Employee Engagement: A key to Organizational Success & Individual Success
 |
Introduction
When considering the achieving of organizational performance goals, Employee engagement has been perceived as an important factor as well as a motivational factor. The good environment facilitated to the employee enables him\her to return the best that the organization needs to achieve the organizational goals and objectives (Kazimoto, 2016) .
Undoubtedly, any manager would agree on the fact that in this era, there is a higher demand for the efficiency and productivity than ever in history. Any businesses main focus is to improve their performance, therefore, managers are struggling on challenges to succeeding their company goals through uplifting employee performance. In aid of such managers, various researchers, scholars, consultants came up with different concepts like Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Total Quality Management (TQM) in later part of the last century. Those concepts mainly helped in increasing organizational performance by executing operational and process improvement (Markos and Sridevi, 2010) .
By the time when the sophisticated technologies emerged and make use of such advanced technologies organizations required to hire people with higher technical and professional competencies. Totalitarian management styles obviously not suitable for such knowledge workers because such employees expect not only job satisfaction but their status and operational autonomy also are considered. Due to these facts managers shifted their attention more towards employee side. As further stated by Markos and Sridevi (2010), concepts like employee commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has emerged during the last two decades of the twentieth century in the field of efficiency and productivity. Managers started thinking of ways in which keeps employees engaged in their job. Employers then realized that more productive and efficient workforce can be created by focusing more on employee engagement.
Today, employee engagement has become the hot topic in management and which has absorbed into agenda of HR topics. Therefore in present, it is hard to find articles, books on the topic of HR or management without mention something of engagement and the ways in which enabling the engagement
What is Employee Engagement?
According to Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (2003, cited in Markos and Sridevi, 2010,p.90) employee engagement defined as "employees' willingness and ability to contribute to their company succeed, largely by providing discretionary effort on a sustainable basis". The study reveals engagement is affected by many factors such as emotional and rational factors relating to work and the overall work experience.
Another definition of employee engagement is; "a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization 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 the organization. The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee" (Robinson, et al., 2004, p.9).
The definition given by Robinson, et al. (2004) has given a clear idea that the employee engagement is not all about employees account but a two-way relationship between employer and employee where both parties need to contribute towards successful employee engagement.
Levinson (2007, cited in Robertson-Smith and Markwick, 2009) states that satisfied, happy employees create loyal customers to the business. Engaged employees equipped with a better understanding of how to fulfil customer needs (Right Management, 2006). Levinson (2007) further states that when fully engaged employees (sales teams) are selling to engage customers; loyalty of the customer, willingness to purchases repetitively and recommendations to others are double than the companies with average employee engagement.
Employee retention perspective, BlessingWhite (2008) confounded that 85 per cent of engaged employees are more loyal and willing to stay with the company when compared to 27 per cent of disengaged employees. 41 per cent of engaged employees devotedly said that they would stay in the company is in crisis and struggling to survive.
Considering the employee productivity, (Saunders and Tiwari,2014; Patro, 2013) clearly states that when Employees are more engaged in it to tend to be more productive. Such engaged employees not only work smarter but they are good at working with colleagues and management for the organization and business benefits. Engagement affects employee performance (Kahn, 1990). A study done with 50,000 employees revealed that the most engaged and committed employees perform 20 per cent better than their colleagues (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004).
When considering the aspect of employee benefits or positive outcomes of the employee engagement, a research has proved that engagement gives result in positive health impact and positive feelings towards work and the organization (Mauno et al., 2007). According to Gallup (Crabtree, 2005, cited in Lockwood, 2007, P.3), it has been proven that 62 per cent of engaged employees reporting a positive effect of work upon their physical health. Gallup further states that perceptions of the organization as a healthy place to work increases the employees’ level of support for their organization: "engaged employees are more likely to see the organization and job as a healthy environment and therefore more likely to support the organization".
Halbesleben, Harvey and Bolino (2009) argue that individuals who are highly engaged have shown a higher possibility of interfering with their family life because of the highly engaged work life. Macey and Schneider (2008) suggest that energy and resource of the employees only have a finite quantity, and regularly using them to keep a high level of engagement may prove challenging in the long run.
