Manager
What do engagement measures really mean? Angela Baron
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to discuss how and with what employees engage at work. It seeks to offer an explanation of ‘‘locus of engagement’’ – what aspects of their work individuals engage with to a lesser or greater extent – and ‘‘emotional’’ and ‘‘transactional’’ engagement – demonstrating that people can engage at different levels, both of which might result in performance but also in very different behaviors.
Angela Baron is Adviser,
Engagement and
Organisational
Development at CIPD,
Wimbledon, UK.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on research completed for CIPD by The
Kingston Engagement Consortium drawing on both quantative and qualitative data collected from member companies over a six-year period of study.
Findings – The paper argues that managers need a deeper understanding of how employees are engaging with their work to effectively leverage performance through engagement. It finds that despite much work on engagement, the issues of with what and at what level people are engaging is still relatively unexplored. It also finds that how and with what people engage can have implications for their performance and other behavior which will impact on the success of the organization.
Originality/value – This has practical implications for managers and demonstrates that engagement surveys alone will not give sufficient information to enable them to manage engagement effectively.
Keywords Engagement, Management behaviour, Citizenship behaviour, Managers, Employers
Paper type Research paper
‘‘There has been much written about employee engagement [. . .] However, ‘what’ employees engage with has as yet received limited attention.’’ (CIPD, 2011a).
Engagement is good; engaged staff work harder, perform better, give better service and as a result contribute more to the bottom line. All true, according to the wealth of evidence generated by research into
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to discuss how and with what employees engage at work. It seeks to offer an explanation of ‘‘locus of engagement’’ – what aspects of their work individuals engage with to a lesser or greater extent – and ‘‘emotional’’ and ‘‘transactional’’ engagement – demonstrating that people can engage at different levels, both of which might result in performance but also in very different behaviors.
Angela Baron is Adviser,
Engagement and
Organisational
Development at CIPD,
Wimbledon, UK.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on research completed for CIPD by The
Kingston Engagement Consortium drawing on both quantative and qualitative data collected from member companies over a six-year period of study.
Findings – The paper argues that managers need a deeper understanding of how employees are engaging with their work to effectively leverage performance through engagement. It finds that despite much work on engagement, the issues of with what and at what level people are engaging is still relatively unexplored. It also finds that how and with what people engage can have implications for their performance and other behavior which will impact on the success of the organization.
Originality/value – This has practical implications for managers and demonstrates that engagement surveys alone will not give sufficient information to enable them to manage engagement effectively.
Keywords Engagement, Management behaviour, Citizenship behaviour, Managers, Employers
Paper type Research paper
‘‘There has been much written about employee engagement [. . .] However, ‘what’ employees engage with has as yet received limited attention.’’ (CIPD, 2011a).
Engagement is good; engaged staff work harder, perform better, give better service and as a result contribute more to the bottom line. All true, according to the wealth of evidence generated by research into
References: CIPD (2011a), ‘‘Locus of engagement: understanding what employees connect with at work’’, Kingston Engagement Consortium research, CIPD, May 2011. CIPD (2011b), ‘‘Management Competencies for Enhancing Employee Engagement’’, CIPD Research Insight, March 2011. CIPD (2012), ‘‘Emotional or transactional engagement – does it matter?’’, CIPD Research Insight, May 2011. Huber, W.H. and Glick, G.B. (1993), ‘‘Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol McLeod, D. and Clarke, N. (2009), ‘‘Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement’’, a report to Government, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London. Maylett, T. and Nielsen, J. (2012), ‘‘There is no cookie-cutter approach to engagement’’, Training and Development Journal, Vol Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003), ‘‘Understanding the people and performance link – unlocking the black box’’, CIPD, London. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), ‘‘Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol