The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 4 INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

4.1 This chapter looks at the models of engagement as found throughout the literature. It was highlighted in Chapter 2 that from an employer's point of view, engagement is often about employees 'going the extra mile' or exerting 'discretionary effort'. It was also discussed that many of the factors that drive engagement are under the control of the organisation. However, employees will place different emphasis on the extent to which they value each of these factors in exchange for their discretionary effort. This chapter therefore examines the models of engagement in the literature to determine what the key drivers of engagement are, and the extent to which employees value these, and what employees find connects them to the organisation, motivates them to perform above and beyond expectations and compels them to actively promote the interests and objectives of the organisation.

4.2 Although the organisation has primary responsibility for leading engagement, there are also secondary employee and job specific factors which can affect levels of engagement. These are also discussed in this chapter to provide a more comprehensive picture of the factors that determine engagement. The findings are presented under the following headings:

• Modelling Engagement - a series of the most relevant interpretative engagement models are presented.
• Role of Engagement in Organisational Outcomes - this section illustrates the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on organisational outcomes.
• Organisational Variations - an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies between organisations.
• Employee Variations - an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies between employees.

Modelling engagement

4.3 As highlighted by CIPD (2007a) there is no definitive all-purpose list of engagement drivers. There are many individual and organisational factors that determine whether employees become engaged, and to what extent they become engaged. This section highlights the models that illustrate these factors and the importance that employees place on them in becoming engaged.

4.4 The approach to employee engagement, discussed by Robinson et al (2004), stresses the importance of 'feeling valued and involved' as a key driver of engagement. Within this umbrella of feeling valued and involved there are a number of elements that have a varying influence on the extent to which the employee will feel valued and involved and hence engaged. Figure 4.1, which is based on a diagnostic model in Robinson et al (2004), illustrates the drivers of engagement suggested through a survey of over 10,000 NHS employees. Robinson et al (2004) state that this can be a useful pointer to organisations towards those aspects of working life that require serious attention if engagement levels are to be maintained or improved.

Figure 4.1 Robinson et al (2004) model of the drivers of employee engagement

Source: Robinson et al (2004)

4.5 Although tested within the NHS, the authors suggest that many of the drivers of engagement will be common to all organisations, regardless of sector. However as is discussed later in this chapter, engagement levels can vary according to demographic and job related factors. What is noted from the model above is that some of these factors are what would be fundamental or contractual requirements for the organisation (the 'hygiene' factors), such as pay and benefits and health and safety, whereas others are the areas where the organisation must 'go the extra mile' to ensure effective communication, management and cooperation.

4.6 Penna (2007) presents a hierarchical model of engagement factors (see figure 4.2), which illustrates the impact each level will have on the attraction, engagement and retention of talent. They propose a model with "meaning at work" at the apex, which they maintain is borne out by the research carried out into meaning at work. In this context, Penna (2007) defines meaning at work as the situation where a job brings fulfilment for the employee, through the employee being valued, appreciated, having a sense of belonging and congruence with the organisation and feel like they are making a contribution. In this model, as the hierarchy ascends and the organisation successfully meets each of these engagement factors, the organisation becomes more attractive to new potential employees and becomes more engaging to its existing staff.

Figure 4.2 Penna (2007) model of hierarchy of engagement

Source: Penna (2007)

4.7 Interestingly in this model the 'hygiene' factors appear at the foundation of the model, indicating the nature of these factors as a necessary, but not sufficient, building block upon which the organisation must further develop in order to engage staff.

4.8 Work by Schmidt (2004) (see figure 4.3) frames engagement within the context of organisational health and Workplace Well-Being ⁴ ( WWB). As discussed in Chapter 2, engagement is defined by Schmidt (2004) as the overarching label that brings employee satisfaction and commitment together. This model highlights the importance of commitment to the job as driven by job satisfaction, and also notes the importance of the supportive organisation. By creating the right conditions to generate high levels of employee engagement, the organisation can drive high performance - with high performance being defined as the achievement of the overarching public sector goal of advancing the public good. The model depicts the flow of organisational dynamics that begins with recruitment and moves through support for work, to workplace well-being, to engagement and finally to high levels of organisational performance.