Engaged employees lead to individual performance, increased productivity, retention, customer loyalty and profitability ultimately to the organizational performance. On the other hand, organizations with disengaged employees facing difficulties and suffer due to the lack of commitment, less customer orientation, less productivity and fewer profit margins altogether negative impact on organizational performance. It has been proven throughout this article that the organizational leadership focus towards employee engagement is the main aspect of building up an engaged workforce. Without engaged leadership, it is unlikely to have engaged workforce (Markos and Sridevi, 2010) . From the beginning of recruitment itself, employee engagement must be focused and it is recommended for an organization to build up an organizational culture which highly focuses on employee engagement.
The Components of the Employee Engagement
Engagement mainly consists of three overlapping components such as Commitment, Motivation, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The model containing these components which are introduced by the Institute for Employment Studies (Armstrong, 2014) , this is illustrated in figure 1 below.
Figure 1 : IES Model of employee engagement
 |
(Source: Armstrong, 2014)
|
Drivers of Employee Engagement
It is necessary to understand the factors that affect employee engagement; its antecedents and drivers. Crawford, et al., (2013) listed the employee engagement drivers as follows;
- Job challenge – Challenging job gives the potential for accomplishments and personal growth for an employee
- Autonomy – This provides a sense of ownership and control over work outcomes. Allow employees to schedule their work at their own procedures.
- Variety – Being able to perform different activities which required different skill levels makes the job interesting.
- Feedback – Providing frequent feedback to the employees about the effectiveness of their performance.
- Fit - The existence of compatibility between an employee and a work environment allows individuals to work in a confidant.
- Opportunities for development – Development opportunities make work meaningful to the employee because they provide pathways for growth and for fulfilling personal objectives.
- Rewards and recognition - Incentives, rewards and recognition are the major factors which impact on employee motivation
Characteristics of Employees Based on Engagement Level
Gallup (2006) states classification of the employees into three types based on their level of engagement. Those three types are; the engaged, not‐engaged and the actively disengaged. Same explained in figure 2 below. (Krueger and Killham, 2006). Because of the discretionary effort, that engaged employees consistently show towards their role, Engaged employees normally stand apart from the actively disengaged and not engaged employees. Such employees’ usually work with passion, willing to go an extra mile and bear a profound connection to the organization (Reilly, 2014). Not-engaged workers can be difficult to identify easily. They usually spend workday uninspired and lacking motivation. Most importantly they are not disruptive or overtly hostile but do work just to fulfil their job requirements. They do not possess much concern for customers, the productivity of the work occupied with, the profitability of the organization, or quality of work (Reilly, 2014). Actively disengaged employees are considered are cave dwellers. They do not urge to work and consistently unhappy at work. Not only that, such people undermine the engaged employees’ effort (Saunders and Tiwari, 2014).
Figure 2: The Three Types of Employees
Figure 2: The Three Types of Employees
 |
(Source: Krueger and Killham, 2006)
|
Positive Impacts of the Employee Engagement
Robertson-Smith and Markwick (2009) explain the positive impacts of the employee engagement and it has been categorized into two main aspects such as Organizational outcomes as well as employee outcomes. Organizational outcomes are listed as customer loyalty, Employee productivity, Advocacy of the organization, Manager self-efficacy, Organizational Performance, Bottom-line profit, Successful organizational change. Positive outcomes in employee perspective are been discussed as Clarifying expectations, health and well-being.
Levinson (2007, cited in Robertson-Smith and Markwick, 2009) states that satisfied, happy employees create loyal customers to the business. Engaged employees equipped with a better understanding of how to fulfil customer needs (Right Management, 2006). Levinson (2007) further states that when fully engaged employees (sales teams) are selling to engage customers; loyalty of the customer, willingness to purchases repetitively and recommendations to others are double than the companies with average employee engagement.
Employee retention perspective, BlessingWhite (2008) confounded that 85 per cent of engaged employees are more loyal and willing to stay with the company when compared to 27 per cent of disengaged employees. 41 per cent of engaged employees devotedly said that they would stay in the company is in crisis and struggling to survive.
