The Individual Side of Employee Engagement A Research Study By Dilbag Singh 1. Introduction The primary objective of every organization is to create value through the delivery of products and services. The employees of the organization are central to this process of value creation. They are the ones who utilize the capabilities embodied in their person in addition to the provided resources so as to create the maximum value. Leveraging these resources, especially the personal ones possessed by the employees result in optimal performance that greatly affects the way teams and organization perform. Therefore, it becomes of primary interest for managers and leaders alike to understand and facilitate the process by which the employees are able to fully engage themselves towards the performance of their work. One of the most recent and popular constructs for understanding this process is that of “employee engagement”. It has emerged as a very popular term - not only in the HR community, but also among other senior executives and board members. CXOs are embracing evidence-based analysis showing how people-based strategies that improve employee engagement clearly impact bottom-line results (Boudreau & Jesuthasan, 2011) (Gruman & Saks, 2010) (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Emerging research indicates that people are truly an organization’s most valuable asset, and that employee engagement is a key lever towards maximizing shareholder value. However, despite its popularity, there remains a dearth of peer reviewed academic literature on the subject. The literature also does not provide a clear definition of employee engagement (Shuck & Wollard, 2010) (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Nevertheless, various case studies and results from research organizations as well as world of practice have established that there is a strong linkage between employee engagement, performance and business impact. Research shows that there are multiple factors that impact the level of employee engagement. These factors are related to the employee, their managers, the leaders in the organization and the organizational environment. The present study recognizes that the employee as a person is at the center of the employee engagement construct. (S)he is the one who has to be engaged in the job/work that is assigned. Therefore, this study makes an attempt to understand these
15
Embed
The Individual Side of Employee · PDF fileThe Individual Side of Employee Engagement A Research Study By Dilbag Singh 1.# Introduction# The primary objective of every organization
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Individual Side of Employee Engagement A Research Study
By Dilbag Singh
1. Introduction The primary objective of every organization is to create value through the delivery of products
and services. The employees of the organization are central to this process of value creation.
They are the ones who utilize the capabilities embodied in their person in addition to the
provided resources so as to create the maximum value. Leveraging these resources, especially
the personal ones possessed by the employees result in optimal performance that greatly
affects the way teams and organization perform. Therefore, it becomes of primary interest for
managers and leaders alike to understand and facilitate the process by which the employees
are able to fully engage themselves towards the performance of their work.
One of the most recent and popular constructs for understanding this process is that of
“employee engagement”. It has emerged as a very popular term - not only in the HR
community, but also among other senior executives and board members. CXOs are embracing
evidence-based analysis showing how people-based strategies that improve employee
1. Intense and focused concentration on what one is doing in the present moment.
2. Merging of Action and Awareness
3. Distortion of temporal experience (A sense that the time has passed faster than normal)
4. Experience of activity as intrinsically rewarding such that the end goal is just an excuse
for the process.
The flow state is also directly linked to optimal functioning and development. Schaufeli et al
(2002) defines employee engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption.” The construct of “absorption” is explained
as being fully concentrated and engrossed in the work, similar to the characteristics number 1,
2 and 3 listed above. Experiencing absorption also provides intrinsic rewards that further
encourage persistence in an activity (Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2011). Thereby, a direct
linkage between employee engagement and the construct of flow is showcased.
5.3 Talent as a Source of Flow In their longitudinal researches conducted by Csikszentmihalyi et al (1993) on talented
teenagers, the researchers found that the commitment to a talent area at the age of 17 was
predicted by student’s identification of this talent area as the source of flow 4 years previously.
In another research, it was found that the students who experience flow in first part of a math
course performed better in the second half (Heine, 1996).
These longitudinal researches suggest that commitment, achievement and persistence
exhibited by teenagers were associated with their identification of a talent area as a source
flow, through their previous experiences of flow. Therefore, in order to enhance the level of
engagement in a person, an exploration is required for those areas of talent that facilitate flow
experiences. The person should then be entrusted with such task/job roles that require above
average deployment of the skills and talents. The pioneering work of Donald Clifton in the
area of individual strengths defines the talent areas as “naturally recurring patterns of thought,
feeling, or behaviour that can be productively applied.” “ These talents can be traced in life
experiences characterized by spontaneous reactions, yearnings, rapid learning, satisfaction and
timelessness” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Donald Clifton viewed these areas of talents are
the raw materials for strengths. The strength construct combines the area of talent with right
knowledge and skills and is defined as the ability to provide consistent and near perfect
performance in a specific task.
