Employee Engagement Survey Assessment
Leadership Development Program for Employee Engagement
Villanova University
Human Resource Metrics and Research Statistics
Executive Summary
Company & financial profile: COMPANY NAME1 is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a vision of helping people of all ages live independently and with dignity for as long as possible. An estimated 95% of the organization’s revenue is generated through state and federal government grants and locally funded community service programs. The balance of revenue comes from foundation grants, private donations and from private client payments.
Statement of Problem/Goal: An Employment Engagement Survey Assessment Tool was designed and used to survey all employees to assess the current …show more content…
level of employee engagement. The outcome of the survey reflected a significantly low level of employee engagement within the front-line segment of the organization. The Board of Directors requested further inquiry be made into the value of designing and implementing a training and coaching program to maximize employee engagement. The ultimate desire is to improve the agency’s productivity, increase employee retention rates, and enhance overall stakeholder satisfaction with the goal of becoming an employer of choice.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose an implicit training and development program for senior leadership to help them become more perceptive of and prepared to navigate diverse needs, value systems, and the work demands of today’s diverse workforce.
Results/Conclusion: The paper concludes that an employee engagement training program specifically addressing leadership styles and enhancement of organizational culture can result in an increase of 3.41% in organizational output. The paper emphasizes the intrinsic cost/benefit as well as the fiscal return on investment in the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program and identifies areas for future research and growth opportunities.
Business Case (Logic)
Based on an average employee salary of $30,000 per year, it is calculated that United States businesses lose $300 billion per year due to the disengagement of employees (Catteeuw, Flynn & Vonderhorst, 2007). According to Gordon (2002) employee turnover costs businesses more than $140 billion in recruiting, training and administrative costs. The balance of the annual loss from disengaged employees can be allocated to forfeiture of revenue and opportunity due to absenteeism and presenteeism, enflamed by employees that perceive diminished leadership/organizational support, (Chaudhuri and Ghosh, 2011), a decrease in collaboration and trust, loss of job satisfaction, and little to no recognition by management (Catteeuw, et al., 2007). In search of a solution to this significant loss of revenue, many researchers have concluded that a statistical relationship exists between employee satisfaction/engagement and business outcomes (Casio & Boudreau, 2011; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Van Rooy, Daniel, Hart, & Caleo, 2011). Controversy still lingers over causality, i.e. does increasing employee engagement increase business outcome or do organizations that are improving output having a positive effect on employee engagement (Casio & Boudreau, 2011).
COMPANY NAME is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a vision of helping people of all ages live independently and with dignity for as long as possible. These services are offered via three divisions: Life Services, Housing, and Transit. Additionally, on July 1, 2009, the agency was designated as a Community Action Agency by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Life Services acts as the community service agent for 10 of Virginia’s most rural counties located in the Middle Peninsula and the Northern Neck Planning District Commissions (PDC’s). This division offers such services as Meals on Wheels, Adult Day Break Centers, Senior Centers, Veterans’ Services, Companion Care and Home Health Care Services.
Housing, is responsible for the establishment and operation of 10 senior apartments with supportive services, and a variety of housing programs for the aging, impoverished and disabled. These services include plumbing, roofing, renovation, weatherization and complete rebuilding of uninhabitable homes.
Transit provides the only public transportation service for the previously mentioned 10 counties plus the counties of New Kent and Charles City, Virginia. This division of COMPANY NAME also oversees a Mobility Management Service that provides non-emergency medical transportation for aging or disabled individuals and veterans.
Through the Community Action Program, appointed by Gloucester, Virginia, youth mentoring, job readiness, financial literacy, employment support and linkages to other health services, human services and housing services are provided.
In 2011, 95% of the $70 million dollars of revenue taken in by COMPANY NAME was generated through state and federal government grants and locally funded community service programs. The balance of revenue comes from foundation grants, private donations and a very small amount from privately paid client fees. Notably, the organization’s financial health is largely determined by the ebb and flow of federal, state, and local budgets. Also tied to the budgets of the funding sources are the incomes, futures and quite frequently the attitudes and engagement of employees, including leadership, management and staff.
In the wake of recent economic upheaval and massive budget cuts, meta-analysis research substantiates a greater need for senior leadership to focus not on recruiting and retention, but rather on developing employee engagement models for a complex and rapidly changing workforce (Casio & Boudreau, 2011; McMillan & Morris, 2012; Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2008; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Van Rooy, et al., 2011;). Research of articles written in peer review journals over the last eleven years supports developmental programs for senior leadership to gain the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to create an inspirational leadership culture (Catteeuw, et al., 2007), increase employee engagement for maximized productivity and become an employer of choice.
Research by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) suggested that organizations scoring 0.43 standard deviations above the median on validated and reliable employee engagement measures also enjoyed a 103% higher success rate at the business unit level than those on the lower end of the median.
In light of COMPANY NAME’s fiscal resources, the results of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool, (discussed later in greater detail) and the following research analysis, this paper proposes an implicit2 training and development program, “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” for senior leadership to help them become more perceptive of diverse needs, value systems, and work demands of today’s workforce (Steen, 2011) and thereby increase the level of employment engagement for individuals and the organization overall. Both qualitative and quantitative data supports the theory that supervisor decisions and practices are a vital factor driving the level of employee engagement and organizational satisfaction (Harter, et al., 2002; Mone, 2011).
When the competitive business climate buffets an organization for any number of reasons, some of which can be controlled, some of which cannot, engaging employees and boosting productivity becomes more difficult. At the same time, these tasks are even more mission-critical. (Catteeuw, et al., 2007, p 151)
Analysis of Current Climate
An Employment Engagement Survey Assessment Tool, patterned after the Survey of Employee Engagement (SEE) that was designed by the Institute for Organizational Excellence (IOE) was utilized to assess the current level of employment engagement at COMPANY NAME. This survey tool was designed for organizational analysis and program development for organizations desiring to “grow strong through diversity, energy, and commitment” (IOE, 2012). The results of the COMPANY NAME surveys (details discussed in “Analysis” section) reflected a significantly low level of employee engagement within the organization.
Appendix A lists the eight constructs and the definition of each construct that was used in the initial analysis of current employee engagement process. Each construct consists of 5 – 8 questions for a total of 50 questions on the survey. Some response options were “never,” “almost never,” “occasionally,” “almost always” and “always” while other questions were given the response options of “strongly disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “neither agree or disagree,” “somewhat agree,” and “strongly agree.” All questions were rated on a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 reflective of responses that indicate low employee engagement and 5 indicating high levels of employee engagement.
In an effort to increase the response rate, the survey was coded (A1 – A768, B1-B768, and C1-C768) and distributed three times to employees: once with their weekly pay, three weeks later delivered personally by their supervisor, and three weeks after that in the monthly news letter. With each distribution, a short explanation of the purpose of the survey and instructions to complete and return the survey anonymously in collection boxes placed in all division offices.