Considering the employee productivity, (Saunders and Tiwari,2014;
When considering the aspect of employee benefits or positive outcomes of the employee engagement, a research has proved that engagement gives result in positive health impact and positive feelings towards work and the organization (Mauno et al., 2007). According to Gallup (Crabtree, 2005, cited in Lockwood, 2007, P.3), it has been proven that 62 per cent of engaged employees reporting a positive effect of work upon their physical health. Gallup further states that perceptions of the organization as a healthy place to work increases the employees’ level of support for their organization: "engaged employees are more likely to see the organization and job as a healthy environment and therefore more likely to support the organization".
Negative Impacts of the Employee Engagement
In many pieces of literature on HRM, it has been proven that employee engagement has numerous benefits and positive impact on the organizations as well as employees. However, by the time certain researchers have focused on the negative impacts of the employee engagement. Various studies were done by Halbesleben, Harvey and Bolino, (2009), Bolino and Turnley (2005) and Kim, Shin and Swanger (2009, cited in Daljeet,2013) explain the possible ways in which employee engagement can have an adverse effect on an individual in the workplace.
Halbesleben, Harvey and Bolino (2009) argue that individuals who are highly engaged have shown a higher possibility of interfering with their family life because of the highly engaged work life. Macey and Schneider (2008) suggest that energy and resource of the employees only have a finite quantity, and regularly using them to keep a high level of engagement may prove challenging in the long run.
Real World Examples – Success Stories Thought the Employee Engagement.
In the local context, a great example of an organization which succeeded through employee engagement is Dialog Axiata PLC. As Sri Lanka’s largest technology and telecom provider, Dialog constantly improving in a smart way its operations, coverage, products and services. Dialog continues to consistently introduce transformations to the technologies through its encouragement of top-tier innovation (Anon., 2015) . Dialog adheres to industry best practices for service delivery, including People CMM Level 4 – the highest rating for employee engagement and satisfaction, COPC certification (Customer Operations Performance Centre) for contact centre operations, and the Customer Service Quality Standard (Dialog, 2013) . ‘Service from My Heart’ is the key value and the premise for service of the Dialog. This campaign has been a reason for a significant impact in transforming internal work culture through organized and cohesive teamwork, increased motivation levels of staff. Other key quantitative measures include process improvements which follow-on cost, as well as time savings, an increase in engagement scores seen in surveys, carried out by independent bodies and increased levels of empowerment for staff resulting in customer delight (Anon., 2017) .
Considering the global context, Google is a prominent example of succeeded in employee engagement. Liane Hornsey, Director of People Operations for EMEA region once said that the company “would not have been able to innovate as quickly as it has, nor create the products it has in such a short space of time without highly valuing employee engagement” (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p.48). Over the past two decades, Google has been kept growing rapidly. Retaining the ‘Small-company feel’ has been a man challenge, in order to achieve that, Google considers recruiting very seriously and employee wellbeing is also top in the agenda. A large amount of money, as well as effort, has been invested in social activities intended to cultivate a sense of belonging, a team culture and a to inspire the sense of psychological contract between employee and the Google. For example canteen of the London office is free(MacLeod and Clarke, 2009) .
Considering the global context, Google is a prominent example of succeeded in employee engagement. Liane Hornsey, Director of People Operations for EMEA region once said that the company “would not have been able to innovate as quickly as it has, nor create the products it has in such a short space of time without highly valuing employee engagement” (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p.48). Over the past two decades, Google has been kept growing rapidly. Retaining the ‘Small-company feel’ has been a man challenge, in order to achieve that, Google considers recruiting very seriously and employee wellbeing is also top in the agenda. A large amount of money, as well as effort, has been invested in social activities intended to cultivate a sense of belonging, a team culture and a to inspire the sense of psychological contract between employee and the Google. For example canteen of the London office is free
Conclusion
List of References
Anon. (2015) Dialog Awards strengthens employee engagement – MTI commended. [Online]
Right Management (2006) Measuring True Employee Engagement, s.l.: Right Management.
Right Management (2016) Employee Engagement Maximizing Organizational Performance, Philadelphia: Right Management.
Robertson-Smith, G. and Markwick, C. (2009) Employee Engagement A review of current thinking, Brighton: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S.(2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES.
Saunders, L. and Tiwari, D.(2014) Employee Engagement and Disengagement: Causes and Benefits. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2(5), pp. 44-52.