Figure 4.3 Schmidt (2004) model of organisational dynamics in the public sector

Source: Schmidt (2004)

4.9 This model implies that the foundations of engagement lie in policies to recruit and retain the right workforce ( i.e. in terms of employing specific competences, knowledge and experiences required for success as well as diversity) and to promote health, safety, and well-being. Schmidt (2004) bases the model on a variety of studies and writings, implicit in which is the notion that it is WWB that drives engagement. CIPD (2007a) concurs with this view of the importance of well being, stating that engagement is 'wholly consistent' with an emphasis on employee well-being.

4.10 In Schmidt's (2004) discussion, WWB itself is driven by commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn are determined by a number of factors. It is a similar idea to the model presented by Robinson et al (2004) where 'feeling valued and involved' was the key driver of engagement, but in turn was influenced to a varying degree by a range of factors. As is the case throughout much of the literature, Schmidt (2004) does not present a definitive list of the drivers of commitment and satisfaction (as the drivers of engagement) but reviews several studies and reports. Concentrating here on the studies presented by Schmidt (2004) that appear to be based on a more robust approach ( e.g. regression analysis as opposed to theorising) the following results are of interest:

4.11 WorkUSA (2000) - This survey used regression analysis to identify the key factors affecting employee commitment:

• Trust in senior leadership
• Chance to use skills
• Competitiveness of rewards
• Job security
• Quality of company's products and services
• Absence of workplace stress
• Honesty and integrity of company's business conduct

4.12 ERIN Research - The Region of Peel (a large municipality in Ontario, Canada) carried out an employee survey in 2002. Schmidt (2004) advocates the robustness of the results, from the Canadian public sector, due to the use of 'advanced statistical techniques' and 'excellent' return rates on the survey of 72%. The survey identified job satisfaction and commitment as the drivers for the engagement model, with the following factors found to be important to each:

Job satisfaction:

• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;
• Fair pay and benefits;
• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers;
• A satisfactory work environment, as defined by:
  • A reasonable workload;
  • Good relations with immediate supervisor;
  • Smoothly functioning organisational dynamics;
  • Good relationships with colleagues; and
  • Effective internal communication.

Commitment:

• Job satisfaction;
• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;
• A positive perception of senior management; and
• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers.

4.13 The analysis of the survey found a correlation between satisfaction and commitment of 0.57 suggesting that the two concepts are related but deserve separate analysis. Further, what also emerges from these results is that satisfaction is a driver of commitment, but not vice versa, as commitment does not appear as a key factor in the analysis of what drives satisfaction.

Management and communication

4.14 The importance of good management and effective communication has been highlighted as key vehicles through which employee engagement can be implemented. As Robinson et al (2004) highlight, organisations must work to engage employees and establish a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. Michelman (2004) notes that the defining contribution of great managers is that they boost the engagement levels of the people who work for them. Michelman (2004) suggests that they achieve this through concentrating on four core areas of managing people:

• Selection;
• Expectation setting;
• Motivation; and
• Development

4.15 Michelman (2004) points out that in leading engagement, great managers will seek the right fit for a person's talent, they work to see that employees are rewarded for their performance and they endeavour to ensure that talent is developed through progressively more challenging and meaningful assignments.

4.16 A research report into employee engagement by Melcrum Publishing (2005) based on a global survey of over 1,000 multinationals concluded that from an organisation's point of view it is the senior executives that 'set the tone' of engagement in an organisation, whatever the size. There are a number of actions and strategies that senior management can make use of to inspire engagement among employees and motivate them to go the extra mile. The six top drivers of engagement from the senior management perspective were found to be:

• Communicating a clear vision of the future
• Building trust in the organisation
• Involving employees in decision making that will affect them
• Demonstrating commitment to the organisation's values
• Being seen to respond to feedback
• Demonstrating genuine commitment to employee's well being

4.17 The same Melcrum Publishing (2005) report also examined the role of line managers in encouraging engagement. In this regard, the survey results imply that 'creating a climate of open communication' is the single most important action for line managers in affecting levels of employee engagement, with 60% of those surveyed claiming it is the most important element.

4.18 Regarding the importance of communication, Moorcroft (2006) discusses the restructuring that took place at the Royal Bank of Canada ( RBC) in 2004. It was noted at that time that there was a need to engage rather than inform employees and thus better align their performance with the organisation's vision and business goals. Formerly, communication strategies had focused on informing employees and creating awareness. However a new strategy was designed by the company in order to engage employees (and thus generate desired behaviours) that would help create outcomes (measurable effects) in support of the organisation's objectives.

