The field of management, industrial psychology, and organizational theory have all devoted a significant amount of research to the subject of employee engagement (Jeung, 2011). As a consequence of this, it is inextricably linked to the intricate administration of the Human Resources (HR). In the fast-paced and competitive business environment of today, HRD (Human Resource Development) specialists need to be able to make distinctive contributions to the efforts made to improve the overall quality of the work done by personnel who come from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and skill sets (Kim et al., 2017).
It is difficult to keep workers engaged, but it is necessary to do so in order to prevent employee burnout (Bakker, Demerouti & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Many academics believe that "work engagement" and "employee engagement" are two of the most important factors to consider while researching human resource development (Lee et al., 2016). Employee and job engagement are frequently thought of as similar terms due to their reciprocal dependence on the requirements of the job and the resources that are available (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Because there are no fundamental differences between literacy and employee engagement, the author of this essay utilizes the phrase "employee engagement" to facilitate literacy. This is because, in terms of theoretical and scientific discoveries, there is no difference between the two (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).
The level to which members of an organization's workforce are excited about, committed to, and interested in the work that they do is referred to as worker engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). According to Farndale and Murrer (2015) and Shuck and Wollard (2010), an employee's level of thought, emotion, and action is what determines the degree to which he or she is dedicated to the organization's goal.
"Employee engagement" is defined by Xiao and Duan (2014) as a worker's "positive psychological state" in regard to their job or profession. Working satisfies a number of psychological and physiological demands, in addition to providing a monetary incentive for doing so (Alderfer, 1969). The need will cause a change in perspective, which will lead to enhanced motivation and passion regarding job (Mokaya & Kipyegon, 2014).
It is possible that meeting these conditions may boost employee involvement, which will, in turn, increase the quality of the work produced by each employee. Therefore, the quality of an employee's work is crucial to the success of a company as a whole in motivating employees to work hard toward achieving their shared goals (Alqarni, 2016).
The level of employee engagement in the industrial sector has a substantial bearing on the viability of the company and, as a consequence, leads to improved performance (Mokaya & Kipyegon, 2014). Being professional is giving one's work one's complete and undivided attention at all times. The level of dedication a worker demonstrates determines the overall level of quality in the product that person produces. The problem is that the organization is infested by "fleas," which lowers its overall quality and makes it more difficult for the organization to achieve its goals (Mokaya & Kipyegon, 2014).
If people feel that their current jobs do not provide them with the opportunity to meet their needs, they are more likely to intend to look for new employment (Biron & Boon, 2013). However, the quality of an employee's performance may be significantly damaged if human resources fails to implement job descriptions appropriately. This is because human resources are so important to the success of an organization in achieving its goals that there is a legally binding agreement that tries to foster organizational commitment (Cesario & Chambel, 2017).
Employee engagement can be impacted by a wide variety of external factors, one of which is providing compensation that is market-competitive and proportionate to experience (Pang & Lu, 2018). Employee engagement can be increased through the use of open lines of communication inside the firm. The presence of supporting coworkers has a comparable influence on an individual's performance as does the presence of a supportive work environment. Employee engagement can be affected by a wide variety of internal factors, one of which is the workers' view of their own level of competence in their jobs (Sofiah & Kurniawan, 2019).
Other research has indicated that individuals are more dedicated to their jobs when they are able to maintain a healthy balance between their professional and personal lives (Alqarni, 2016). Extensive study has shown that a person's excitement for their profession can affect their devotion to it, which in turn can affect their performance (Burke, Astakhova & Hang, 2015). The engagement of workers is essential to the success of businesses because it drives up overall productivity, which in turn boosts employee happiness and morale.
References
Alqarni,
S. A. Y. (2016). Quality of work-life
as a predictor of work
engagement among the teaching. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science. 6 (8) 118 – 135.
Alderfer C. P. (1969). An empirical test of new
theory of human need. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 4 (1) 142 – 175.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007).
The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 22 (3) 309 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B, Schaufeli, W. B, Leiter, M.
P, & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work
engagement: An emerging concept in occupational
health psychology. Work
and Stress. 22 (3) 187
– 200.
doi:10.1080/02678370802393649
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., &
Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout
and work engagement: the JD–R approach.
Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 1, 389
– 411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Biron,
M., & Boon,
C. (2013). Performance
and turnover intentions:
A social exchange perspective. Journal of Managerial
Psychology. 28, 511 – 531
Burke, R. J., Astakhova, M. N., &
Hang, H. (2015). Work Passion
Through the Lens of Culture: Harmonious Work Passion, Obsessive Work Passion,
and Work Outcomes in Russia and China. Journal of Business and Psychology. 30
(3) 457 – 471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9500-2
Cesario, F. & Chambel, M. J. (2017).
Knowledge and Process Management. Published online in Wiley Online Library.
DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1542
Farndale, E., & Murrer, I. (2015). Job
resources and employee engagement: a cross-national study. Journal of
Managerial Psychology. 30, 610 – 626. doi:10.1108/jmp-09-2013-0318
Jeung,
C. W. (2011).
The concept of
employee engagement: A
comprehensive review from a
positive organizational behavior
perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly. 24, 4969. doi:10.1002/piq.20110
Kim, W., Kim, J., Woo, H., Park, J., Jo, J.,
Park, S. & Lim, S. Y. (2017). The Relationship Between Work Engagement
and Organizational Commitment:
Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Empirical
Literature. Human Resource Development Review. 1 – 27. DOI: 10.1177/1534484317725967
Mokaya, S. O., & Kipyegon, M. J. (2014).
Determinants of Employee Engagement in the Banking Industry in Kenya: Case of
Cooperative Bank. Journal of Human Resources. 2 (2), 187 – 200
Pang,
K., & Lu,
C.S. (2018). Organizational motivation,
employee job satisfaction,
and organizational
performance: An empirical
study of container
shipping companies in Taiwan. Maritime Business Review. 3 (1) 36
– 52
Schaufeli,
W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M.
(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 66, 701 – 716.
doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review. 9, 89 – 110. doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Sofiah, D & Kurniawan, G. Hubungan self-efficacy dengan work engagement pada karyawan. Jurnal Fenomena. 28 (1) 54 – 61. DOI: 10.30996/fn.v28i1.2641
Xiao, M. L.,
& Duan, L.
(2014). Job engagement
of employees in
state-owned enterprises:
Construct clarification and
scale development. Organizational management. 1, 35 – 41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2014.01.017
Hi Vidura, indeed superb topic and further, It can be stated that work is a motivational boost to achieve a variety of needs (from the ages) and must be met psychologically and physiologically (Maslow,1943; McClelland, 1990; Alderfer, 1969). The need is an impetus that will spur change on the cognitive side of the individual so that it will motivate the enthusiasm for work (Mokaya & Kipyegon, 2014). From the encouragement of fulfilling these needs, employee engagement can increase over time, which in turn will affect the quality of individual work (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010).
ReplyDeleteThank you for your valuable comments Derrick. Furthermore Frank and Taylor (2004) defined employee engagement as the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their job. To some, the concept of employee engagement seems to overlap with organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job involvement (May et al., 2004; Robinson et al., 2004). The study by Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), who present the concept of employee engagement theoretically and empirically, defined engagement as representing experiences of vigor, dedication to the role, and periods of absorption over extended periods of time – weeks, months, or even years.
DeleteAgreed. Also, The Caterpillar Company defines it as: ‘The extent of employees commitment, work effort and desire to stay in an organization. ’Dell Inc declares that, ‘To compete today, companies need to win over the minds (rational commitment) and the hearts (emotional commitment) of employees in ways that lead to the extraordinary effort. ’The Corporate Leadership Council defines it as ‘The extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organization, how hard they work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment. ’The Gallup Organization simply states that it ‘is the involvement with, and enthusiasm for, work’ (Vance2006a, b).The Gallup Organization (2006)
ReplyDeleteHi Manomi, Thank you for sharing your valuable Opinion via good examples. Furthermore research conducted by practitioners and academicians has found positive outcomes of employee engagement (Saks, 2006), such as positive relationships with organizational outcomes, which in turn lead to better financial performance and profitability (Armir and Buckley, 2009; Gibbons, 2008; Robertson‐Smith and Markwick, 2009; Saks, 2006; Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2009; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).
ReplyDelete