Evolution of employee engagement
Evolution of employee engagement
This concept evolved from industrial relations (unitarism) to employee relations (Pluralism). In unitarist approach the employer considered their employees to share the same concerns and interests (collective orientation) which lead to formation of trade unions and industrial revelation in the past. With that the employers realized that individualized relationship with employees is important for the success of a business (Millmore et al, 2007).
The short Film - Engage for Success explains how employee engagement help organisations to be successful business entities
List of References
Evolution of employee engagement
Engage for success – Short Film accessed on line on 08/12/2018 by Chartered Management Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV4YcgVIKneaq9di4afoLYw
Millmore, M., Lewis P., Sanders M., Thornhill A., Morrow T. Strategic Human Resource Management - Contemporary issue 2007. Published by Pearson Education Limited.
Hi Lakshmi, on the topic I would like to share a point mentioned by Armstrong and Taylor (2014) called “Burnout”. It is explained as a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and cynicism. It happens due to excessive job demands, which include attempting to meet challenging, relentless and unreachable standards. The authors say in the pursuit of engagement, managements need to ensure that employees are not put under too much pressure, are provided with support when required and are recognized for what they can achieve with the resources they have available. Otherwise, it will result in factors such as failure, absenteeism or leaving the organization.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, recent research has shown that job resources may buffer the negative influence of job demands on work engagement. However, job resources are not only crucial for dealing with job demands but they are also important in their own right. For example, lack resources may lead to poor work engagement and increased levels of burnout symptoms (Upadyaya, 2016)
DeleteIn addition to what you have mentioned, Robinson et al. (2007) highlighted that there are associations between role and engagement levels, whereby senior managers, managers and operational hands‐on employees have the highest engagement levels, whilst professionals and ‘back‐room staff’ are less likely to be highly engaged with their organizations. Similarly, Blessing White (2008) also found a difference in engagement across occupations.
ReplyDeleteChandani et al., 2016, suggests that positive psychology interventions can be used to target employees that are disengaged or facing low engagement levels. Understanding the workforce profile is the foremost.Secondly organizations need to help create meaning for employees in their work. This can be achieved by making the employee understand the link between his contribution of his work and the overall business goals.
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteEmployee engagement is characterized as a feeling of commitment, passion and energy which translates to the high levels of strength, importunity with even the most challenging task, exceeding expectations, taking initiatives better innovation. (Dickson, 2011).
To add to above, significance of engagement is that it is at the heart of the employment
Deleterelationship. It is about what people do and how they behave in their roles and what makes them act in ways that further the achievement of the objectives of both the organization and themselves. Research reported by Watkin (2002) found that there were significant differences in value-added discretionary performance between ‘superior’ and ‘standard’ performers. The difference in low-complexity jobs was 19 per cent, in moderate-complexity jobs 32 per cent and in high-complexity jobs 48 per cent(Armstrong, 2008)