Facets of Engagement.
Facets of Engagement
Engagement has been described to have three facets at workplace, those summarized as follows: (Nabil M. Eljaaidi 2016)
1- Intellectual engagement refers to the thinking effort of employees towards their jobs and finding best ways of developing them. Thus, this facet represents an intellectual process regarding the job.
2- Affective engagement points to the desirable and positive emotions those employees exhibit in relation to their jobs.
3- Social engagement represents various behaviors of employees taking opportunities to discuss and talk about better ways of developing their jobs with others.
Theoretical considerations
Multi perspectives of engagement demonstrate it mercury nature. This nature has made engagement exposed to different theoretical conceptualization, as many researchers highlighted that the concept is in need for more theoretical investigations. (Nabil M. Eljaaidi 2016) Although, in practical terms, engagement is wrongly seen as strategy, research has confirmed that engagement is a psychological state of individuals; it cannot be seen as strategic tool for the organization. (Armstrong, 2012). Recent research suggest that as long as engagement is seen as cognitive construct, it must be considered as belief not as an attitude. Furthermore, it has been highlighted that in order to make better analysis of the concept, research must distinguish between the nature of engagement as a belief and its emotional causes and behavioral outcomes. (Saks and Grumman, 2014). In theoretical terms, engagement has been interpreted through social exchange theory. This theory focus on the interaction between parties and explain the relationships through the development of trust and loyalty between those parties. Therefore, interaction between employees and their organization would strengthening mutual relationship and make employees more willing to stay at the organization, feeling positive and exerting discretionary behaviors. In this viewpoint, engagement is interpreted through the process of reciprocity between two parties; the good employer and the employees (Shuck et al., 2011).
References
1. Armstrong Michael., (2012), “Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership”, KoganPage, 3rd ed, London.
2. M.Nabil. Eljaaidi ( 2016 ) “Employee Engagement: Conceptualizations and work-Related Implications”
https://www.researchgate.net /publication/328772874
3. Saks, Alan M. Gruman, Jamie A. (2014). “What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2.
4. Shuck Brad., Reio Thomas., Rocco Tonette., (2011), “Employee engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome, variables”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 14, No. 4, September 2011, 427–445.
Agreed .Furthermore,In general while exploration, it was found that people understand employee engagement as a state of mind, where one feels satisfied, empowered, and committed at work. Others suggested in a different way as they characterized engagement by such behaviors as persistence and initiation. Some of them described term engagement as innate personal characteristics like the right attitude, level of energy or point of view. Some define engagement as a combination of all of these. According to Macey and Schneider (2008), Employee engagement is a desirable condition. It has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral components. Employee Engagement was defined by Kahn (1990) as “the harnessing of organization members‟ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”.
ReplyDelete