Another reference to the concept of talent is found in Herbert Shepard’s seminal article, “A
Path with a Heart”. Shepard has employed the term “genius” for the individual differences
mentioned by Kahn in his article. According to Shepard (1984), “genius” refers to those
personal talents that an individual would love to develop and use. These talents are the
“resources” that may be presently or potentially deployed in order to perform with, or deliver,
excellence. Such performance or activity is so fulfilling that if one also got paid to do them, it
would feel like a gift rather than compensation (Shepard, 1984).
5.4 The Process of Identifying Talents The above discussion about the areas of interests, talents, strengths and genius addresses the
perspective provided by Kahn while proposing the future direction of research in the area of
employee engagement. As the inherent interests, talents and strengths possessed by the person
differ both in degree and variety; the above discussion explains the reason behind different
individuals demonstrating differing level of engagement towards the same job or its sub-
components. Further, the degree to which the inherent interests, talents and strength are
employed in various job responsibilities dictates the reason behind the varying degrees of
engagement exhibited by the same individual while performing the job roles at different times.
Therefore, in order to enhance the level of engagement, the areas of inherent interests and
talents of an individual should be explored. Donald Clifton used semi-structured interviews to
identify these talents. The questions in these interviews were based the past success stories of
the interviewees (Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2011). Similarly, Herbert Shepard (1984)
mentioned three sources of information that are helpful in discovery of “genius”:
1. The first source is “play”. Making a list of things that one enjoys doing and finding
common themes can provide insights about one’s talents.
2. The second source is “life history”. It entails recording in some detail the times in one’s
past life when the person was doing something very well and enjoying it very much.
What themes or patterns of strength, skill and activity pervade most of those times?
What were the sources of satisfaction therein?
3. The third source is feedback from others. Seeking answers to the following questions
can help in discovering genius”
Ø What do those who know you have to say about your strengths and talents?
Ø As the people who know you see it, what seems to excite, give you pleasure, engage you?.
This methodology of asking questions that help uncover the past success stories, is similar to
Appreciative Inquiry technique propounded by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastava.
“Appreciative Inquiry deliberately seeks to discover people’s exceptionality – their unique gifts, strengths,
and qualities. It actively searches and recognizes people for their specialties – their essential contributions
and achievements. Its goal is to discover in all human beings the exceptional and the essential”.
(Cooperrider, 2001)
Appreciative Inquiry consists of a four-stage process: Discover, Dream, Design and Deploy.
During discover stage the focus is on identifying the core strengths of the individuals. The core
strengths are derived from the word appreciate which is “the act of recognizing the best in
people or the world around us” or “affirming past and present strengths, successes, and
potentials” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). These factors are put together, called the positive
core, and are used as a base point for change. The Discovery part of AI is derived from the
word inquiry which is “the act of exploration and discovery” or to ask questions; to be open to
seeing new potentials and possibilities” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Participants normally
take part in structured interviews or storytelling in order to isolate the factors that contribute
to optimal personal performance levels. These interviews are a systematic way of uncovering
what brings out the best in people.
The information generated by these questions can be analyzed to identify recurring themes or
patterns. These themes or pattern can then be further explored to discover or reaffirm the
inherent interests and talents of an individual. These areas of talents can then be aligned to the
activities involved in one’s job role to increase the level of work engagement.
6. Conclusion Employee engagement has generated a widespread interested among both academics and
practitioners over the last two and half decades. It is also widely accepted that employee
engagement is directly related to superior performance at individual, team and organizational
level. Multiple attempts have been made in first defining the construct and secondly to
measure the level of employee engagement. The researchers agree on the behaviours exhibited
and the psychological state of the engaged employee or person. The study also highlights two
of the most repeatedly instrument used by academics and practitioners to measure the level of
employee engagement. The discussion of the Intrinsic Motivation and Flow constructs
revealed that deployment of interest/talents/strengths of an individual is central to engaging
the employees. These areas of interest/talents/strengths can be identified by making the
individuals reflect on their past peak experiences using the Appreciative Inquiry technique.
