal components to both US and international companies. Copper Coil currently employees approximately 1500 employees in 13 plants across 9 states. The plants are located in Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Montana, and Arkansas. Plant size ranges from 54 to 586 employees. The company recently distributed a company-wide survey to collect data. As the new Senior HR Director, we will analyze the survey data to understand if there is an issue with employee engagement and develop recommendations for the CHRO. 

The purpose of this paper is to examine how employee engagement can impact an organization and lead to high turnover. Additionally, the relationship between employee engagement and leadership will be studied. Global surveys indicate that a significant size of employees are disengaged being skeptical of any organizational initiative or communication and rather more likely indulging in contagious negatively (Markos, & Sridvel 2010). Why should companies invest in employee engagement? Employee engagement is interwoven significantly with business outcomes. Studies have found a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational performance outcomes. Researches also indicate that the more engaged employees are, the more likely their employer is to exceed the industry average in its revenue growth (Markos, & Sridvel 2010). Copper Coil has been successful in increasing sales over the past five years and is generally on a growth trajectory. The data from the survey shows that the average score for how employees felt that overall, their work in the organization was interesting and engaging is 4.5%. However, 60 employees did not answer the question on the survey. 

Literature Review 

In this section, we will discuss the definition of engagement. We will also examine several approaches to employee engagement that have been proposed over time, as well as the purpose of evaluating employees' level of engagement through organization-wide assessments/surveys. It’s also important to discuss the issue of turnover and how it is defined since that is also the focus of our paper. 

Engagement 

Engagement is very important and it has been defined in various ways. Cham (2015) defined it as “influencing others to get work done” (p. 393). According to Shuck and Wollard, employee engagement was first explored by Kahn (1990) as personal engagement, “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active full role performance” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Not only can engaging employees reduce turnover and absenteeism, but companies of engaged employees are more successful, profitable as productivity increases (Hayward, 2010). Successful “employee engagement suggests that work can be a place of motivation, commitment, success, and even self-actualization” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). 

The study of employee engagement is vital in any organization in today’s workforce. Engaging your employees is “where everyone is aligned with the strategic priorities of the organization, and where employees’ energy and focus are directed towards the organization’s goals” (Hayward, 2010). This notion reflects how employers have moved from focusing on satisfying employees with pay/benefits and working conditions to focusing on those who are engaged and committed to the success, the mission and vision of the organization (Hayward, 2010). 

Leadership has also been contrasted with management in that management tends to be task-based (Greenwell, Tec, & Herbert, 2010). It has also been proposed that individuals can take on a certain leadership style. 

Leadership and Organizational Support 

Employee engagement was coined by the Gallup Research group, “shown to have a statistical relationship with productivity, profitability, employee retention, safety, and customer satisfaction” (Endres & Mancheno-Smoak, 2008). The Gallup data provided “extensive research evidence on the foundational aspects of employee engagement” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). With that data, the idea of employee engagement popularity grew as companies began to assess their employees and correct the organization’s deficiencies found as a result. According to Roberston & Cooper, items in most “surveys focus on the aspects of engagement that are most obviously related to ‘positive’ employee behavior and cover established psychological concepts such as organizational citizenship and organizational commitment and attachment” (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). These concepts are directly related to positive behavior. The theory of positive psychology supports this idea of psychological well-being created by a sense of purpose and this connection to positive behavior. The “finding of an overall ‘sense of purpose’ that gives direction and meaning to employees in their work, enhances the impact that positive emotions can have on psychological well-being” on employees of any organization (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). 

Once the organizations’ leadership/executive team recognizes the need to invest in their employees, they will need to be able to examine the factors that affect the well-being (both positive and negative) and engagement of employees. This generally means an “organization-wide survey that is specifically focused on the relevant issues, perhaps supplemented with information from focus groups across key areas of the organization” (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). 

Leaders need to value their employees and understand their needs. Understanding their needs will help find the right ways to motivate and get the most efficient and effective work out of them. “Recent research also suggests that high levels of employee engagement are associated with higher rates of profitability growth.” (Kumar & Pansari, 2015) According to Kumar and Pansari higher employee engagement will result in higher levels of productivity which in turn will result in profitable growth for the organization. 