Soldati, P.(2007) Employee engagement: What exactly is it?. [Online]
William, H. Macey, B. S.(2008) The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 3-30.
Available at: http://www.mtiworldwide.com/news/dialog-awards-strengthens-employee-engagement-mti-commended/
[Accessed on 08 May 2018].
[Accessed on 08 May 2018].
Anon.(2017) Dialog bags two regional Gold awards at Asian Customer Engagement Forum. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Dialog-bags-two-regional-Gold-awards-at-Asian-Customer-Engagement-Forum-138710.html
[Accessed on 08 May2018].
[Accessed on 08 May2018].
Anon.(2018) Research Report: Forget about engagement; let’s talk about great days at work…, s.l.: BlessingWhite, a Division of GP Strategies.
Armstrong, M.(2014) Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. 13th ed. London: Kogan Page.
Bedarkar, M. and Pandita, D.(2014) A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Issue 133, pp. 106-115.
BlessingWhite(2008) The State of Employee Engagement, s.l.: BlessingWhite.
BlessingWhite(2018) Research Report: Forget about engagement; let’s talk about great days at work, s.l.: BlessingWhite, a Division of GP Strategies Corporation.
Bolino, M. C. and Turnley, W. H.(2005) The Personal Costs of Citizenship Behavior: The Relationship Between Individual Initiative and Role Overload, Job Stress, and Work–Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), pp. 740-746.
Corporate Leadership Council (2004) Driving Performance and Retention Through Employee Engagement, Washington DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J.(2013) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J.(2013) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Daljeet, K. N.(2013) Is There a Downside to Engagement for Employees?. Western Undergraduate Psychology Journal, 1(1), p. Article 9.
Danish, R. Q. and Usman, A. (2010) Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job Satisfaction and Motivation: An Empirical Study from Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), pp. 159-167.
Dialog, (2013) Convergence - Dialog Sustainability Report, Colombo: Dialog Axiata PLC.
Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J. and Bolino, M. C. (2009) Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. The Journal of applied psychology, 94(6), p. 1452–1465.
Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), p. 692–724.
Kazimoto, P. (2016) Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance of Retails Enterprises. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 06(04), pp. 516-525.
Krueger, J. and Killham, E. (2006) Who's Driving Innovation at Your Company?. [Online]
Available at: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/24472/whos-driving-innovation-your-company.aspx
[Accessed on 08 May 2018].
Lockwood, N. R. (2007) Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage:HR’s Strategic Role. Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, p. 3.
MacLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement:a report to the government, London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Markos, S. and Sridevi, M. S. (2010) Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), pp. 89-95.
Mauno, S., Kinnunenb, U. and Ruokolainena, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), pp. 149-171.
Patro, C. S. (2013) The Impact of Employee Engagement on Organization’s Productivity. Mysore, SDMIMD, p. 3.
Pont, J. (2004) Are they really ‘On the Job’?ʹ. Potentials, Volume 32, p. 37.
Reilly, R.(2014) Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now. [Online]
Available at: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/166667/five-ways-improve-employee-engagement.aspx
[Accessed on 08 May 2018].
[Accessed on 08 May 2018].
Right Management (2006) Measuring True Employee Engagement, s.l.: Right Management.
Right Management (2016) Employee Engagement Maximizing Organizational Performance, Philadelphia: Right Management.
Robertson-Smith, G. and Markwick, C. (2009) Employee Engagement A review of current thinking, Brighton: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S.(2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES.
Saunders, L. and Tiwari, D.(2014) Employee Engagement and Disengagement: Causes and Benefits. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2(5), pp. 44-52.
Soldati, P.(2007) Employee engagement: What exactly is it?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.management-issues.com/opinion/4008/employee-engagement--what-exactly-is-it/
[Accessed on 10 May 2018].
[Accessed on 10 May 2018].
William, H. Macey, B. S.(2008) The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 3-30.
The success of an organization depends largely on its ability to adapt to the environment and its ability to connect people with their roles (Armstrong, 2006). Negative work environment will make employees were anxious and feeling annoyed. This can result in low productivity, lack of motivation and poor communication (Murphey ,2013).
