Studies indicate that the engaged workforce is one of the sources that generate competitive advantage to the firm (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). As such, it is imperative for the firms’ managers to recognize the degree in which employees are engaged within the organization and execute behavioral strategies that permit succinct engagement (Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen & Wright, 2005). In other words, the employees should understand the level in which they are engaged by the organization and how such engagement can be attained. The reason why organizations should emphasize on the employee engagement is that involved workforce are directly associated with increased output (Sinclair et al., 2005).
Employee engagement is the process through which the workforce is made to feel part and parcel of the assigned tasks (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Engaged employees are involved entirely on the work processes and have increased interest in the assigned tasks. In fact, an engaged employee is committed fully to its duties and aims at attaining the desired outcome of the organization through dedication and increased efforts (Lifer, 2004). Generally, committed worker insert an extra effort that is geared towards achieving the desired goal. Studies indicate that an engaged employee is one who is passionately linked and intellectually attentive to the needs of the organization (Ellis & Sorensen, 2007). Such kind of employees will always outperform others when it comes to output. The reasons explain why an engaged employee is closely related to the improved outcome. The motivation, commitment and passion are critical variables that determine the desired outcome (Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina, 2002).
The Relationship between Employee Engagement and Performance
Studies indicate that organizations with high scores in the employees’ engagement have increased performance. Besides, most researches that have been conducted on employees’ performance indicate a positive correlation between increased performance and engaged employees (Czarnowsky, 2008). The general conclusion from these studies is that the employees’ engagement leads to increased satisfaction and commitment, which in turn have a positive effect on performance. Several case studies also highlight this relationship. As such, in order to improve performance, organizations should show behaviors and strategies aimed at enhancing the employees’ engagement (Ketter, 2008). Evidence also indicates that engagement does not simply show some positive relationship with performance, it determines results. In addition, both commitment and motivation are related to engagement (Sinclair et al., 2005). A committed employee will be engaged in the work processes. Similarly, a motivated employee will be committed and be engaged fully in the assigned tasks. As such, there is a correlation between the variables that form the foundation of increased performance (Endres & Mancheno-Smoak, 2008).
Employee Engagement and the Mindset
Engagement has also been found to have an effect on the employee mindset. The engaged employees have personal confidence in their work and hold the belief that they positively contribute to the results of the organization (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). The belief such employees have on the personal skills and capabilities as well as the ability of others within the organization are a positive indicator of good behavior, which result in the increased outcome (Lifer, 2004). Studies indicate that a significant number of engaged employees hold the belief that they can improve the quality of the organizations’ products and services. Similar studies also indicate that over seventy percent of engaged employees can positively impact on the customer services (Sinclair et al., 2005). The engaged employees not only create a difference in the firm, but also enables the firm to be distinctive.
References
Coffman, C., & Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002). Follow this path: How the world’s greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.
Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research study. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Ellis, C. M. & Sorensen, A. (2007). Assessing employee engagement: The key to improving productivity. Perspectives, 15(1), 69-77.
Endres G. M. & Mancheno-Smoak, L. (2008). The Human resource craze: Human performance improvement and employee engagement. Organizational Development Journal, 26(1), 69-78.
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, 268-279.
Ketter, P. (2008). What’s the big deal about employee engagement? T+D, 62, 44-49.
Lifer, E. (2004). Career surveys, job satisfaction, are you engaged in your jobs. Library Journal, 119(18), 44-49.
Macey, W. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96.
Sinclair, R. R., Tucker, J.S., Cullen, J.C., & Wright, C. (2005). Performance differences among four organizational commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1280-1287.