Key Determinants Of Employee Value In Organisations

  

Key determinants of employee value in organisations

Introduction

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.

Conclusion & Recommendation

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. 

References & Bibliography

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‐García, 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.