Employee engagement 2
Integrating employee engagement with performance management. 3
Time line 7
Employee engagement and its effects on Performance Management: The effects of employee engagement on performance in factory floor staff; a case study.
To date there is no set definition of employee engagement as we can see from Perins global workforce study 2003, who define it as “employee’s willingness and ability to help their company succeed, largely by providing discretionary effort on a sustainable basis.” Gallup define it as “the involvement with and enthusiasm for work”, and Robinson et al, 2004 “a positive attitude held by the employee toward the organisation and its value” (Solomon M, Sridevi MS 2010) with the CIPD basing their definition more on academic studies, being that employee engagement focuses more on the roles and tasks performed by employees rather than emotional attributes. (Kular et al, 2008)
Employee engagement, although not a new notion, has become popular in organisations today due to claims that it drives productivity and production therefore driving performance and profits. The first substantial paper on the topic of employee engagement (Khan 1990) focussed more on disengagement and work based stress, absence and high turnover. It was only when consulting firms began to promote engagement surveys, showing the link between engagement and performance that attention turned toward everyone at work (Purcell J,2013) Is it then that employee engagement focus is on the negative effects of poor engagement rather than the positive outcomes that an effective engagement policy provides?
Integrating employee engagement with performance management.
Saks and Gruman 2011 contend that employee engagement should be part of the performance management evaluation process. Companies looking toward enhancing employee performance should be changing their focus from performance management to more of a management of employee engagement. “Engagement helps predict job performance”. (Gruman J, Saks A 2011)
Also with mounting evidence that higher levels of engagement correlates directly with employees doing a better job, making less mistakes and bringing more energy and vigour into their performance it makes sense to focus on employee engagement as part of the performance management process. (Gruman J, Saks A 2011)
It is a general consensus that the basic elements that provide or influence employee engagement are on the whole the same across all organisations however it depends on what that particular organisation deems to be their specific drivers. Using a standardised framework such as the Balance scorecard (Kaplan, Norton) will provide results that are perhaps not useful for a particular organisation and bearing in mind that most literature, studies and surveys have been conducted with the premise that employee engagement is for white and blue collar workers, traditional frameworks may not apply to those on the factory floor. Engagement should be a working and on-going part of how organisations run not another chore to be performed by management or HR, it involves the entire company working toward a shared goal.
The department for business innovation and skills have calculated that disengagement cost the UK economy as much as £64 billion every year. The UK also had a productivity (output per worker) deficit 20% points lower than the rest of the G7 in 2011 this represents the widest productivity gap since 1995. (MacLeod, Clarke. 2012) No wonder then that UK leaders see employee engagement as a priority. It is also clear that engagement impacts more on performance than the other way around. (Rayton B 2012)
Survey after survey indicates that only about a third of UK workers are engaged which leaves the UK ranked 9th out of 12 of the largest