Employee engagement is mesmerizing and puzzling. There is no solid definition of the term according to researchers. However, engagement is taunted for its benefits to organizations that put it into use. To put it short, employee engagement is a topic that needs further research of its definition beyond the current scopes. Companies that raise their employee engagement reap the rewards of increased productivity and a higher return on investment on human capital. Organizations that are successful in employee engagement have highly motivated employees who are emotionally engaged with the business objectives. Employee engagement increases profit margins and places organizations on top of their competitors.
Defining Engagement
Across academia and research, there exists no specific definition of engagement that is agreed upon. According to Saks & Gruman (2014), confusion persists in engagement research as to what it really is. HR scholars, as well as practitioners, continue to debate the meaning and distinctiveness of employee engagement. One reason for this confusion is the similarity in construct with other concepts such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and commitment. Also, the existing research centers on the angle of employee burnout (Saks & Gruman,2014). It is common to monitor how employees fare for the sake of the organization as well as for the employee's sake. Organizations, therefore, concern themselves with the state of mind and motivation of their workers both as individuals and as groups. When employees lose motivation or experience burnout, productivity dips, and so does return on investment for organizations. One truth is, employee engagement is important due to increase in productivity. However, there is no definition that makes it stand out from other dimensions such as job involvement, satisfaction, and commitment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One definition that exists is credited to Khan’s papers. According to Saks & Gruman (2014), Khan (1990) defines engagement as the channeling of organization members' energy to their work roles. Further, engagement is the "simultaneous employment and expression of a person's 'preferred self' in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performance" (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Here, engagement is demystified as an activity from managers to trigger the exertion of focus into work-related activities by employees. It is defined as an intentional action geared toward boosting performance at work. Engagement is also a state exhibited by employees, which then becomes the organizational state. When people are disengaged, they raise their defenses against work-related activities (Saks & Gruman, 2014). This happens psychologically, physically, and emotionally.
Other definitions are inspired by Khan's. One such definition extends Khan's definition, opining that engaged individuals use their head, hearts, and hands in their work (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Job dimensions such as job involvement and satisfaction do not fully represent the self in a working context. Engagement is more of a holistic term, involving all realms of the human being in relation to their role at work.
The second definition of engagement revolves around work burnout. Engagement is defined as the opposite of burnout (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The state of engagement is an embodiment of the simultaneous involvement with personally fulfilling activities with work. This energized state is one filled with optimism, creativity, and zeal. The opposite is burnout, a state of cynicism, inefficacy, and fatigue (Saks and Gruman, 2014). An employee becomes less motivated and productive when in a state of burnout. The quality of their output dips, and, thus, the return on investment on human capital follows suit. On the other hand, the state of engagement promises amped up productivity. Consequently, the employee becomes valuable to the company and is more of an asset than a liability.
Importance of Employee Engagement
Even with contradicting definitions, it is agreeable that employee engagement is beneficial. This is because employee engagement goes hand in hand with organizational outcomes, which has led to the rise of HR consultation firms that promise to improve employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Employee engagement has been the topic of discussion in the business and HR world and a topic for researchers. According to Markos & Sridevi (2010), the following dimensions of organizational performance display a positive relationship vis a vis employee engagement: profitability, customer loyalty, employee retention, productivity, and customer safety. All metrics point to the benefits of employee engagement (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). It is the desire for every organization to have engaged employees. More engaged employees increase the probability of an employer exceeding the industry average revenue (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Employees root for the organization among other employees, which leads to the attraction of talent to the company. Even further, employees are filled with a desire to associate with the company even though opportunities exist elsewhere. The employee contributes effort, time, and creativity in order to make sure the company stays profitable.
On the contrary, disengaged employees are a liability to an organization. According to Markos & Sridevi (2010), disengaged employees miss 3.5 more days per year and cost the US economy $292 to $395 billion per year. Disengaged employees are cynical, and will not stick around for things to improve or offer solutions. When it comes to performance measurement in organizations, disengaged employees dislike the idea. This is indicative of a lack of commitment to the performance of the organization and, therefore, will lead to the doom of the organization. Thus, employee disengagement leads to loss of revenue, which is a liability to an organization.
Measuring Engagement
Tools exist that help in the measurement of employee engagement. Employee engagement can be measured on the individual as well as the workgroup level (Attrige,2009). A popular tool used to measure employee engagement is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), which encompasses dimensions of engagement which are behavioral, emotional, and cognitive (Attrige, 2009). Behavior corresponds to the zeal an employee has. This is the energy and vim a worker exudes in their work. The emotional dimension corresponds to the heart of the employee and how dedicated they are to work and the organization's objectives. This dimension is a reflection of how far the employee would go for the company to ensure it is profitable. The cognitive aspect addresses the mental absorption of an employee into work-related goals. An engaged employee does not realize how fast time elapses when they are at work. The work they interact with satisfies and interests them keeping them engaged.
Other custom measurement tools have been developed by consultancy firms. Large firms such as Blessing White, Gallup, Sirota, Towers Perrin, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, among others, have their home-grown solutions for measuring engagement (Attrige, 2009). However, one that stands out is Gallup's (Attrige, 2009). Gallup's scholars for over 30 years have investigated the employee response to management strategies in different industries. The main focus of the study is on successful operations rather than failures (Attrige, 2009). As a result of the study of productive organizations, a 12-item Worker Engagement Index was born, which is a feature in many textbooks.
Companies have measured engagement for various reasons. Ford company has used data from studying employee work-life vis a vis HR and management practices and developed better employee benefits (Attrige, 2009). National City Bank leveraged the collection of data on what kept employees most engaged and improved the level of retention and customer relations. This proves that companies are beginning to value employee engagement and the benefits of measuring it to achieve some of their outcomes.
Key Lessons
All of the aforementioned definitions praise employee engagement. The argument in support of this practice is profound, and the evidence promotes employee engagement. The reality cannot be further from the truth as the measurement of employee engagement can be used to retain talent in the company, as in the case of National City Bank (Attrige, 2009). It is high time companies incorporate employee engagement in their strategies for success.
The argument of the papers cited is against employee disengagement. Although scholars may disagree on the definitions, a convergence is true against disengagement. Disengaged employees generate losses in absenteeism and lost productivity due to low spirit and morale. The cynicism against the organization leads to lost revenues and dissatisfied customers. Therefore, I have learned that organizations should steer away from disengagement, no matter its definition.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the research points to the importance of employee engagement. Even with its importance, engagement is still a topic that needs research as to its definition, dimensions, and measurement. The best definition of engagement is one that incorporates the three dimensions of the human being that are mind, body, and spirit, simultaneously engaged in work to achieve the goals of the company. Also, burnout might lead to depression and anxiety in workers, harming not only the employee but also the employer. It is important, therefore, to pinpoint and address such issues through the collection of data on engagement to adjust and improve, where possible, HR strategies that lead to better engagement and, thus, higher productivity. It is also necessary for organizations to develop their measurement tools to better suit their industry as well as to come up with ways of increasing engagement that suit the industry.
References
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health , 24 (4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240903188398
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 1 (1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Markos, S. K., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management , 5 (12). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly , 25 (2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21187