Five sets of employees had been identified and each employee set was asked to place their survey responses in specifically marked boxes corresponding to their position: senior leadership consisting of 21 positions, upper management consisting of 58 positions, supervisory consisting of 75 positions, full-time front line staff consisting of 340 positions and part-time staff consisting of 274 positions. There was no other mention of the survey to employees by supervisors or leadership to avoid any “brow-beating” or coercion for employees to complete the surveys.
According to the Office for Organizational Excellence at Pepperdine University (2012), the general rule is that if response rates are 50% or higher, it is an indication of organizational soundness; response rates lower than 30% is a significant indication that the employees lack investment in the organization and perceive that the data gained from the survey will make little to no difference in future policies and procedures of the organization.
The COMPANY NAME response rate from the senior leadership was 85.8% or 18 responses from a group of 21 employees. The upper management employee group return-rate was 77.6%; supervisory group return-rate was 69.4; front-line full-time staff response was 47.7% and part-time front-line staff response rate was 44.9%. The return response rates indicated a significantly higher level of organizational loyalty and confidence by leadership, upper management and supervisory staff that the survey would serve as a catalyst for change. However, while not in the critical zone, the response rates of front-line staff was a reflection of their disconnection from the organization and the results of the survey or a probable lack of faith in any significant procedural change taking place as a result of the survey.
Fig 1.
Employee Engagement Survey Assessment Tool Response Rate.
Higgs and Rowland (2001) examined an application process for a program designed to “assess the impact of a structured change management intervention on the change leadership capabilities of participants in a development program” (p 47). As a result of the demonstrated commitment to the program by their own leaders being on board and prepared to deal with the variety of dynamics entailed in the program, the company “turned around people who felt that that they were ‘damaged goods’ a year ago into a leadership coalition with a sense of wanting to achieve’” (Higgs & Rowland, 2001).
The higher level of response to the survey by senior leadership indicated a strong faith in the organization and commitment to changes necessary for improvements and growth in the output. Based on the survey response, the Board of Directors expressed confidence in the commitment of senior leadership as well as their willingness to participate fully in programs that would improve engagement and productivity by upper management and the supervisory …show more content…
staff.
The mean for each of the eight constructs listed in Appendix A were charted for each employee group, i.e., senior leadership, upper management, supervisory staff, full-time front-lien staff, and part-time front-line staff. The highest scores were consistently from senior leadership with the lowest scored responses being given by the part-time front-line workers. This phenomenon depicts that the further away from the hierarchical “top” the position of the employee was, the lower the response rating. Figure 2 lists the average scores of each construct for each group of employees and Figure 3 shows the scores plotted on a scatter chart.
An overall picture of current employee engagement was provided by the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool. This data will be assimilated with additional research to determine current policies, practices and perceptions not conducive to enhanced employee engagement. Based on research by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002), it is also recommended that further surveys take into consideration the variables that may occur between the three business divisions of COMPANY NAME: Life Services, Transit and Housing. Research strongly supports that differential relationships occur between unit-level employee engagement and the corresponding unit-level business outcomes (Hayes, et al., 2002).
Armed with that data, a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” curriculum for employee engagement success can be custom designed to encourage the higher levels of employee perceptions exhibited in the senior leadership and upper management to be transferred from those employee groups down through supervisory staff to the front-line staff.
Fig 2. Mean Scores by Construct and Employee Set Senior Leadership
Upper Management
Supervisory Staff
Full-time Front-Line Staff
Part-Time Front-Line Staff
Engagement Behaviors
4.9
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.8
Self-Concept
4.9
4.5
4.3
4.6
3.9
Community Awareness-Corp Social Responsibility
5
4.7
4.7
3.6
2.9
Compensation and Benefits
4.2
4.3
3.9
2.8
2.4
Leader/Member Exchange
4.4
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.2
Likelihood of Retention
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
2.1
Purpose and Inclusion
4.9
4.6
2.9
2.6
2.1
Job Duties and Assignments
4.5
3.2
3.9
3.2
3.3
Overall Totals
4.6625
4.2375
3.9125
3.3
2.7125
Fig 3. Employee Engagement Assessment Tool Results by Employee Set and Construct
Measures for Success
Research was done using a meta-analysis of peer reviewed professional journal articles addressing studies on the topics surrounding the causes, effects, and possibly solutions of employee engagement/disengagment. Specific research emphasis was placed on the direct and indirect cost/benefits to the employer to determine best practice for program design and implementation. Metric assignments to be used for measures of program success were based on previously successful employee engagement and enrichment program.
From a survey administered to over one million employees and 80,000 managers worldwide, Gallup researchers created a 12 item “Gallop Q12 Employee Engagement Index.” (Appendix B) The purpose of the index was to support the hypothesized correlation between employee engagement, customer loyalty and company productivity. The results of a Gallup survey released in 2003, stated that based on a survey sample of 1,000 adults, 17% of employees are actively disengaged, 54% of employees are not engaged, and only 29% of employees are engaged (Catteeuw, et al., 2007; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Factoring those percentages into the current employment population of COMPANY NAME, we can project that of the 768 employees on payroll in 2012, 131 employees are actively disengaged, 415 are not engaged, and 222 employees are actively engaged in their work daily. By using the figure of $30,000 average compensation, COMPANY NAME is losing approximately $3,930,000.00 per year from voluntary turnover, absenteeism, and lost productivity of presenteeism from the 131 actively disengaged employees. When calculating the ROI, this dollar amount is calculated back into total revenue gained along with the projected revenue increases (see Figure 4) that result from increased opportunities.
The proposal for COMPANY NAME is for a five year, in-house, instructor and administration contracted leadership training program as detailed in the Program Goals section of this paper. All members of the senior leadership group will be the first to attend the program in order to lay the foundation for inclusion of the elements of training into planning, policies and daily procedures. After the initial training of senior leadership, the upper management and supervisory group members will attend the training. Single day courses would be given in prerequisite/skill layering style in learning groups of 12 - 15 employees.
In addition to in group training, supportive webinars and online materials would be available for material review and reinforcement. These online study aids would involve knowledge testing and interactive case studies. A certain number of online interactions would be required for discussion in group training proceeding opportunities. Accountability and self-motivation are essential to being a successful candidate of the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program.
Another vital part of the program is behavioral achievements. Training participants will be expected to implement behaviors discussed in group learning into their daily routines. Self-reporting surveys as well as 360 evaluation surveys will be given periodically to determine the level of commitment and training application being transferred from the learning setting to the organizational procedures.
Costs considerations of the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” include instructor’s fees, training materials, online webinars, surveys, time lost by trainees during group trainings, applicable overhead and administrative costs. The most immediate benefits or returns will be directly determined by reduced voluntary turnover, reduced absenteeism, increased participation in wellness programs, enhanced teamwork, increased efficiency and daily performance, and improved customer and overall stakeholder satisfaction. More indirect and long term financial gains will be realized within one year of the on-set of the training program in financial gains through increase of customer/stakeholder satisfaction and broadened revenue opportunities.