4.19 The strategy has four key objectives:

i) Help employees develop a better understanding of how what they do relates to the organisation's vision, strategies and goals;

ii) Create a more dynamic and interactive communication environment that involves employees in thinking about and understanding how they can influence business results;

iii) Ensure employees are getting the information they need to help frame and guide their day-to-day decisions; and

iv) Promote and recognise the desired behaviours and outcomes in communication.

4.20 This strategy is illustrated by RBC in the following model:

Figure 4.4 RBC's new model of employee communication

Source: Moorcroft (2006)

4.21 Moorcroft (2006) notes that the 'old' model was focused on developing tactics and methods by which to inform employees, or create awareness, of company news and objectives. However, the new model (see figure 4.4 above) is based on engaging employees in the communication process in order to achieve the desired outcomes and thus build the business value. This is achieved by helping employees have a better idea of how what they do impacts upon the organisation and by promoting behaviours that help achieve organisational objectives. Moorcroft (2006) reports that the changes to employee communications are beginning to show solid results, with employee alignment and engagement scores improving. Interestingly, the communication budget has actually been reduced at the same time, illustrating that a more focused and thought through strategy can result in better value for money.

The role of engagement in organisational outcomes

4.22 This section discusses the models that illustrate the place of engagement in the wider operations of the organisation and the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on the wider context.

4.23 Although a review of the quantitative evidence is provided in Chapter 5, this chapter brings together the elements of various models that illustrate the nature in which engagement can have an impact upon the organisation. Heintzman and Marson (2006) use the private sector service-profit chain model as a basis for producing a public sector equivalent (see figure 4.5). They base the model on research carried out in Canada on what the top public sector challenges are, namely;

• Human resource modernisation;
• Service improvement; and
• Improving the public's trust in public institutions.

4.24 Heintzman and Marson (2006) point out that the private sector has, for over a decade, documented the links between employee engagement and client satisfaction, and between client satisfaction and bottom line financial results. The authors note that the third element (the bottom line) cannot be transferred directly to the public sector but based on research on the link between public service outcomes and the public's rating of overall government performance, they suggest the following public service value chain:

Figure 4.5: Heintzman and Marson's (2006) public sector value chain

Source: Heintzman and Marson (2006)

4.25 Whilst Heintzman and Marson (2006) state that work is still underway to document the drivers of employee engagement with respect to this model they state that possible candidates (based on secondary research quoted within the paper) are:

• Support for the goals and mandate of the organisation;
• Effective leadership and management;
• Supportive colleagues and work unit;
• Tools, authority and independence to do the job;
• Career progress and development; and
• Workload.

4.26 Heintzman and Marson (2006) cite emerging Canadian evidence that supports this concept. They suggest that by understanding the drivers of engagement and the link between engagement and performance of the institution, this tool can be used across public sector management to make significant improvements in employees' work and in the overall performance and perception of the public sector.

4.27 A model produced by the CIPD (2006c) and presented in the organisation's Employee Attitudes and Engagement Survey' of 2006, brings various elements of employee engagement together in one overarching model (see figure 4.6). This then formed the basis of the survey, which was carried out across the private and public sectors.

4.28 The model, which illustrates the linkages and important factors in each of these elements, is provided below, with arrows indicating directions of influence:

Figure 4.6: The CIPD (2006c) model of employee engagement model

Source: CIPD (2006c)

4.29 Individual factors are those such as gender, age, ethnicity and disability (discussed in more detail later in this chapter). Working life describes factors such as occupation, hours of work and pay, as well as important issues such as bullying or workplace harassment.

4.30 Management, leadership and communication refers to how employees view their managers and leaders, how much opportunity they have to participate in organisational decision making and levels of trust. As CIPD (2006c) highlights, these factors have been found in research to be very important in determining levels of engagement. This is also the area where managers can have an important influence.

4.31 Attitudes to work refers to employees' perceptions of their jobs and includes levels of well-being, satisfaction, enthusiasm, commitment and loyalty. It is important to note here the two-way interaction in this model between attitudes to work and engagement. Whilst satisfaction, commitment, stress and loyalty factors feed into levels of engagement, it follows from the model that organisations that successfully engage their employees will engender greater levels of job satisfaction and loyalty, for example.