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment Erana, agree with the statement cited from (Armstrong,2006). As I have brought up in my literature part, engagement is something to be cared by both employer and the employee both parties. It clearly states in the definition itself given by Robinson et al. (2004). It is a two way relationship where employer has great responsibility to provide and maintain good work environment, in the meantime employee also should act bases on positive traits to succeed with employee engagement.
DeleteAdding on to your article. West (2005) states that when people feel affirmative feelings, they can think in a more adaptable, liberal way and are likewise liable to feel significant self-discipline, adapt all the more adequately and be less defensive in the work environment. According to Robinson (2006),employee engagement can be accomplished through the formation of an organisational surrounding where positive feelings, for example, contribution and pride are supported, bringing about enhanced organisational performance, lowering employee turnover and better wellbeing.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations can overcome the engagement issues by developing better leaders who are more emotionally intelligent, which means they are very helpful for their team members performance, and are trustworthy and very keen on their limitations. More importantly, leaders must understand what keeps their employees motivated and engage in enhancing their emotional intelligence which helps them in improving the ability in understanding people (Bolman & Deal, 2014).
ReplyDeleteThank You for your valuable comment Jeyakanth, Indeed leadership matters. under engagement strategies topic, Markos & Sridevi (2010) clearly states that employee engagement requires a commitment of the leadership through establishing a clear mission, vision and values. Employee engagement does not need lip-service rather dedicated heart and action-oriented service from top management. It requires 'Leading by being an example'.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooking at your conclusion, you mention an interesting perspective when you say that employee engagement should be considered at the early stages of the recruitment process. My blog focuses on psychometric testing as a form of recruitment and selection - perhaps this could be one way to identify employees that have the potential to be engaging early on?
DeleteAdditionally, Snape and Redman mention that there is strong evidence of individual HRM practices impacting employee perceptions of support from the organisation (2010). As you have also indicated above, the matter of engagement is one that should be supported by both employer and employee. In this regard, Snape and Redman recommend the use of training and development to sustain engagement, by allocating managerial time to assess employees and send a message that they are valued and their performance is important to the organisation (2010).
Thanks, Sajiv. Yes, it is! employee engagement is something to be focused from the day one. Markos & Sridevi (2010) clearly brought in the point that Effective recruitment and orientation programs are the first building blocks to be laid on the first day of the new employee. When we talk in the perspective of selection and recruitment stage, there are two aspects; the first one is identifying the traits which lead to job engagement of an individual. second, the managers must focus on passing the best first impression about the organization. Groef
Delete(2016) brings up 12 ways that the first weeks on the job are the most critical to Employee Engagement. In summary what Groef says is employer should be smart about attracting talented resources by giving a good first impression.
I woul like to add bit more to the co-relation of employee engagement and performance. Engaged employees doesn't always seems to contribute to increse organizational performance. The co-relationship betwen engagement and performance is not steady, because in many cases individuals and teams are not delivering the results that leaders expect. Some leaders noticed best performing teams are often amongst the least satisfied.
DeleteAs you mentioned engagement is an important factor in individual performance, but performance is also affected by many other causes, sometimes these other factors can make a significant impact on performance than the engagement. According to a Google's recent research, open and safe team culture, clear goals, and a strong sense of purpose affects on performance more than employee engagement (Lewis Garrad and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Harvard Business Review).
Thank you Lahiru for adding debatable thoughts. I have mixed thoughts on some statements you brought in. for example "Engaged employees don't always seem to contribute to increase the organizational performance" if you look back the definitions of the employee engagement (EE), most of those definition highlights the strong positive relationship between the employee and the organization. Also according to Armstrong (2014) model of EE has main elements such as Motivation, Organization Citizenship and Commitment which means if one of those elements is missing there we cannot say as an engaged employee. Therefore my counter argument is, if an employee is engaged but not performing well to achieve organizational performance goals means there is a contradiction. I would fully agree with your point if we talk solely on employee satisfaction but there is a huge difference between 'being satisfied' and 'being engaged'. As stated by Rogel (2018) the contentedness is merely job satisfaction, and though satisfaction is generally enough to retain employees, it’s not enough to ensure productivity. Therefore, I believe you have mentioned about a 'not engaged' employee in your statement other than an engaged employee.