The initial training investment cost and the annual consulting fees (based on a 5 year program) will be calculated against the financial savings to produce the cost benefit analysis and return on investment (ROI) (McMillan & Morris, 2012).
Fig 4. Cost/Benefit Analysis - ROI Number of Employees Affected Annual Cost Projected 5 year cost and benefit
Cost of training over 5 years
154
$ 468,000.00 $ 2,340,000.00
Current organizational revenue
768
$ 70,000,000.00
3.41% Revenue increase projected after training* $ 2,387,000.00 $ 9,548,000.00
Current annual loss from disengaged employees
131
$ 3,930,000.00 $ 19,650,000.00
Potential fiscal benefit $ 6,317,000.00 $ 29,198,000.00
Return on Investment
12.478
percent * Revenue increase is not calculated for the first year of training.
Program goals/Process Taking into consideration the unified results of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool, the directive of the Board of Directors to investigate programs for engagement, and the commitment from senior leadership to apply time and resource to improving engagement and productivity, a customized “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” is endorsed. While the ultimate purpose of any training must be to further the organization’s strategic plan and align with the mission, goals and culture, the overall goal for a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program is for senior leadership to become more perceptive and adept at navigating the diverse needs, value systems, and work demands of today workforce as well as the anticipated future labor pool.
The “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” curriculum is based on the theory that employee engagement seems to occur on three distinct levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Casio and Boudreau (2011) refer to these three particular aspects of attitudes as: cognition, the knowledge an individual has about the focal object or employment aspect; the emotion an individual feels toward the object or aspect; and an action tendency, a readiness to respond in a predetermined manner to the object or aspect.
Using the same three elements of attitude, training is designed to provide:
1. Knowledge of employee engagement
a. how it effects organizational development
b. triggers of disengagement
c. how managers affect transition from disengagement to engagement
2. Empathy towards engagement/disengagement
a. experiences in my life that may have affected my engagement
b. understanding and acceptance of diverse cultures and age related motivations
c. allowing vulnerability in the workplace
d. seeding aesthetic intelligence (Mucha, 2012)
3. Behaviors that motivate change
a. coaching for increased engagement
b. listening skills
c. rewards that work
Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli (2001) state that there are two broad categories of working conditions differentially related to the level of employee performance: job demands and job resources. “Job demands are primarily related to the exhaustion component of burnout, whereas (lack of) job resources are primarily related to disengagement” (p 499). These resources can be material supplies, access to training/development opportunities or perceived support of management. Research results support exhaustion and depersonalization as cause and effect of employee disengagement consistent across industry groups and occupations. “Organizational resources include: job control, potential for qualification, participation in decision making, and task variety” (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001, p 501).
Once the areas of greatest need are established, the next step in designing and implementing the training program is to determine a model for change process and program implementation. A couple of basic rules to follow are: keep it as simple as possible and ensure that the change becomes an internal reality process. That is, the training program is not to be a “project” or “another HR initiative” but must become an integral part of the company culture. Employee engagement building must be integrated into the strategic planning process so that it becomes part of the everyday processes: selection, on-boarding new hires, goal setting, department meetings, performance reviews, etc. It must be an essential element of an inspirational leadership culture (Catteeuw, et al., 2007). These change processes must be carefully selected and implemented to maximize both employee and organizational gains. Change measurement metrics are determined by careful analysis of the current practices, processes and employee climate versus where the organization wants to be and what knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors they wish to become part of the organizational culture. Ultimately the change process moves the organization beyond a focus on individual engagement and productivity improvements to divisional and total organizational gains realized in return on investment (ROI) (McMillan & Morris, 2012) and other value added but perhaps less quantifiable elements. Kruschwitz (2012) quotes Suzanne Fallender, director of CSR Strategy and Communications for Intel as saying, “Just because you can’t measure an action doesn’t mean it’s not creating strategic value” (p 1).
Value added is defined by the receiver (Ulrich, 2007) and initially, the “receiver” of the value added by the training and coaching program will be the individual employee. However, studies indicate that this value added will be realized by the organization within 1 year of the program implementation. As much as a 3.41% average increase in organizational output has been recorded for each previously disengaged employee (Cattauw. 2007).
Some of the less quantifiable but essential elements to be achieved through the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program are listed and discussed in detail.
Dimensions and Competencies of Leadership for Engaged Employees
The question is often asked if charisma, historically touted as a primary attribute of an effective leader, can be taught. That question may continue to go unanswered. However, there are leadership characteristics found to be most influential for engaging employees that can be learned through effective training: being a good manager/mentor; communicating a vision; necessary actions to implement the vision; shared decision making; and entrepreneurial leadership (Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2008).
Diversity and Inclusion
Much has been written about age, gender and cultural diversity in today’s workforce (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2011; Smith & Langford, 2011). Chaudhuri and Ghosh (2011) discuss the success of “Mentoring Up” or a reverse mentoring program as a means to combat negative effects of diverse age groups in the workforce. The basic tenets for their program were the social exchange theory and that the initiative “must be perceived as a form of organizational support” (p 11).
The program in the above referenced article specifically addresses the Baby Boomers and Millennials, also known as Generation Y. However, there are four generations recognized as currently adding to workforce diversity: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen Xer’s and Gen Y’s; all individuals with different values, different ideas, different ways of getting things done and different ways of communicating in the workplace. Smith and Langford (2011) state that support for diversity along with community investment and outreach are the two primary constructs of corporate social responsibility and offers support to support of diverse populations as have a significant relationship to employee engagement.
In addition to the four diverse generations, today’s leaders must have a clear understanding that it is looking at “inclusion” rather than “diversion” that brings success to cohesion in today’s workforce. The constituents of today’s workforce in addition to age include gender, sexual orientation, native language, national origin, religion, and cultural practices.
Health Cost Factors
One of the current trends in Total Rewards and other company benefits programs is wellness programs (Scherrer, 2010; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Kumar (2009). Not only does the mere existence of a wellness program signify a point of organizational support to the employee, good health is a vital element for maximized employee performance. Employee health is increasingly becoming a critical business issue as improved health could translate to considerable direct cost savings for employers (Scherrer, 2010).
Corporate Social Responsibility
According to research conducted by Smith & Langford (2011) over time, the focus of corporate social relationship has moved from the benefits provided to the community to the benefits gained by the organization. Corporate social responsibility is associated with being an employer of choice and enhanced employee engagement as well as financial increase.
