The CIPD (2014) factsheet states that Employee Engagement is a concept that ‘is generally seen as an internal state of being – physical, mental and emotional – that brings together earlier concepts of work effort, organisational commitment, job satisfaction and ‘flow’ (or optimal experience)’. An engaged workforce willingly demonstrates discretionary effort within their roles; their goals and values reflect that of their employers/organisation; they express a passion for work, feel valued and that their work has meaning.
Engaged employee: They are builders of organizations. Giving their 100% efforts both mentally and physically to organize. They show high organization citizenship and job involvement behavior also.
Employee Engagement is a measurable degree of an employee's positive or negative emotional attachment to their job, colleagues and organisation which profoundly influences their willingness to learn and perform at work. Thus engagement is distinctively different from employee satisfaction, motivation and organisational culture.
More importantly, these groups see their leaders as walking reflections of the organization’s core values (Dearborn, 2014). This increased productivity carries over to promote employee engagement. Dearborn asserted that engaged employees remain with organizations longer than those who are disengaged (Dearborn, 2014). Furthermore, disengaged employees cost the U.S. between $450 and $550 billion annually (Dearborn, 2014).
Employee Engagement: It’s a known perception that an engaged workforce provides many intangible benefits that is linked directly to retention. HR policies should focus on employee engagement initiatives that stimulate motivation levels of employees to perform better and bond with organisation. This process should be initiated right from induction and continue throughout their tenure by opening channels of continuous communication and encouraging interpersonal relations. HR is responsible to incorporate methods to measure engagement and at regular intervals track engagement contribution to company’s success.
According to Gallup.com, there three categories of work performance, they include the following: Engaged, disengaged, and actively disengaged (Rosenfeld, 2013). They assess the performance of the employee, and whether or not the employees are emotionally stable, thus, this factor in the effects of emotional disconnection on the quality of life for the employee. In the summary presented above, there can be clear evidence of disconnection
A critical factor to the success of any company is its ability to attract top talent while retaining those already working within the company. Losing employees can have a significant impact on a company’s morale, productivity and overall profit.
Employees who are “not engaged” exude the feeling that they are just there for a paycheck. This type of person is not contributing and just goes thru the motions in the performance of their job duties. The worst type of employee is an “actively” disengaged employee. That type of person is also known as a trouble maker. Whatever good that an engaged employee accomplishes, an actively disengaged employee tries to destroy. Disengaged employees are unhappy and they want everyone they come in contact with to know it. Organizations with disengaged employees are more vulnerable to lower productivity, higher absenteeism, higher turnover and lower product or service quality. During the years that have high unemployment there is less voluntary turnover. As the level of unemployment starts to drop and companies begin hiring employees that are disengaged are more likely to leave their current work situations. The old saying “the grass is always greener on the other side” is often expressed by disengaged employees when looking for a new job. For future reference the term disengaged employees will be synonymous with actively disengaged and not engaged.
Employee engagement is today’s leadership priority. However, the catchphrase goes a long way back in the beginning of the 21st century. It has gained interest to this date, which can be credited to Gallup’s first version of the Q12 in the 1990s commonly termed as the Gallup Workplace Audit (Gallup Consulting, 2006). Subsequently, Gallup has continuously refined and expanded their Q12 for current business challenges. Furthermore, several literatures, surveys and evidence-based studies abound that exhibited positive results with employee engagement such as increased performance, safety, retention and profits among others.
In internationally competitive business environments, employers need dedicated employees fully committed to the success of their organization (Kenan-Flagler, 2011). Although, there is a difference between employees who are engaged and those who are disengaged in terms of their commitment to the organization, motivation, enthusiasm and their focus on building a better future for their company. In these areas where engaged employees excel, disengaged employees fall short. These employees can have a negative effect on everything from customer service to sales, quality of products, productivity of the workers and other crucial areas of the business. The companies that invest their time in getting to know what matters to their employees are the
As Gallup measured in their research that there is still an overwhelming number of disengaged individuals in the workplace, which has cost the organizations in the United States at an enormous amount of about 300 billion dollars annually (Gallup Consulting, 2006). Certain programs are initiated in different workplace to embed employee engagement. Personally, apart from the traditional motivational factors of financial and non-financial incentives to increase employee morale and active participation within the goals of the organization; it would even be more remarkable to come up with innovative practices that would be unique to the organization and meet the demands of the business.
Researchers have found only 30% of employees in the United States are actively engaged in the workplace (Gallup 2013). In 2010, data provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (as cited in Moreland, 2013) show more individuals are voluntarily quitting their jobs. With over 70% of US workers disengaged, this topic has arguably prompted an interest that continues to be earnestly pursued by many. As a result, the Gallup Q12 expands the need for additional research based on their finding of employee engagement.
Employees who are “not engaged” exude the feeling that they are just there for a paycheck. This type of person is not contributing and just goes thru the motions in the performance of their job duties. The worst type of employee is an “actively” disengaged employee. That type of person is also known as a trouble maker. Whatever good that an engaged employee accomplishes, an actively disengaged employee tries to destroy. Disengaged employees are unhappy and they want everyone they come in contact with to know it. Organizations with disengaged employees are more vulnerable to lower productivity, higher absenteeism, higher turnover and lower product or service quality.
Employee engagement and commitment we learned is a common theme that encompasses employee satisfaction and pride in their employer. When an employee becomes dissatisfied in their position, we know this has a direct impact on company turn over. What is