DeleteOn the second point, I would fairly agree because EE is not the only attribute of organizational performance. However, in the Google example, you have brought in, those aspects such as clear goals, and a strong sense of purpose are similar to the points discussed in the article under Drivers of Employee Engagement (Welendagoad,2018)
Employee engagement is characterized as a feeling of commitment, passion and energy which translates to the high levels of strength, importunity with even the most challenging task, exceeding expectations, taking initiatives better innovation. (Dickson, 2011)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input Romesh, I agree with the statement of Dickson you brought in here which emphasizes the idea which I was trying to give out thought my article. And I must say it was interesting reading of what Dickson has written in her article based on a study done by focusing on hospitality industry management. one of the interesting facts I found there was the Service Profit Chain by Heskett et al, (1994) which illustrates how the internal service quality leads to the profit of an organization.
DeleteThis is to highlight some of the most effective tactics and strategies the best companies are using to create strong employee engagement.
ReplyDelete1. Zappos
Zappos has been talked about time and time again for their unbelievable customer experience, but at the foundation of this is great employee engagement.
• Coworker Bonus Program
if a coworker really impresses another above and beyond, At Zappos, he can choose to award that coworker another $50 that month. What a great way to recognize employees going above and beyond to assist their fellow coworkers.
• Zappos $$
At Zappos, they call these “Zollars” and they are used as another way to recognize employees who have gone above and beyond. Employees can use them to get company swag, donate them to charity, or use them to enter a raffle for even larger prizes.
• Shadow Sessions
employees usually talk negatively about other departments. At Zappos, they have a program where employees can “shadow” coworkers in other departments for a few hours to gain a better understanding of what they do on a day to day basis. What a great way to build new relationships within the company and gain a better understanding of how other departments operate and why.
2. Facebook
What drives employee engagement at Facebook? It comes down to one word.
• Pride
Pride in the company is the single most important driver of employee engagement. Facebook has found when their employees have pride in the company they are more satisfied, more committed, more successful, and more likely to recommend Facebook to others as a great place to work.
3. Virgin
Much has been written about Virgin and Richard Branson over the years. He has a very simple, yet effective philosophy that drives strong employee engagement.
• Put Employees First
Richard Branson’s philosophy that if staff are happy, customers will follow is the reason Virgin puts employees first. Often times the simplest ideas are the most impactful.
Thank you Kaushal for giving valuable input on interesting engagement drivers of some of the world leading companies. I was much attracted to the Virgin group example you brought in because i was reading article by Richard Branson, where he gives a clue about EE driven by a purposeful busines.
Delete"Purposeful businesses also have, in general, significantly higher rates of employee engagement, retention and productivity. And while you might not be in a position to employ people just yet, it’s important to think about structuring your business with purpose at its core, as this will improve your future prospects (Bradson,2016)."
Read more at https://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/richard-branson-best-way-engage-employees
Hi Amila, according to Krueger and Killham, 2006) there are three types of employees , as you too have indicated, in terms of employee engagement. Here is a practical survey to monitor how this theory practically works.
ReplyDeleteGallup's State of the Global Workplace reported on employee engagement in more than 140 countries.
It's easy for us to think the problem lies with others, but the statistics give us a disturbing truth. Through its research, Gallup found that 87 percent of workers worldwide and 70 percent of employees in the U.S. (84 percent in Canada, 83 percent in the U.K.) are either not engaged or actively disengaged. That means only 30 percent of U.S. workers are driving their organizations forward.
The costs of low engagement aren't limited to turnover and recruitment. Gallup found that actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. $450 billion to $550 billion per year; that number doesn't even take into account the "not engaged" employees.
On the other hand, organizations with high employee engagement will derive benefits in addition to happy employees: The stock value has higher earnings per share, and the businesses experience 22 percent higher profitability, 21 percent higher productivity, 10 percent higher customer engagement, 25 percent to 65 percent lower turnover, 37 percent lower absenteeism, 28 percent lower shrinkage (theft), and 48 percent fewer staff safety incidents.
Wonderful blog! Employee engagement is an opportunity for every employee to gather around a big table with colleagues. Due to the current situation, we can't organize these employee engagement events in person. Online employee engagement activities make it possible to connect with remote team employees around the world.
ReplyDelete