Transformational leaders allow the employee to play a large part in making decisions for change within the organization. “Several researchers have suggested various processes through which transformational leaders influence employees to be engaged” (Marwan, Habsah & Khalil, 2019). This type of leader influences employees to be more engaged by giving them a more active role in decision-making. The common theme in these articles is if employees are involved in decision making and opinions for change are taken into consideration it makes for a happy employee which in turn creates growth for the organization. 

When employees are involved in the decision-making process and can see that their opinion matters and they can make a difference heightens the level of employee engagement, according to Osbourne and Hammoud. “An employee’s level of engagement derives from his or her being able to control personal behaviors and goals” (Osbourne & Hammoud, 2017). Being able to set your own goals based on the vision of the organization will lead to employees taking pride in their work and actually wanting to work due to enjoyment and being happy at the workplace. 

Leaders that can articulate clear, concise direction tend to have employees that excel in their duties. “When team members have clear goals and measures for what they are expected to produce, they typically achieve them more easily when they can choose when and where they work as much as possible” ( Loerzel, 2019). It is easy for employees to excel with very specific goals to achieve since there would be no questions. Clear direction would also help in the evaluation process. Employees would not have to worry about how they are performing during the rating period. It will also let them know what is needed to receive the highest rating. 

During a pandemic, employee engagement is even more important. With employees concerned with safety and employment security focusing on the employees and their needs are paramount. “ Employee engagement is a workplace attitude that is ensuing all adherents of an organization to give of their excellence every day, committed toward their organization's goals and values” (Chanana, 2020). Understanding what Chanana meant by saying employee engagement is an attitude goes back to knowing the hierarchy of needs. When their needs are met then work is more productive, efficient, and effective. 

Analysis 

These analyses will focus on the employee engagement of Copper Coil and the intent to turnover, organization support, and satisfaction with the leadership in the organization. Results were analyzed from the job part-time and full-time status of employees. General and specific statistical analysis was conducted by using a Correlation Analysis and Descriptive Statistical data. 

Question one: employee engagement and intent to turnover. 

Results from Appendix A correlation data found the two variables have a Pearson’s r value of -0.480 and a p-value of <.001. The p-value tells us that these two variables are statistically significant. The correlation coefficient of -0.480 shows that the two variables are negatively related. These results tell us that when employee engagement decreases the intent to turnover will increase and when intent to turnover decreases, employee engagement will increase. 

Question 2: employee engagement and organization support 

Results from Appendix B correlation data found the two variables have a Pearson’s r value of 0.730 and a p-value of <.001. The p-value tells us that these two variables are statistically significant. The correlation coefficient of 0.730 shows that the two variables are positively related. These results tell us that employee engagement increases when there is organizational support. 

Question 3: employee engagement and satisfaction with leadership 

Results from Appendix C correlation data found the two variables have a Pearson’s r value of 0.634 and a p-value of <.001. The p-value tells us that these two variables are statistically significant. The correlation coefficient of 0.634shows that the two variables are positively related. These results tell us that employee engagement increase when employees are satisfied with their organization’s leadership. 

Findings 

The findings focused on the support the employees got from the organization, the level of engagement, and the intentions the organization had to turn over. The analysis came from all respondents, male and female. The analysis of the statistical data and the general data was undertaken using descriptive statistical data, and their correlation analysis. 

The RT related to the first question involving employee engagement and the connection to turnover was tabulated using a Correlation Matrix. They then examined this survey data by checking on responses from employees about their engagement and how it related to the turnover that was witnessed. Analysis of the RT was done using descriptive statistics with two gender categories represented. The mean RT for the first group of females (Group 1) in relation to employee engagement was 4.412 and the turnover was 1.702. the corresponding RT mean for males in the second group (Group 2), in relation to employee turnover was 4.317, and the turn over intent was 1.872. The standard deviation of the employees was also checked for RT and raw data for both groups (Table 1.1). the review of the RT data revealed that the variables each have a person’s p-value of <0.001, and an r value of -0.480. the correlation of the -0.480 coefficient shows the two variables to be correlated negatively. The p-value on the other hand reveals that the two variables are significant statistically. 