Organizations today are moving focus of corporate social responsibility from “the right thing to do” to the next level of integration: corporate strategy in terms of company policies and procedures and employee engagement (Kruschwitz, 2012). Organizations are becoming well-known for their community activism and charitable foundations. Many organizations, recognizing the need of individuals to give back to the community allow a certain number of “on the clock” volunteer hours for each employee, thus increasing the individual’s positive self-concept as well as goodwill word the organization.
Aesthetic Intelligence (Mucha, 2012)
Aesthetically Intelligent people are competent, fully engaged, acutely aware, and emotionally intelligent, everything that organizations desire in an employee. For the organization implementing an aesthetic intelligence culture, the expression “people are our most valuable asset” is more than rhetoric. This organization understands that engaged employees are a lucrative outcome.
Aesthetic/High Performance Culture
Conclusion This proposal provides theory-grounded research conclusions that an employee engagement training program specifically addressing leadership styles and organizational culture can result in a 3.41% increased revenue generation within one year of the on-set of the training program. Specific emphasis is placed on the intrinsic cost/benefit as well as the fiscal return on investment into a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program and identifies areas for future research and growth opportunities.
There are opportunities for further research particularly in the area of sustainability and how the relationship with employee engagement, both cause and effect. However, organizations have gained enormous support through research for designing developmental programs for leadership to gain the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to create an inspirational leadership culture, increase employee engagement for maximized productivity and become an employer of choice.
By applying the research by Cattaeeuw, Flynn, and Vonderhorst (2007) of 17% of all employees being actively disengaged, 54% of employees not engaged, and 29% of employee engagement, we can project that of the 768 employees on payroll with COMPANY NAME, 131 employees are actively disengaged, 415 are not engaged, and 222 employees are actively engaged in their work daily. By using the figure of $30,000 average compensation and the factor of only the 131 employees that are actively disengaged, COMPANY NAME is losing approximately $3,930,000.00 per year. Added to the 3.41% of projected revenue increases resulting from expanded opportunities, COMPANY NAME will realize a total fiscal benefit of $29,198,000.00 over the five years of the proposed program. The total cost of the five year program is $2,340,000. That provides a total return on investment of 12.478% over 5 years.
In addition to the fiscal return, the organization would increase their position of employer of choice and create a more conducive organizational culture, improve the agency’s productivity, increase employee retention rates, and enhance overall stakeholder satisfaction. Overall, the customized “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” is one of the best investments COMPANY NAME will make for the employees and for the organization.
References
Cascio, W. & Boudreau, J. (2011). Investing in People: Financial impact of human resource initiatives. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Catteeuw, F., Flynn, E., & Vonderhorst, J. (2007). Employee engagement: Boosting productivity in turbulent times. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), P151-P157. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198008244?accountid=14853
Chaudhuri S. and Ghosh R. (2011). Reverse Mentoring: A Social Exchange Tool for Keeping the Boomers Engaged and Millennials Committed. Human Resource Development Review, 11: 55-76. doi:10.1177/1534484311417562
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W.B., (2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology86. 3 (Jun 2001): 499-512. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezpl.villan.ova.edu/docview/2194127?accountid=14853
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/213940093?accountid=14853
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2001). Developing change leaders: Assessing the impact of a development programme. Journal Of Change Management, 2(1), 47.
Institute for Organizational Excellence. (2012) The University of Austin Texas, Institute for Organizational Excellence website. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/survey/new/wordpress/
Kruschwitz, N. (2012). Integrating sustainability into strategy, governance and employee engagement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 1-3. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1023761958?accountid=14853
Kumar, S., McCalla, M., & Lybeck, E. (2009). Operational impact of employee wellness programs: A business case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(6), 581-597. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400910977109
Gordon, J. & Lowe, B. (2002). Employee Retention: Approaches for Achieving Performance Goals. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 1(2), 201-205.
McMillan, H.S. and Morris, M.L. (2012). Examining the Relationship Between Work/Life Conflict and Life Satisfaction in Executives: The Importance of Problem-Solving Coping Interventions and HRD Advances in Developing Human Resources November 2012 14: 640-663, doi:10.1177/1523422312455626
Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C.
(2011). Performance management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 205-212. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
Mucha, R.T. (2008). Aesthetic intelligence cultivating an artistic mindset. Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 41-54. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198043939?accountid=14853
Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership 's impact on employee engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 365-385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685
Pepperdine University Office of Institutional Effectiveness (2012). Pepperdine University website. Retrieved from: http://services.pepperdine.edu/oie/data-warehouse/definitions.aspx
Scherrer, P., Sheridan, L., Sibson, R., Maria, M. R., & Henley, N. (2010). Employee engagement with a corporate physical activity program: The global corporate challenge. International Journal of Business Studies, 18(1), 125-139. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821544276?accountid=14853
Shuck, B. and Wollard K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations, Human Resource Development Review . Vol 9: 89-110, first published on December 2, 2009 doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Smith, V. and Langford, P. (2011). Responsible or redundant? Engaging the workforce through corporate social responsibility Australian Journal of Management 36: 425-447, doi:10.1177/0312896211415459
Steen, A., Welch, D., & McCormack, D. (2011). Conflicting conceptualizations of human resource accounting. Journal of HRCA : Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 15(4), 299-312. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14013381111197234
Van Rooy, D. L., Daniel, S. W., Hart, D., & Caleo, S. (2011). Measuring employee engagement during a financial downturn: Business imperative or nuisance? Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 147-152. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9225-6
Appendix A – Eight Constructs of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool
Construct
Definition
Engagement Behaviors
Measures the extent to which employees engage in behaviors that are consistent or inconsistent with organizational goals and individual performance success.
Self-Concept
A measure of employees’ beliefs about their individual vocational abilities and performance including personal attributes.
Community Awareness - Corp Social Responsibility
Measures the employees’ understanding of the issues affecting their community and the role of the organization’s services to the community.
Compensation and Benefits
Measures the degree to which employee’s feel they are being justly compensated for their work and the value of benefits offered by the organization.
Leader/Member Exchange
A measure of employees’ beliefs/perception about organizational leadership and their supervisors’ abilities.
Likelihood of Retention
A unified measure of how employees view the future of the organization and their expectations regarding the probability of being with the company for a given length of time.
Purpose and Inclusion
Measures how employees view their role and inclusion in the organization’s mission and how that intrinsically rewards them.
Job Duties and Assignments
Measures the extent to which employees see their duties and assignments as reasonable, personally satisfying and contributing to personal career development.
Revised from Pepperdine University, Office of Institutional Effectiveness. http://services.pepperdine.edu/oie/data-warehouse/definitions.aspx
Appendix B - Items Comprising the Gallup Workplace Audit
“Gallop Q12 Employee Engagement Index”
1. I know what is expected of me at work.
2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
8. The mission/purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
9. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work.
10. I have a best friend at work.
11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
Note. These statements are proprietary and copyrighted by The Gallup Organization.
