Measurements of employee engagement.

   

Measurements of employee engagement.

By reviewing the literature of engagement, it is noticed that there is an over-reliance on quantitative and cross-sectional questionnaires measuring employee engagement (Bailey et. al. 2015). It is also noticed that a number of different dimensions were used to measure employee engagement. Sack and Grumman (2014) have summarized these dimensions according to the use in research of engagement as follows;

i. Absorption and attention

ii. Cognitive engagement, emotional engagement and physical engagement.

iii. Job engagement and organizational engagement.

iv. Intellectual engagement, affective engagement and social engagement.

v. Felt engagement, and behavioral engagement.

vi. Vigor, dedication and absorption.

However, such dimensions reflect the lack of consensus related to the meaning and definition of engagement. Therefore, concerns about measuring employee engagement are highlighted. The most used scale of measuring engagement is the called Utrecht Work Engagement (UWE). This scale includes 17 items distributed around three dimensions, namely; Vigor, which reflected in 5 items, Dedication, reflected in 6 items and Absorption reflected in 6 items. Researchers have tested the validity of the UWES scale in different countries. Whilst they supported a three-factor model corresponding engagement dimensions, they acknowledged high reliability of the measurement(Sack and Gruman, 2014)

On the other hand, Armstrong (2012) has proposed 20-item measurement divided into two parties; namely, job engagement and organizational engagement. Firstly, job engagement was reflected in six dimensions;

1) Job satisfaction

2) Job knowledge and development

3) Empowerment

4) Job facilities

5) Manager support

6) Reward.

On the other hand, organizational engagement was reflected in seven.

1) Positive beliefs about the organization

2) Willing to stay at the organization

3) Congruence with organizational values

4) Organization’ importance for costumers

5) Management’ concern with well-being.

6) Work-life balance

7) Relationships with managers and colleagues

In addition, Shuck and his colleagues (2011) have adopted a model of three dimension of engagement namely; Meaningfulness, safety, and availability. The internal consistency for those dimensions were; meaningfulness 0.93, safety 0.74 and availability 0.75. 1) Meaningfulness refers to employee’ feelings that his/her work is worthwhile and self-value at work. In this sense, meaningfulness means adding value and significance to an employee’ job as well as perceiving their value and significance to their organization. 2) Safety points at the ability of an employee to be one’s favor self without fearing undesirable results to self-image status or work. An employee’s perception of safety comprises fearing emotional and psychological harm from their place of work. Therefore, employees have to trust their organization in manners that grant employees to reflect their own selves. (Nabil M. Eljaaidi ,2016)

3) Availability includes having the physical, emotional, and psychological resources necessary for doing the work. Availability refers to supplies, sufficient budget, and workers to complete a job. Moreover, it can be seen as learning and skill development, job fit, and commitment to stay at the workplace. . (Nabil M. Eljaaidi ,2016)

This viewpoint reflects a holistic approach towards engagement. It does not divide engagement into job/organizational engagement.  Dimensions practically, this perspective represents an operational tool for measuring engagement at work, due to its small number of dimensions. Moreover, research has found that management practitioners find it challenging to measure employee engagement and draw conclusions of its impact on financial results. Therefore, few numbers of practitioners have practically measure engagement against organizational performance, including customer satisfaction or increased market share. Drawing on this perspective, research found that the most common measurements best-practice companies are using to connect engagement to organizational performance were those that connected customer metrics with engagement metrics. In more depth, a number of best-practice companies found that tools such as service-profit chain could play as a powerful tool linking employee. (Nabil M. Eljaaidi, 2016)

 References

1. Armstrong Michael., (2012), “Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership”, KoganPage, 3rd ed, London.

2. Bailey, Catherine., Madden, Adrian., Alfes, Kerstin., Fletcher,Luke., (2015), “The Meaning, Antecedents and Outcomes ofEmployee Engagement: A Narrative Synthesis”, InternationalJournal of Management Reviews, Article first published online: 29JUL 2015, DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12077.

3. M.Nabil. Eljaaidi ( 2016 ) “Employee Engagement: Conceptualizations and work-Related Implications” https://www.researchgate.net /publication/328772874

4. Saks, Alan M. Gruman, Jamie A. (2014). “What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2.

5. 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.