4.32 The engagement box itself refers to the CIPD's (2006c) three types of engagement (as discussed in section 2.21 above) - cognitive, emotional and physical. Finally, in the model above, engagement and attitudes to work lead to outcomes for the organisation, in terms of individual performance, intent to quit and absence levels. The model was used by CIPD in their annual attitude and engagement survey, with the finding that there is in fact a lot that managers and leaders can do to drive up engagement. Levels of trust and confidence in senior management and line managers were found to be 'disappointingly low' in the survey, however CIPD (2006c) cites this as an opportunity for managers to evaluate how their own organisation compares with the national sample and to consider how best to harness the engagement levels of their own workforce.

Organisational variations

4.33 The literature has highlighted that the primary responsibility for leading engagement, and influence over the factors that determine engagement, lies with the organisation. Whilst no evidence of difference has been found between the dynamics of engagement between the private and public sectors, what the literature does reveal is that the variations within sectors are in fact far more significant. In short, it appears that there is a clear distinction between leading edge organisations that are strong in employee engagement and the majority that are either ignorant of the subject or which are failing to address the matter effectively, irrespective of whether they are in the public or private sector. This section highlights some examples of this through case study evidence.

4.34 The literature identified a number of case studies of good practice in both the public and private sectors that were being held up as exemplars for others to follow. Examples, which demonstrate what can be achieved in the public sector, include Cambridgeshire County Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council - see case study profiles below.

Employee variations

4.35 The final variable impacting on employee engagement relates to employees themselves. A number of studies have produced quantitative research findings that demonstrate the impact that biographical and job characteristics can have on employee engagement. One of the most in-depth was conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies ( IES) (as analysed by Robinson et al 2004) which analysed attitude survey data for 2003 from 14 organisations in the NHS (>10,000 completed questionnaires). The key findings were:

Biographical characteristics

• Gender - the difference in engagement scores between men and women was not significant (although note that some surveys (see CIPD 2006c discussed below) find that females are generally more engaged than males - this difference may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveys across employees within the same organisation, whilst the CIPD survey cuts across a wide variety of industries and organisations).
• Ethnicity - minority ethnic employees have higher engagement levels than their White colleagues. Black, Chinese and Asian employees have higher scores than those in Mixed and White groups.
• Age - engagement levels go down slightly as employees get older - until they reach the oldest group, 60 and over, where the highest engagement levels of all are displayed. The high level of engagement levels expressed by experienced employees, who may be considered to be approaching the end of their working lives, suggests an untapped source of potential in many organisations.
• Work-life balance - those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of workplace stress and are likely to find it difficult to balance work and home life. Robinson et al (2004) therefore suggest that attention to family friendly policies could increase the engagement levels for this group.
• Caring responsibilities - the need for a family-friendly approach and greater emphasis on work-life balance is further underlined by the fact that employees with caring responsibilities for children have significantly lower engagement levels than those who have no caring responsibilities.
• Medical - those with a disability/medical condition have lower engagement levels than those who do not have such a condition.

4.36 CIPD (2006c) in their national survey of 2,000 employees across a wide spectrum of public and private sector employers found broadly similar findings to the NHS survey, although several disparities are noted:

• Gender - women were found, in general, to be more engaged than men, but they also tend to be doing different kinds of jobs. Women are more satisfied with their work and hold more positive views of their senior management team than do men. They are more loyal to their organisation as an employer and report higher levels of loyalty to their customers and clients than men. This is in contrast to the NHS survey result conducted by IES and analysed by Robinson et al (2004), where it was found that there was no discernable difference between engagement levels between men and women. As discussed above this may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveyed employees across the same organisation whilst CIPD (2006c) cut across a range of different industries and organisations. This may suggest that males and females are responding in a similar fashion to the same NHS environment but that in general differences in male/female engagement may be due to participation in different occupations and industries.
• Age - workers aged 55+ are more engaged with their work than younger employees, and they are also happier with their work-life balance, working shorter hours than others. Employees aged under 35 are significantly less engaged with their work than older workers. Again this is contrast to the NHS results where it was found that engagement levels go down as age increases, although both surveys find that workers in the 55+ or 60+ bracket are more engaged.
• Disability - employees with a disability are less engaged due to a range of negative factors including: bullying and harassment, not being listened to, the stress of work, a feeling of less control over their work, and higher levels of anxiety.
• Managers - they find their work more important and more meaningful than non-managers do. Their responses on communication and involvement are much more positive than those of non-managers, and managers feel that they have more support and recognition and are listened to more than non-managers are.
• Flexible contracts - some surprisingly strong differences were found between those working on a flexible contract ( e.g. flexible hours, term time contracts, homeworking etc.) and other workers. Those on flexible contracts tend to be more emotionally engaged, more satisfied with their work, more likely to speak positively about their organisation and least likely to quit than those not employed on flexible contracts.

