Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Employee engagement from job dissatisfication
Factors influencing employee productivity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Definition
Employees are at work, but are they actually engaged in their jobs? In October 2013, The Gallup Organization conducted a survey with 230,000 full-time and part-time workers in 142 countries which consisted of 12 questions. According to Gallup’s latest findings, 87% of workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” and are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces (O'Boyle & Harter, 2013, p. 11). Most studies have broken the various types of workers into two groups, engaged and disengaged, but Gallup’s study has broken it down even further. They have determined that there are three types of employees: engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged (O'Boyle & Harter, 2013).
A broad definition of an engaged employee means that the employee is satisfaction with their job. Job satisfaction is hard to measure because it is based on feelings, beliefs or knowledge. It is a psychological aspect which influences every employee. When people are satisfied they feel fulfilled and happy. An average adult spends most of their life at work, because of this they want that portion of their life be somewhat satisfying and pleasant (Kumar, 2013). An employee’s job performance and job satisfaction are almost synonymous. You cannot be happy in your job and be unsatisfied. There are various definitions of an engaged employee, but the main points that define what an engaged employee are: feel satisfied with their work, take pride in their organization, enjoy and believe in their work, understand the link between their job and the organization’s mission, feel valued by their employer, are fully committed to their employer and their role in the company, and exert extra effort to contribute to the business success. (SHRM,...
... middle of paper ...
... Authority; Case Studies. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 27-32. doi:10.1108/02756660910926948
Raines, M. S. (2011). Engaging Employees. Professional Safety, 56(4), 36-43.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2014). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
SHRM Foundation Executive Briefing (2012). Employee Engagement: Your Competitive Advantage. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/products/Documents/Engagement%20Briefing-FINAL.pdf
Victor, J., Coombs, J., Schmit, M., Esen, E., Tulgan, B., Meister, J., & Matos, K. (2013). 2012 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement (ISBN 978-1-586-44329-0). Retrieved from Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website: http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/StateandLocalStatutesandRegulations/Documents/12-0537%202012_JobSatisfaction_FNL_online.pdf
Workers feeling, which includes competitive compensation and reward strategies, professional growth and development, career paths and succession plans and the organizations leadership and culture are contributing factors of employee engagement
A study conducted by BlessingWhite (2013) highlights five levels of employee engagement. The first level is the “engaged”. The engaged employee exhibits high contribution and high satisfaction, these employees find great satisfaction in their work, they are strongly committed to the organizations mission and goals, and have a positive impact on employee morale. The second level of employee engagement is the “almost engaged” having a medium level of job satisfaction and contribution. These employees are genuinely satisfied with their job and are considered top performers within the organization. The third level are considered “honeymooners and hamsters” these employees exhibit a high job satisfaction but low contribution levels. Honeymooners are considered newer employees and are seeking their role with the organization, while also seeking ways to contribute to the mission. Hamsters, on the other hand, are sincerely hard workers, however they routinely work non-value added task, therefore contributing little to the organization. Level four consist “crash and burners”. The “crash and burners” have a high contribution level but also exhibit a low level of job satisfaction. The “crash and burners” often complain about decisions made by upper level management as well as complain about
Boston, MA: Pearson Sivarethinamohan, R. R., & Aranganathan, P. P. (2011). Determinants of employee engagement
Slåtten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 21(1), 88-107.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentise Hall.
Based off of the gratification an individual contains towards their work is job satisfaction. The productivity could either be positive or negative while the relationship between the productivity and satisfaction may not be consistent. There are multiple internal and external factors of job satisfaction that can impact the behavior of an employee and engagement over time. The way the worker’s attitude concerning their field effects the performance they perform on a daily basis. One who is satisfied with the job they maintain, succeed at what they do. “It is therefore imperative for a company to understand the attitude of its workers and measure the job satisfaction of its employees, as job satisfaction is essential for productivity” (L. Bradshaw
It has been accepted that the term employee engagement was introduced by the Gallup Research group (Beverly Little 2006). Gallup Organization introduced the term after conducting interviews and surveys of employees for more than 25 years. The group was hoping to create a measurement of a workplace that can be used to compare other work places. The research that was conducted was published in their book ‘break all the rules’ . The findings of the Gallup group was named as Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA) and it is used to measure the relationship between employee engagement on retention, profitability and productivity. Those who score high in GWA is considered as highly engaged
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A., (2004). Organizational Behavior (6th ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill/Irwin. pp. 406- 441.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
In his study about psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Kahn have shown that there are three psychological engagement elements that can influence an individual’s behaviour in relation to their job function. The elements are 1) meaningfulness - rewards from engagement, 2) safety - higher willingness to engage, and 3) availability - readiness to engage (Kahn, 1990). Because of his work, Kahn is widely regarded as the pioneer of employee engagement and his findings are still engaged and found in many references about employee
McShane, S.L., Olekalns, M. & Travaglione, A. 2013, Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge, Global Insights 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
Definition. Schaufeli’s (as cited in Truss, Delbridge, Alfes, Shantz, & Soane, 2014, p. 26) ideas on employee engagement can be explained by using the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Job demands and availability or lack of resources, both job and personal, either contribute to or deter employee engagement, this is illustrated by the JD-R (Truss et al., 2014). On the positive side, according to Truss et al. (2014) job and personal resources “foster engagement in terms of vigor (energy), dedication (persistence) and absorption (focus)” (p. 26). An employee who has the resources needed to do their job is better equipped to do the job and thereby better able to perform their job (Truss et al., 2014). Employees who are better able to meet job
Companies across the globe are pooling resources to design and administer effective engagement policies for their employees. However, Implementing the action planning process and maintaining levels of engagement is the real challenge.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
As a result of the increasingly high competition and technological advancement in the global business environment, customers now have a much greater choice of where to do business. While customers have more discretionary power than ever before, the modern society lays more emphasis on the value of time as opposed to the value of money. In light of this, high levels of engagement within an organization not only promote retention of talent, but also foster customer loyalty and enhance organizational performance, which in turn promotes shareholder value (Lockwood, 2007). Employee engagement is therefore critical for business