Key determinants of employee value in organisations
Employee engagement is gaining its
prominence in management studies over the years considering its contribution in
organisational success (Esen, 2012). The term employee engagement is gained
popularity in past 20 years. Many scholars have written on this subject but
very less research have been done on this topic. This has created gap in
understanding the notion of employee engagement and formulation of strategies
for employee engagement within organisation. Shuck et
al (2017) defined employee engagement as "a positive active, work-related
psychological state operationalised by the maintenance, intensity, and
direction of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural energy. This
definition suggested employee engagement as a work related psychology.
Objective of this essay is to find out key forces which determine the value of
employee in organisation. This essay helped
with an understanding of employee engagement and its significance within
organisation. Further a critical evaluation of employee engagement has been
done using the writing of previous scholars. Finally this essay provides brief
recommendation for improvement of future essay.
According to Schaufeli et al (2002) employee
engagement can be defined as commitment and involvement of employees towards their
organisation and its value. It
is extremely important for employees to hold positive attitude in workplace for
a positive outcome. This positive attitude of employees also addressed as
positive emotion connection of employees. Over the years many scholars have
came up with different explanation of employee engagement and it can be
summarised from those essay that employee engagement is only possible when
employees express them physically, emotionally and cognitively while performing
their roles. There are several factors which determine whether an employee is
an engaged employee. Employee
performance is also associated with employee engagement and engaged employee
tends to turn as productive employee (Anitha, 2014).
According to Extremera et al (2012) it
has been really challenging to come up with a single definition of employee
engagement due to the difference in opinion, however along with several definition
there are several model and theories of employee engagement. Origin of those theories
re from two different areas of research and those are employee well being and
job burnout. There are two major theories which have successfully contributes
towards the essay of employee engagement and those are Kahn's employee
engagement theory and
In the first theory of Kahn (1990) he
interviewed counsellors of summer camp along with members of and architecture
firm regarding their engagement and disengagement at work. He found through his research that there are
three main psychological conditions such as psychological safety, psychological
meaningfulness and psychological availability which decide the degree of engagement
of employee at work place (Saks
& Gruman, 2014). The more an
employee experiences these three psychological factors, the greater is the
engagement level.
Psychological meaningfulness is the
amount of meaning one drive from their role within organisation (Garrick et al., 2014).
Employee feel useful when they are not taken for granted and their opinion
counts. Workplace which recognise the
extra effort of employee in role self role play and offer incentives drive more
psychological meaningfulness.
Psychological Safety is another
significant attributes for driving employee engagement. Psychological safety
refers to the ability of employee to express true self without being scared of
its negative impact of image and career. Psychological availability refers to
the belief that one has to put emotional, psychological resources in self
performance of a role. It has been evident from the research work of Kahn that
employees could be more engaged in an organisation if employers are able to
provide right physical, emotional and psychological resources for a better role
performance (Saks &
Gruman, 2014)
The second
theory is based on Job burnout. Job burnout is a contrast of employee engagement. According to Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter
(2001) job burnout is nothing but a result from miss matches in six areas of organisational
life. These six areas are workload, control, rewards, recognitions, community,
social support, values and perceived fairness. The amount of gap between a person and these
six areas decided the likelihood of burnouts. It could be stated that
engagement is associated with workload, feeling of choice, control, appropriate
recognition, justice, supportive community and every possible positive
attributes of Organisation. Job burnout
and employee engagement are contradicting terms, while mismatches drive burnout,
matches leads to employee engagement.
Bakker, Tims & Derks (2012) stated that employee
engagement is a good tool for any organisation to gain competitive advantages over
competitors. After reviewing various literatures it can be found that employees
are the most significant asset of organisation and it cannot be duplicated by
the competitors. Employee engagement is a strong factor for any organisation
and helps to decide the faith of the organisation.
Over the years
many argument and opinion have been raised over the real notion of employee
engagement. The main debate was over the fact how employee engagement can be
defined and differentiated. Kahn first came out with an almost perfect
definition of employee engagement.
Various scholars have suggested that employee engagement is associated
with HRM of organisation. The amount of support received from the HR managers
decides the level of employee engagement (Bakibinga, Vinje, & Mittelmark, 2012). Empirical research
also suggested that HR managers are aware of different interest and contest in
organisation and it is not only between management and labour but also
functions of management.
According to Arrowsmith
& Parker (2013) HR has to be precise while they address employee concern and
how they reunite this to competitive plan. Arguably Dalal
et al (2012) stated that it remains
unclear how far and under what conditions HR managers need to consider HR
functions to pursue employee engagement initiatives.