Question one RT involving organizational support and the relation to the turnover were also found by correlation matrix. The survey containing responses from the employees on the organization’s support for them and how it translates into turn over were examined. Descriptive statistics analyzed the two gender categories and how they are in connection with the support from the organization, and the intent to turnover. The female’s mean RT for the first group (Group 1) and how they relate to the support from the organization was 4.412, and the intent to turnover was 4.184. For the males in the second group (Group 2) and the relation to support from the organization was 4.317, and the intent to turnover was 4.061. The standard deviation for the employees for each group was reviewed to collect RT data (See Table 1.2). The review of data revealed the variables as a p-value of <0.001, and the r value was 0.730. These p-value figures again showed that the variables are significant statistically. The variables are negatively correlated as shown by the coefficient 0.730. This RT date reveals that should the support from the organization go down, the intent to turnover goes up, and the opposite is true. 

The third question was reviewed in relation to the employee engagement, and the level of satisfaction with the leadership. This was examined by reviewing responses from the employees regarding their satisfaction with the leadership in the organization. The mean female RT for the first group (Group 1) in relation to employee engagement was 4.412, and as for males in the second group (Group 2) it was 4.317. The level of satisfaction for the females in group one was 4.226, and that for the males was 4.198. The standard deviation was also reviewed and the results for both groups can be viewed (See Table 1.3). Pearson’s Correlation matrix used data from the survey to analyze it. The r value was 0.634, and the p value was <0.001. this correlation coefficient revealed that the engagement of the employees in relation to the satisfaction of the leadership style was a positive relationship. This correlation is not by chance, and the satisfaction of the leadership style and the employee engagement have a significant relationship statistically. This means that when there is satisfaction in the leadership style, the employee engagement increases, and the vice versa is true. 

Recommendations 

These factors may need to be delved in the future to better understand them in perspective of the employee engagement. The findings of the research, however, indicate a relationship between intent to turnover and the employee engagement. The analysis of the statistics also indicates that the support from the organization increases, while the turnover intent decreases. Even though a cause was not established, there was a negative correlation between both variables. The study noted earlier that lower employee turnout was closely related with higher engagement levels in the organization, but with more productivity, better returns from the shareholders, and overall amazing performance in the finance department. This leads to the recommendation for a newsletter every month to create excitement about new opportunities, and in the process create open communication. 

The company also needs to develop a mission statement that is clear and well defined. This will improve the overall outlook of the employees to the company. Involving the employees in this entire process could also prove crucial to have better communication among them and improve efficiency and the profit margins. When these employees understand what is expected of them by the organization’s management, they will be more effective and make significant contributions to the same. It is also recommended that the company organizes for opportunities to grow within the organization. This helps to improve the employee’s skills and abilities for better productivity in the company. This is owing to the statistic that organizational support may lead to decrease in intent to turnover. Opportunities created to boost skills in employees can serve as a great motivator for them, and help them to manage a lot of the stress that they endure on a day to day basis. Retaining employees, both current and future can also serve as great way to improve the quality and efficiency of work. 

References 

Albrech, S.L. (2011). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19 (7). https://doi.org/10.1108/hrmid.2011.04419gaa.019 

Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133 , 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174 . 

Endres, G. M., & Mancheno-Smoak, L. (2008). The human resource craze: Human performance improvement and employee engagement. Organization Development Journal, 26 (1), 69–78. 

Hayward, S. (2010). Engaging employees through whole leadership. Strategic HR Review, 9 (3), 11-17. http://dx.doi.org.echo.louisville.edu/10.1108/14754391011040028 

J., A. (2014), Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance . International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 63 (3), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008 

Markos S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance . International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12), 89-96. 