Once properly identified, these interest/talent/strength areas can be aligned to the various
activities performed by individuals in their job roles leading to increased levels of employee
engagement.
Fully understanding the conceptual nature of the research and its finding, the author invites
further research by academics and practitioners to gather empirical evidence around the
positive correlation between deployment of interests/talents/strengths in job roles and
enhancement in employee engagement levels. Additional research should be conducted to
empirically test the efficacy of Appreciative Inquiry technique as a method to identify the
interests/talents/strengths of individuals.
References
Bakker, & Bal. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (1), 189-206.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self Concordance at work: Towards Understanding the Motivational Effects of transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal , 46 (5), 554-571.
Boudreau, J., & Jesuthasan, R. (2011). Transformative HR: How Great Companies Use Evidence-Based Change for Sustainable Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, L. (2007). Psychology of motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, Discover Your Strengths. London: Pocket Books.
Carasco-Saul, M., Woocheol, K., & Taesung, K. (2015). Leadership and Employee Engagement: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Literature. Human Resource Development Review , 14 (1), 38-63.
Clarke, N., & MacLeod, D. (2009). Engaging for Success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement. Richmond, Surrey: UK Government.
Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior with concept maps. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Cooperrider, D.L. et. al. (Eds) , Lessons from the Field: Applying Appreciative Inquiry, Thin Book Publishing, 2001, page 12.
David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney, “What is Appreciative Inquiry?” A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry, 01 May 2005, <http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm>.
Csikszentmihalyi , M., Rathunde , K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Beyind Boredom and Anxiety. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Flow. Croydon: Rider.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.
Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2010). New Developments in Performance Management. Human Resource Management Review , 21 (2), 123-136.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, 268-279.
Harter, J., & Agrawal, S. (2011). Cross-cultural analysis of Gallup’s Q12 employee engagement instrument. Omaha,NE: Gallup.
Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology (87), 268-279.
Harter, J., Schmidt, F., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. (2013). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AT WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES 2012 Q12® META-ANALYSIS . Lincoln: Gallup.
Heine. (1996). Flow and Achievement in Mathematics. In C. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, & J. T. Pedrotti, Positive Psychology (p. 259). New Delhi: Sage Pulication.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33, 692-794.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal (33), 692-724.
Kenexa. (2008). The Impact of Employee Engagement. Kenexa Research Institute. Wayne, PA: Kenexa.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for a competitive advantage. SHRM Research Quarterly .
Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1), 3-30.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management , 5 (12), 89-96.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The Truth About Burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology (52), 397-422.
Nakamura, J., & Csikssentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow Theory and Research. In S. Lopez, & C. Snyder, Oxford handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 195-206). New York: Oxford University Press.
Perrins, T. (2004). Reconnecting with Employees: Quantifying the value of engaging your workforce. London: Tower Perrins.
Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21, 600-619.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004, December -). UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from wilmarschaufeli.nl: http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki, Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach . Journal of Happiness Studies , 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, V. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3, 71-92.
Schmidt, F. L., Harter, K. J., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2012). Resources. Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Gallup: http://strengths.gallup.com/private/Resources/Q12Meta-Analysis_Flyer_GEN_08%2008_BP.pdf
Seppälä, Mauno, Feldt, Hakanen, & Kinnunen, T. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies , 10 (4), 459-481.
Shepard, H. (1984). On the realization of Human Potential: A path with a heart. In M. Arthur, L. Bailyn, D. Levenson, & H. Shepard, Working with Careers (pp. 25-46). New York: Columbia University School of Business.
Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kosugi, Suzuki, & Nashiwa, K. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology , 57 (3), 510-523.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9 (1), 89-110.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2011). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review , 9, 89.
Snyder, C., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2011). Positive Psychology. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Wellins, R. S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005). Employee Engagement: The key to realizing competitive advantage. Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Development Dimensions International: http://www.wip.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_employeeengagement_mg.pdf