The Gallup Organization. Copyright © 1992–1999, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ. (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002)
Villanova University
Human Resource Metrics and Research Statistics
Executive Summary
Company & financial profile: COMPANY NAME1 is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a vision of helping people of all ages live independently and with dignity for as long as possible. An estimated 95% of the organization’s revenue is generated through state and federal government grants and locally funded community service programs. The balance of revenue comes from foundation grants, private donations and from private client payments.
Statement of Problem/Goal: An Employment Engagement Survey Assessment Tool was designed and used to survey all employees to assess the current …show more content…
level of employee engagement. The outcome of the survey reflected a significantly low level of employee engagement within the front-line segment of the organization. The Board of Directors requested further inquiry be made into the value of designing and implementing a training and coaching program to maximize employee engagement. The ultimate desire is to improve the agency’s productivity, increase employee retention rates, and enhance overall stakeholder satisfaction with the goal of becoming an employer of choice.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose an implicit training and development program for senior leadership to help them become more perceptive of and prepared to navigate diverse needs, value systems, and the work demands of today’s diverse workforce.
Results/Conclusion: The paper concludes that an employee engagement training program specifically addressing leadership styles and enhancement of organizational culture can result in an increase of 3.41% in organizational output. The paper emphasizes the intrinsic cost/benefit as well as the fiscal return on investment in the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program and identifies areas for future research and growth opportunities.
Business Case (Logic)
Based on an average employee salary of $30,000 per year, it is calculated that United States businesses lose $300 billion per year due to the disengagement of employees (Catteeuw, Flynn & Vonderhorst, 2007). According to Gordon (2002) employee turnover costs businesses more than $140 billion in recruiting, training and administrative costs. The balance of the annual loss from disengaged employees can be allocated to forfeiture of revenue and opportunity due to absenteeism and presenteeism, enflamed by employees that perceive diminished leadership/organizational support, (Chaudhuri and Ghosh, 2011), a decrease in collaboration and trust, loss of job satisfaction, and little to no recognition by management (Catteeuw, et al., 2007). In search of a solution to this significant loss of revenue, many researchers have concluded that a statistical relationship exists between employee satisfaction/engagement and business outcomes (Casio & Boudreau, 2011; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Van Rooy, Daniel, Hart, & Caleo, 2011). Controversy still lingers over causality, i.e. does increasing employee engagement increase business outcome or do organizations that are improving output having a positive effect on employee engagement (Casio & Boudreau, 2011).
COMPANY NAME is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a vision of helping people of all ages live independently and with dignity for as long as possible. These services are offered via three divisions: Life Services, Housing, and Transit. Additionally, on July 1, 2009, the agency was designated as a Community Action Agency by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Life Services acts as the community service agent for 10 of Virginia’s most rural counties located in the Middle Peninsula and the Northern Neck Planning District Commissions (PDC’s). This division offers such services as Meals on Wheels, Adult Day Break Centers, Senior Centers, Veterans’ Services, Companion Care and Home Health Care Services.
Housing, is responsible for the establishment and operation of 10 senior apartments with supportive services, and a variety of housing programs for the aging, impoverished and disabled. These services include plumbing, roofing, renovation, weatherization and complete rebuilding of uninhabitable homes.
Transit provides the only public transportation service for the previously mentioned 10 counties plus the counties of New Kent and Charles City, Virginia. This division of COMPANY NAME also oversees a Mobility Management Service that provides non-emergency medical transportation for aging or disabled individuals and veterans.
Through the Community Action Program, appointed by Gloucester, Virginia, youth mentoring, job readiness, financial literacy, employment support and linkages to other health services, human services and housing services are provided.
In 2011, 95% of the $70 million dollars of revenue taken in by COMPANY NAME was generated through state and federal government grants and locally funded community service programs. The balance of revenue comes from foundation grants, private donations and a very small amount from privately paid client fees. Notably, the organization’s financial health is largely determined by the ebb and flow of federal, state, and local budgets. Also tied to the budgets of the funding sources are the incomes, futures and quite frequently the attitudes and engagement of employees, including leadership, management and staff.
In the wake of recent economic upheaval and massive budget cuts, meta-analysis research substantiates a greater need for senior leadership to focus not on recruiting and retention, but rather on developing employee engagement models for a complex and rapidly changing workforce (Casio & Boudreau, 2011; McMillan & Morris, 2012; Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2008; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Van Rooy, et al., 2011;). Research of articles written in peer review journals over the last eleven years supports developmental programs for senior leadership to gain the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to create an inspirational leadership culture (Catteeuw, et al., 2007), increase employee engagement for maximized productivity and become an employer of choice.
Research by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) suggested that organizations scoring 0.43 standard deviations above the median on validated and reliable employee engagement measures also enjoyed a 103% higher success rate at the business unit level than those on the lower end of the median.
In light of COMPANY NAME’s fiscal resources, the results of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool, (discussed later in greater detail) and the following research analysis, this paper proposes an implicit2 training and development program, “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” for senior leadership to help them become more perceptive of diverse needs, value systems, and work demands of today’s workforce (Steen, 2011) and thereby increase the level of employment engagement for individuals and the organization overall. Both qualitative and quantitative data supports the theory that supervisor decisions and practices are a vital factor driving the level of employee engagement and organizational satisfaction (Harter, et al., 2002; Mone, 2011).
When the competitive business climate buffets an organization for any number of reasons, some of which can be controlled, some of which cannot, engaging employees and boosting productivity becomes more difficult. At the same time, these tasks are even more mission-critical. (Catteeuw, et al., 2007, p 151)
Analysis of Current Climate
An Employment Engagement Survey Assessment Tool, patterned after the Survey of Employee Engagement (SEE) that was designed by the Institute for Organizational Excellence (IOE) was utilized to assess the current level of employment engagement at COMPANY NAME. This survey tool was designed for organizational analysis and program development for organizations desiring to “grow strong through diversity, energy, and commitment” (IOE, 2012). The results of the COMPANY NAME surveys (details discussed in “Analysis” section) reflected a significantly low level of employee engagement within the organization.
Appendix A lists the eight constructs and the definition of each construct that was used in the initial analysis of current employee engagement process. Each construct consists of 5 – 8 questions for a total of 50 questions on the survey. Some response options were “never,” “almost never,” “occasionally,” “almost always” and “always” while other questions were given the response options of “strongly disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “neither agree or disagree,” “somewhat agree,” and “strongly agree.” All questions were rated on a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 reflective of responses that indicate low employee engagement and 5 indicating high levels of employee engagement.
In an effort to increase the response rate, the survey was coded (A1 – A768, B1-B768, and C1-C768) and distributed three times to employees: once with their weekly pay, three weeks later delivered personally by their supervisor, and three weeks after that in the monthly news letter. With each distribution, a short explanation of the purpose of the survey and instructions to complete and return the survey anonymously in collection boxes placed in all division offices.