Rahman, W. & Nas, R. (2013). Employee development and turnover intention: Theory validation. European Journal of Training and Development, 37 (6), 564-579. http://doi.org/10.1108/ETJD-May-2012-015 Rhoades L. & Eisenberger R. (2002). 

Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: The integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31 (4), 324-336. http://dx.doi.org.echo.louisville.edu/10.1108/01437731011043348 

Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (2), 155. http://echo.louisville.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.echo.louisville.edu/scholarly-journals/what-do-we-really-know-about-employee-engagement/docview/1541487952/se-2?accountid=14665 

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9 (1), 89. http://echo.louisville.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.echo.louisville.edu/scholarly-journals/employee-engagement-hrd-seminal-review/docview/221829731/se-2?accountid=14665 

Tomlinson, G. (2010). Building a culture of high employee engagement. Strategic HR Review, 9 (3), 25-31. http://echo.louisville.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.echo.louisville.edu/scholarly-journals/building-culture-high-employee-engagement/docview/365445622/se-2?accountid=14665 

Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2015). Measuring the benefits of employee engagement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56 (4), 67-72. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/measuring-the-benefits-of-employee-engagement/ 

Marwan, M., Habsah, M., & Khalil, A. (2019). The effect of perceived transformational leadership style on employee engagement: The mediating effect of leader’s emotional intelligence. Foundations of Management, 11. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Habsah-Muda/publication/334740481_THE_IMPCCT_OF_TRANSFORMATIONAL_LEADERSHIP_STYLE_ON_EMPLOYEE_ENGAGEMENT_USING_STRUCTURAL_EQUATION_MODELING_SEM/links/5efdc2cb458515505084a610/THE-IMPACT-OF-TRANSFORMATIONAL-LEADERSHIP-STYLE-ON-EMPLOYEE-ENGAGEMENT-USING-STRUCTURAL-EQUATION-MODELING-SEM.pdf 

Osbourne, S. & Hammoud, M. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology,16 (1), 50–67. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=ijamt 

Loerzel, T. (2019). Smashing the barriers to employee engagement. Journal of Accountancy. https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2019/jan/employee-engagement-and-retention.html 

Chanana, N. (2020). Employee engagement practices during covid-19 lockdown. Journal of Public Affairs. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pa.2508 

Appendix 

Appendix A 

Correlation 

Pearson's Correlations
Variable				Eng		ITT
1. Eng		Pearson's r		—
		p-value		—
2. ITT		Pearson's r		-0.480		—
		p-value		< .001		—

Descriptive Statistics 

Descriptive Statistics
		Eng				ITT
		FT		PT		FT		PT
Valid		1305		90		1305		90
Missing		2		0		2		0
Mean		4.412		4.317		1.702		1.872
Std. Deviation		0.540		0.625		1.003		1.051
Minimum		1.000		1.050		1.000		1.000
Maximum		5.000		5.000		5.000		5.000

Appendix B 

Correlation 

Pearson's Correlations
Variable				Eng		OS
1. Eng		Pearson's r		—
		p-value		—
2. OS		Pearson's r		0.730		—
		p-value		< .001		—

Descriptive Statistics 

Descriptive Statistics
		Eng				OS
		FT		PT		FT		PT
Valid		1305		90		1307		90
Missing		2		0		0		0
Mean		4.412		4.317		4.184		4.061
Std. Deviation		0.540		0.625		0.750		0.843
Minimum		1.000		1.050		1.000		1.000
Maximum		5.000		5.000		5.000		5.000

Appendix C 

Correlation 

Pearson's Correlations
Variable				Eng		SWL
1. Eng		Pearson's r		—
		p-value		—
2. SWL		Pearson's r		0.634		—
		p-value		< .001		—

Descriptive Statistics 

Descriptive Statistics
		Eng				SWL
		FT		PT		FT		PT
Valid		1305		90		1307		90
Missing		2		0		0		0
Mean		4.412		4.317		4.226		4.198
Std. Deviation		0.540		0.625		0.822		0.932
Minimum		1.000		1.050		1.000		1.000
Maximum		5.000		5.000		5.000		5.000