4.37 However, it is particularly important to point out that demographic variables should not be seen in isolation as predictors of performance or engagement. CIPD (2006c) stresses the following:

"…what we have found is that good management practice and a conducive working environment can lead to high levels of engagement and performance amongst all groups of workers."

4.38 CIPD (2006c) also note the following regarding job characteristics:

• Job group - the nature of the job makes a big difference to engagement levels. In general, managers and professionals have higher levels of engagement than do their colleagues in supporting roles.
• Working pattern/hours - full-timers are significantly more engaged than part-timers, while employees who work days are more engaged than their colleagues on shifts or on a rota. This suggests that employers need to work harder with people who are not necessarily at work during 'standard' working times - to ensure that they receive communications, are managed effectively and have opportunities to grow and develop in their jobs.
• Length of service - engagement levels go down as length of service increases - an indication to employers that they need to ensure that longer-serving employees continue to be exposed to new and interesting challenges.

Summary and key findings

4.39 This chapter provided a discussion of the key models that emerged from the literature. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is nothing in the literature to suggest that the models relevant to the private sector do not have a direct applicability to the public sector also. Although some survey results found subtle differences between the sectors, in general the differences in engagement across demographic factors apply across the board to both sectors. The key points that emerge from an examination of the models of engagement are:

• There is no one-size fits all definitive explanation of what drives engagement. Each of the models and research studies discussed presented a range of different factors and placed varying importance on each. What can be concluded is that the organisation first and foremost has the power of influence over a range of factors (contractual and extra-contractual) and employees place a varying degree of importance on these.
• Feeling valued and involved is the key to the Robinson et al (2004) model of engagement, although other factors such as training and development, communication and job satisfaction are important in determining the extent to which employees feel valued and hence engaged.
• The Penna (2007) model of engagement noted that pay and benefits were at the foundation of the model but ranked lowest on the extent to which they would retain staff if other factors were lacking. In that model value and meaning at work are at the apex, with leadership and learning and development also cited as important factors in driving engagement from the employee's point of view.
• The RBC model of communication was also highlighted, and it was noted that it succeeded as it strived to engage employees rather than just inform. The organisation realised that the previous model of informing employees, rather than engaging them, was not helping to promote the 'line of sight' from employee actions to the overall objectives and outcomes for the organisation. This model highlights an important element of engagement - that communication is more effective as a two-way process that involves the employee, as opposed to merely presenting them with information.
• Management and communication were highlighted in particular in several models ( i.e. Robinson et al (2004) and Penna (2007)) as being key organisational drivers of engagement. Here it was found that promoting a clear vision of the future, being seen to respond to feedback and demonstrating a genuine commitment to the employees' well-being are all important actions at an organisational/managerial level.
• Several models that illustrate the overall impact of engagement and the mechanisms through which factors feed into engagement and how in turn engagement affects the overall organisational outcomes were also presented. What Schmidt (2004) points out as the overarching goal of public organisations - advancing the greater public good - can be affected by engagement levels through an overall mechanism that involves various elements from the 'right' workforce through workplace well-being, engagement, organisational performance and finally advancing the public good.
• Finally the CIPD (2006c) model of engagement was presented, which presents an overall picture of the place of engagement within a wider scope of individual factors, aspects of working life, management, attitudes to work and outcomes for the organisation. This demonstrates that engagement should not be considered in isolation, and these other factors should be taken on board when measuring engagement and considering engagement strategies.
• The effect of the models was not found in the literature to vary across public and private sectors, rather it is organisational characteristics within either sector that determines engagement.
• Secondary to the organisational lead in driving engagement are several demographic and job-related factors that highlight variations in engagement. It was noted from several studies that those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of workplace stress and are most likely to find it difficult to achieve a work/home life balance. Further, those with caring responsibilities for children are less likely to be engaged. These results tie in with the Robinson et al (2004) model which highlighted family friendly policies as an important organisational driver of engagement.

« Previous | Contents | Next »