Five sets of employees had been identified and each employee set was asked to place their survey responses in specifically marked boxes corresponding to their position: senior leadership consisting of 21 positions, upper management consisting of 58 positions, supervisory consisting of 75 positions, full-time front line staff consisting of 340 positions and part-time staff consisting of 274 positions. There was no other mention of the survey to employees by supervisors or leadership to avoid any “brow-beating” or coercion for employees to complete the surveys.
According to the Office for Organizational Excellence at Pepperdine University (2012), the general rule is that if response rates are 50% or higher, it is an indication of organizational soundness; response rates lower than 30% is a significant indication that the employees lack investment in the organization and perceive that the data gained from the survey will make little to no difference in future policies and procedures of the organization.
The COMPANY NAME response rate from the senior leadership was 85.8% or 18 responses from a group of 21 employees. The upper management employee group return-rate was 77.6%; supervisory group return-rate was 69.4; front-line full-time staff response was 47.7% and part-time front-line staff response rate was 44.9%. The return response rates indicated a significantly higher level of organizational loyalty and confidence by leadership, upper management and supervisory staff that the survey would serve as a catalyst for change. However, while not in the critical zone, the response rates of front-line staff was a reflection of their disconnection from the organization and the results of the survey or a probable lack of faith in any significant procedural change taking place as a result of the survey.
Fig 1.
Employee Engagement Survey Assessment Tool Response Rate.
Higgs and Rowland (2001) examined an application process for a program designed to “assess the impact of a structured change management intervention on the change leadership capabilities of participants in a development program” (p 47). As a result of the demonstrated commitment to the program by their own leaders being on board and prepared to deal with the variety of dynamics entailed in the program, the company “turned around people who felt that that they were ‘damaged goods’ a year ago into a leadership coalition with a sense of wanting to achieve’” (Higgs & Rowland, 2001).
The higher level of response to the survey by senior leadership indicated a strong faith in the organization and commitment to changes necessary for improvements and growth in the output. Based on the survey response, the Board of Directors expressed confidence in the commitment of senior leadership as well as their willingness to participate fully in programs that would improve engagement and productivity by upper management and the supervisory …show more content…
staff.
The mean for each of the eight constructs listed in Appendix A were charted for each employee group, i.e., senior leadership, upper management, supervisory staff, full-time front-lien staff, and part-time front-line staff. The highest scores were consistently from senior leadership with the lowest scored responses being given by the part-time front-line workers. This phenomenon depicts that the further away from the hierarchical “top” the position of the employee was, the lower the response rating. Figure 2 lists the average scores of each construct for each group of employees and Figure 3 shows the scores plotted on a scatter chart.
An overall picture of current employee engagement was provided by the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool. This data will be assimilated with additional research to determine current policies, practices and perceptions not conducive to enhanced employee engagement. Based on research by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002), it is also recommended that further surveys take into consideration the variables that may occur between the three business divisions of COMPANY NAME: Life Services, Transit and Housing. Research strongly supports that differential relationships occur between unit-level employee engagement and the corresponding unit-level business outcomes (Hayes, et al., 2002).
Armed with that data, a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” curriculum for employee engagement success can be custom designed to encourage the higher levels of employee perceptions exhibited in the senior leadership and upper management to be transferred from those employee groups down through supervisory staff to the front-line staff.
Fig 2. Mean Scores by Construct and Employee Set Senior Leadership
Upper Management
Supervisory Staff
Full-time Front-Line Staff
Part-Time Front-Line Staff
Engagement Behaviors
4.9
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.8
Self-Concept
4.9
4.5
4.3
4.6
3.9
Community Awareness-Corp Social Responsibility
5
4.7
4.7
3.6
2.9
Compensation and Benefits
4.2
4.3
3.9
2.8
2.4
Leader/Member Exchange
4.4
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.2
Likelihood of Retention
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
2.1
Purpose and Inclusion
4.9
4.6
2.9
2.6
2.1
Job Duties and Assignments
4.5
3.2
3.9
3.2
3.3
Overall Totals
4.6625
4.2375
3.9125
3.3
2.7125
Fig 3. Employee Engagement Assessment Tool Results by Employee Set and Construct
Measures for Success
Research was done using a meta-analysis of peer reviewed professional journal articles addressing studies on the topics surrounding the causes, effects, and possibly solutions of employee engagement/disengagment. Specific research emphasis was placed on the direct and indirect cost/benefits to the employer to determine best practice for program design and implementation. Metric assignments to be used for measures of program success were based on previously successful employee engagement and enrichment program.
From a survey administered to over one million employees and 80,000 managers worldwide, Gallup researchers created a 12 item “Gallop Q12 Employee Engagement Index.” (Appendix B) The purpose of the index was to support the hypothesized correlation between employee engagement, customer loyalty and company productivity. The results of a Gallup survey released in 2003, stated that based on a survey sample of 1,000 adults, 17% of employees are actively disengaged, 54% of employees are not engaged, and only 29% of employees are engaged (Catteeuw, et al., 2007; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Factoring those percentages into the current employment population of COMPANY NAME, we can project that of the 768 employees on payroll in 2012, 131 employees are actively disengaged, 415 are not engaged, and 222 employees are actively engaged in their work daily. By using the figure of $30,000 average compensation, COMPANY NAME is losing approximately $3,930,000.00 per year from voluntary turnover, absenteeism, and lost productivity of presenteeism from the 131 actively disengaged employees. When calculating the ROI, this dollar amount is calculated back into total revenue gained along with the projected revenue increases (see Figure 4) that result from increased opportunities.
The proposal for COMPANY NAME is for a five year, in-house, instructor and administration contracted leadership training program as detailed in the Program Goals section of this paper. All members of the senior leadership group will be the first to attend the program in order to lay the foundation for inclusion of the elements of training into planning, policies and daily procedures. After the initial training of senior leadership, the upper management and supervisory group members will attend the training. Single day courses would be given in prerequisite/skill layering style in learning groups of 12 - 15 employees.
In addition to in group training, supportive webinars and online materials would be available for material review and reinforcement. These online study aids would involve knowledge testing and interactive case studies. A certain number of online interactions would be required for discussion in group training proceeding opportunities. Accountability and self-motivation are essential to being a successful candidate of the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program.
Another vital part of the program is behavioral achievements. Training participants will be expected to implement behaviors discussed in group learning into their daily routines. Self-reporting surveys as well as 360 evaluation surveys will be given periodically to determine the level of commitment and training application being transferred from the learning setting to the organizational procedures.
Costs considerations of the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” include instructor’s fees, training materials, online webinars, surveys, time lost by trainees during group trainings, applicable overhead and administrative costs. The most immediate benefits or returns will be directly determined by reduced voluntary turnover, reduced absenteeism, increased participation in wellness programs, enhanced teamwork, increased efficiency and daily performance, and improved customer and overall stakeholder satisfaction. More indirect and long term financial gains will be realized within one year of the on-set of the training program in financial gains through increase of customer/stakeholder satisfaction and broadened revenue opportunities.