Van Berkel et
al (2017) in their literature tried to bring vulnerable labour group in the
mainstream HRM. This literature shifted
the focus of employee engagement to a different aspect. Unlike most of the
literature where employee engagement is associated with employees, in this
literature employers engagement have been conceptualised based on different played
by employers basis on strategic condition of organisation. Employer's
engagement is associated with HRM practices. Employers are supposed to comply
with minimum standards however they are also considered as partner of policy
making by local, regional and national government. According to this literature
employers engagement may be motivated by CSR concern. This article mainly deals
with vulnerable group of workers who have received moderate attention from the
HRM scholars. It deals with the worker
who is outside or inside the labour market and belongs to vulnerable group. In
this article the scholar further discussed about vulnerable labour market group
that represent a large part of labour market in many countries.
This vulnerable
labour group is facing challenges to enter the labour market at a young age and
this is creating unemployment problem for worker. Economic recession is also creating
inequalities in labour market (Arrowsmith, &
Parker, 2013). The reality
is vulnerable workers creating challenges for organisational HRM. Addressing
these issues are the biggest challenges for HRM to gain long term future
success by organisation .Employer engagement has been discussed in this article
to ensure that employers prepare the vulnerable labour market for "job
ready".
On contrary Shuck
& Wollard (2010) in their scholarly article shifted their focus how HRM
managers have been constantly under the pressure of developing employee
engagement strategies. The biggest challenges
for HR managers are the knowledge gap
between the organisational need and capability of employees (Perrin, 2003). Organisations are mostly dependent of scholars and
researcher for innovative tools and technique for better employee engagement
along with expert HR managers who can efficiently deal with it. Effective
approaches by HR managers can help to reduce the knowledge gap within
organisation and come up with effective employee engagement strategies.
Employee
engagement is a challenge for most of the organisation as it requires a
collaborative effort from both the end. First management need to understand the
need of the organisation and performing ability of employees. It is extremely
important for organisation to formulate policies which cover the three
psychological factors of employees. In case organisation failed to meet these
psychological factors then there could be job burnout. Employee motivation and
employee satisfaction are two major factors here which many of the scholars
failed to identify. Unlike other scholars Schaufeli & Bakker (2010) define employee
engagement as individual's satisfaction and involvement and enthusiasm for
work. This suggests it is not only the involvement of employee but also
how enthusiastic employees are for any role play.
The main purpose of this study was to determine
values of employee in organisation and from the above findings it can be
concluded that psychological safety, psychological meaningfulness and
psychological availability are three key forces which determines the value of
employee in organisation according to the employee engagement theory. It could
be found from this essay that employee engagement theory is based on employee wellbeing and job burnout. On
contrary disagreement or dissatisfaction
among employees can create job burnout. Along with employee engagement,
scholars have put their focus on employer engagement and it can be found that
employer engagement is important for better
policy formulation and long term organisational success. Job burnout is
another major aspect which needs understanding and improvement. It can be
suggested that more practical research is required for better understanding and
definition of employee engagement in future. Organisation should come up with
better employee management technique by introducing a balance work culture
within organisation.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement
and their impact on employee performance. International journal of
productivity and performance management, 63(3), 308.
Arrowsmith, J., & Parker, J. (2013). The meaning
of ‘employee engagement’for the values and roles of the HRM function. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14),
2692-2712.
Arrowsmith,
J., & Parker, J. (2013). The meaning of ‘employee engagement’for the values
and roles of the HRM function. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24(14), 2692-2712.
Bakibinga, P., Vinje, H. F., & Mittelmark, M. B.
(2012). Self-tuning for job engagement: Ugandan nurses’ self-care strategies in
coping with work stress. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 14,
3-12. doi:10.1080/14623730.2012.682754
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012).
Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work
engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.
Dalal,
R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). The
relative importance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait
affect as predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(S1).
Esen, E. (2012). The role of trust on the relationship
between organizational engagement and corporate reputation. Journal of
Management & Economics, 19(1), 47-58.
Extremera, N., Sánchez‐GarcÃa, M., Durán, M. A., & Rey, L. (2012).
Examining the psychometric properties of the utrecht work engagement scale in
two spanish multi‐occupational
samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1),
105-110.
Garrick, A., Mak, A. S., Cathcart, S., Winwood, P. C.,
Bakker, A. B., & Lushington, K. (2014). Psychosocial safety climate
moderating the effects of daily job demands and recovery on fatigue and work
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4),
694-714.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P.
(2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1),
397-422.
Perrin,
T. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. The
2003 Towers Perrin Talent Report, 2.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we
really know about employee engagement?. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining
and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 10-24.
Schaufeli,
W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1),
71-92.
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., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K.
(2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: Identifying the positionality of
employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource
Development Review, 16(3), 263-293.
Van Berkel, R., Ingold, J., McGurk, P., Boselie, P.,
& Bredgaard, T. (2017). Editorial introduction: An introduction to employer
engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and HRM research in
promoting vulnerable groups' labour market participation. Human
Resource Management Journal, 27(4), 503-513.