The initial training investment cost and the annual consulting fees (based on a 5 year program) will be calculated against the financial savings to produce the cost benefit analysis and return on investment (ROI) (McMillan & Morris, 2012).
Fig 4. Cost/Benefit Analysis - ROI Number of Employees Affected Annual Cost Projected 5 year cost and benefit
Cost of training over 5 years
154
$ 468,000.00 $ 2,340,000.00
Current organizational revenue
768
$ 70,000,000.00
3.41% Revenue increase projected after training* $ 2,387,000.00 $ 9,548,000.00
Current annual loss from disengaged employees
131
$ 3,930,000.00 $ 19,650,000.00
Potential fiscal benefit $ 6,317,000.00 $ 29,198,000.00
Return on Investment
12.478
percent * Revenue increase is not calculated for the first year of training.
Program goals/Process Taking into consideration the unified results of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool, the directive of the Board of Directors to investigate programs for engagement, and the commitment from senior leadership to apply time and resource to improving engagement and productivity, a customized “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” is endorsed. While the ultimate purpose of any training must be to further the organization’s strategic plan and align with the mission, goals and culture, the overall goal for a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program is for senior leadership to become more perceptive and adept at navigating the diverse needs, value systems, and work demands of today workforce as well as the anticipated future labor pool.
The “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” curriculum is based on the theory that employee engagement seems to occur on three distinct levels: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Casio and Boudreau (2011) refer to these three particular aspects of attitudes as: cognition, the knowledge an individual has about the focal object or employment aspect; the emotion an individual feels toward the object or aspect; and an action tendency, a readiness to respond in a predetermined manner to the object or aspect.
Using the same three elements of attitude, training is designed to provide:
1. Knowledge of employee engagement
a. how it effects organizational development
b. triggers of disengagement
c. how managers affect transition from disengagement to engagement
2. Empathy towards engagement/disengagement
a. experiences in my life that may have affected my engagement
b. understanding and acceptance of diverse cultures and age related motivations
c. allowing vulnerability in the workplace
d. seeding aesthetic intelligence (Mucha, 2012)
3. Behaviors that motivate change
a. coaching for increased engagement
b. listening skills
c. rewards that work
Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli (2001) state that there are two broad categories of working conditions differentially related to the level of employee performance: job demands and job resources. “Job demands are primarily related to the exhaustion component of burnout, whereas (lack of) job resources are primarily related to disengagement” (p 499). These resources can be material supplies, access to training/development opportunities or perceived support of management. Research results support exhaustion and depersonalization as cause and effect of employee disengagement consistent across industry groups and occupations. “Organizational resources include: job control, potential for qualification, participation in decision making, and task variety” (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001, p 501).
Once the areas of greatest need are established, the next step in designing and implementing the training program is to determine a model for change process and program implementation. A couple of basic rules to follow are: keep it as simple as possible and ensure that the change becomes an internal reality process. That is, the training program is not to be a “project” or “another HR initiative” but must become an integral part of the company culture. Employee engagement building must be integrated into the strategic planning process so that it becomes part of the everyday processes: selection, on-boarding new hires, goal setting, department meetings, performance reviews, etc. It must be an essential element of an inspirational leadership culture (Catteeuw, et al., 2007). These change processes must be carefully selected and implemented to maximize both employee and organizational gains. Change measurement metrics are determined by careful analysis of the current practices, processes and employee climate versus where the organization wants to be and what knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors they wish to become part of the organizational culture. Ultimately the change process moves the organization beyond a focus on individual engagement and productivity improvements to divisional and total organizational gains realized in return on investment (ROI) (McMillan & Morris, 2012) and other value added but perhaps less quantifiable elements. Kruschwitz (2012) quotes Suzanne Fallender, director of CSR Strategy and Communications for Intel as saying, “Just because you can’t measure an action doesn’t mean it’s not creating strategic value” (p 1).
Value added is defined by the receiver (Ulrich, 2007) and initially, the “receiver” of the value added by the training and coaching program will be the individual employee. However, studies indicate that this value added will be realized by the organization within 1 year of the program implementation. As much as a 3.41% average increase in organizational output has been recorded for each previously disengaged employee (Cattauw. 2007).
Some of the less quantifiable but essential elements to be achieved through the “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program are listed and discussed in detail.
Dimensions and Competencies of Leadership for Engaged Employees
The question is often asked if charisma, historically touted as a primary attribute of an effective leader, can be taught. That question may continue to go unanswered. However, there are leadership characteristics found to be most influential for engaging employees that can be learned through effective training: being a good manager/mentor; communicating a vision; necessary actions to implement the vision; shared decision making; and entrepreneurial leadership (Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2008).
Diversity and Inclusion
Much has been written about age, gender and cultural diversity in today’s workforce (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2011; Smith & Langford, 2011). Chaudhuri and Ghosh (2011) discuss the success of “Mentoring Up” or a reverse mentoring program as a means to combat negative effects of diverse age groups in the workforce. The basic tenets for their program were the social exchange theory and that the initiative “must be perceived as a form of organizational support” (p 11).
The program in the above referenced article specifically addresses the Baby Boomers and Millennials, also known as Generation Y. However, there are four generations recognized as currently adding to workforce diversity: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen Xer’s and Gen Y’s; all individuals with different values, different ideas, different ways of getting things done and different ways of communicating in the workplace. Smith and Langford (2011) state that support for diversity along with community investment and outreach are the two primary constructs of corporate social responsibility and offers support to support of diverse populations as have a significant relationship to employee engagement.
In addition to the four diverse generations, today’s leaders must have a clear understanding that it is looking at “inclusion” rather than “diversion” that brings success to cohesion in today’s workforce. The constituents of today’s workforce in addition to age include gender, sexual orientation, native language, national origin, religion, and cultural practices.
Health Cost Factors
One of the current trends in Total Rewards and other company benefits programs is wellness programs (Scherrer, 2010; Shuck & Wollard, 2010; Kumar (2009). Not only does the mere existence of a wellness program signify a point of organizational support to the employee, good health is a vital element for maximized employee performance. Employee health is increasingly becoming a critical business issue as improved health could translate to considerable direct cost savings for employers (Scherrer, 2010).
Corporate Social Responsibility
According to research conducted by Smith & Langford (2011) over time, the focus of corporate social relationship has moved from the benefits provided to the community to the benefits gained by the organization. Corporate social responsibility is associated with being an employer of choice and enhanced employee engagement as well as financial increase.
Organizations today are moving focus of corporate social responsibility from “the right thing to do” to the next level of integration: corporate strategy in terms of company policies and procedures and employee engagement (Kruschwitz, 2012). Organizations are becoming well-known for their community activism and charitable foundations. Many organizations, recognizing the need of individuals to give back to the community allow a certain number of “on the clock” volunteer hours for each employee, thus increasing the individual’s positive self-concept as well as goodwill word the organization.
Aesthetic Intelligence (Mucha, 2012)
Aesthetically Intelligent people are competent, fully engaged, acutely aware, and emotionally intelligent, everything that organizations desire in an employee. For the organization implementing an aesthetic intelligence culture, the expression “people are our most valuable asset” is more than rhetoric. This organization understands that engaged employees are a lucrative outcome.
Aesthetic/High Performance Culture
Conclusion This proposal provides theory-grounded research conclusions that an employee engagement training program specifically addressing leadership styles and organizational culture can result in a 3.41% increased revenue generation within one year of the on-set of the training program. Specific emphasis is placed on the intrinsic cost/benefit as well as the fiscal return on investment into a “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” program and identifies areas for future research and growth opportunities.
There are opportunities for further research particularly in the area of sustainability and how the relationship with employee engagement, both cause and effect. However, organizations have gained enormous support through research for designing developmental programs for leadership to gain the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to create an inspirational leadership culture, increase employee engagement for maximized productivity and become an employer of choice.
By applying the research by Cattaeeuw, Flynn, and Vonderhorst (2007) of 17% of all employees being actively disengaged, 54% of employees not engaged, and 29% of employee engagement, we can project that of the 768 employees on payroll with COMPANY NAME, 131 employees are actively disengaged, 415 are not engaged, and 222 employees are actively engaged in their work daily. By using the figure of $30,000 average compensation and the factor of only the 131 employees that are actively disengaged, COMPANY NAME is losing approximately $3,930,000.00 per year. Added to the 3.41% of projected revenue increases resulting from expanded opportunities, COMPANY NAME will realize a total fiscal benefit of $29,198,000.00 over the five years of the proposed program. The total cost of the five year program is $2,340,000. That provides a total return on investment of 12.478% over 5 years.
In addition to the fiscal return, the organization would increase their position of employer of choice and create a more conducive organizational culture, improve the agency’s productivity, increase employee retention rates, and enhance overall stakeholder satisfaction. Overall, the customized “Maximized Employee Engagement Training” is one of the best investments COMPANY NAME will make for the employees and for the organization.
References
Cascio, W. & Boudreau, J. (2011). Investing in People: Financial impact of human resource initiatives. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Catteeuw, F., Flynn, E., & Vonderhorst, J. (2007). Employee engagement: Boosting productivity in turbulent times. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), P151-P157. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198008244?accountid=14853
Chaudhuri S. and Ghosh R. (2011). Reverse Mentoring: A Social Exchange Tool for Keeping the Boomers Engaged and Millennials Committed. Human Resource Development Review, 11: 55-76. doi:10.1177/1534484311417562
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W.B., (2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology86. 3 (Jun 2001): 499-512. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezpl.villan.ova.edu/docview/2194127?accountid=14853
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/213940093?accountid=14853
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2001). Developing change leaders: Assessing the impact of a development programme. Journal Of Change Management, 2(1), 47.
Institute for Organizational Excellence. (2012) The University of Austin Texas, Institute for Organizational Excellence website. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/survey/new/wordpress/
Kruschwitz, N. (2012). Integrating sustainability into strategy, governance and employee engagement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 1-3. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1023761958?accountid=14853
Kumar, S., McCalla, M., & Lybeck, E. (2009). Operational impact of employee wellness programs: A business case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(6), 581-597. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400910977109
Gordon, J. & Lowe, B. (2002). Employee Retention: Approaches for Achieving Performance Goals. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 1(2), 201-205.
McMillan, H.S. and Morris, M.L. (2012). Examining the Relationship Between Work/Life Conflict and Life Satisfaction in Executives: The Importance of Problem-Solving Coping Interventions and HRD Advances in Developing Human Resources November 2012 14: 640-663, doi:10.1177/1523422312455626
Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C.
(2011). Performance management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 205-212. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9
Mucha, R.T. (2008). Aesthetic intelligence cultivating an artistic mindset. Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 41-54. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198043939?accountid=14853
Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership 's impact on employee engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 365-385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685
Pepperdine University Office of Institutional Effectiveness (2012). Pepperdine University website. Retrieved from: http://services.pepperdine.edu/oie/data-warehouse/definitions.aspx
Scherrer, P., Sheridan, L., Sibson, R., Maria, M. R., & Henley, N. (2010). Employee engagement with a corporate physical activity program: The global corporate challenge. International Journal of Business Studies, 18(1), 125-139. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.villanova.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821544276?accountid=14853
Shuck, B. and Wollard K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations, Human Resource Development Review . Vol 9: 89-110, first published on December 2, 2009 doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Smith, V. and Langford, P. (2011). Responsible or redundant? Engaging the workforce through corporate social responsibility Australian Journal of Management 36: 425-447, doi:10.1177/0312896211415459
Steen, A., Welch, D., & McCormack, D. (2011). Conflicting conceptualizations of human resource accounting. Journal of HRCA : Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 15(4), 299-312. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14013381111197234
Van Rooy, D. L., Daniel, S. W., Hart, D., & Caleo, S. (2011). Measuring employee engagement during a financial downturn: Business imperative or nuisance? Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 147-152. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9225-6
Appendix A – Eight Constructs of the Employee Engagement Assessment Tool
Construct
Definition
Engagement Behaviors
Measures the extent to which employees engage in behaviors that are consistent or inconsistent with organizational goals and individual performance success.
Self-Concept
A measure of employees’ beliefs about their individual vocational abilities and performance including personal attributes.
Community Awareness - Corp Social Responsibility
Measures the employees’ understanding of the issues affecting their community and the role of the organization’s services to the community.
Compensation and Benefits
Measures the degree to which employee’s feel they are being justly compensated for their work and the value of benefits offered by the organization.
Leader/Member Exchange
A measure of employees’ beliefs/perception about organizational leadership and their supervisors’ abilities.
Likelihood of Retention
A unified measure of how employees view the future of the organization and their expectations regarding the probability of being with the company for a given length of time.
Purpose and Inclusion
Measures how employees view their role and inclusion in the organization’s mission and how that intrinsically rewards them.
Job Duties and Assignments
Measures the extent to which employees see their duties and assignments as reasonable, personally satisfying and contributing to personal career development.
Revised from Pepperdine University, Office of Institutional Effectiveness. http://services.pepperdine.edu/oie/data-warehouse/definitions.aspx
Appendix B - Items Comprising the Gallup Workplace Audit
“Gallop Q12 Employee Engagement Index”
1. I know what is expected of me at work.
2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
8. The mission/purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
9. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work.
10. I have a best friend at work.
11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
Note. These statements are proprietary and copyrighted by The Gallup Organization.
The Gallup Organization. Copyright © 1992–1999, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ. (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002)