What is Employee Engagement?

The concept of Employee Engagement has been around since the 1990s and one of its pioneers; William Kahn defined it 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” (Kahn,1990). Albrecht (2010) argued that a successful definition of employee engagement would identify it as the positive state of mind of an employees’, identified by their high likelihood of putting in discretionary efforts to drive the organization towards its goals. A common theme that many of the researchers agree on is that the concept of employee engagement compromises of an energy factor and an identification factor, both relating to the work aspect of employee (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). When looked at in a boarder sense, employee engagement also correlates to the awareness of the employee on how the business is performing & the alignment of an employee with the organizational objectives. Engaged employees are able to relate their job descriptions with the objectives of the organization (CIPD, 2019; p. 1). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) defined engagement as a state of mind relating to positive, fulfilling work that is characterized by three key elements; vigor, dedication and absorption.

     Vigor is the willingness of the employees to do the “hard” work, having the determination and the willingness to put in the time & effort that is needed to get the difficult work done.

Dedication is the presence of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge in the employees.

Absorption how concentrated and “happily” occupied the employees are with their work, to the level where detaching from work becomes a challenge. This is the state commonly referred to as being on a “flow”, where the mind is laser focused on the job at hand & the body executes flawlessly.

Employee satisfaction, regardless of having some similarities with employee engagement, should not be considered to be the same as employee engagement. Engagement much more than mere satisfaction. For example, even a completely disengaged employee could be satisfied with their job. A high level of Passion and a high level of commitment are two of the key characteristics of an engaged employee - these qualities cannot be measured the same way that one would measure job satisfaction (Macey and Schneider, 2008). During his speech at Stanford class of 2005 commencement ceremony, Steve Jobs said “the only way to do great work is to love what you do” (Stanford University, 2005). “Loving” what you do, could be looked at as being synonymous to an interpersonal relationship where passion and commitment are essential ingredients; much similar to the engagement of an employee to their job.

                                       Video 01: What Is the Definition of Employee Engagement?

                                       Source: (Kruse, 2015)

On this video clip, the concept of employee engagement is explained with easy to understand examples. The video also demonstrates how employee satisfaction doesn’t necessarily imply employee engagement by using the example of the fashion store sales team who were bobbing away to the music & laughing (clearly, satisfied with their jobs) but not focused on the customers & most likely not operating the way the leadership of the establishment would have desired for them to (not engaged). 

Figure 1: Key Factors that drive Employee Engagement and the Key Outcomes for the Individual (Employee) & the Organization 

Source: (Sundaray, 2011)

Figure 1 depicts the key factors that trigger employee engagement (the input) and the key outcomes that the individual (employee) and the organization (employer) can expect (the output). It is evident that Job Satisfaction is only one of the factors that stimulates employee engagement. The thirteen factors listed on Figure 1 makes it clear that creating employee engagement not an overnight process and the organization must infuse the concept in to its culture as well as other policies and procedures. The outcomes of employee engagement will be discussed in detail on a forthcoming post.

References:

Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. 1st ed. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.05-08.

Bakker, A. B. and Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement. 1st ed. New York: Psychology Press, pp.05-08.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPM) (2019) Employee Engagement and Motivation [Online]. Available at: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/engagement/factsheet#6227  [Accessed on 22 October 2019].

Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692–724.

Macey W.H. and Schneider B. (2008) The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp. 3-30.

Kruse, K. (2015) What Is the Definition of Employee Engagement?. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu7EG6EZeAM [Accessed on 23 October 2019].

Schaufeli, W. B. and Bakker, A. B. (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), pp. 293-315.

Stanford University (2005) 'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says. [Online]. Available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/ [Accessed on 20 October 2019].

Sundaray, B.K. (2011) Employee Engagement: A Driver of Organizational

Effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management. 3(8), p. 59.

Different Levels of Employee Engagement.

Many categorizations on different levels of employee engagement can be found on literature but all such categorizations are similar in the sense that they simply endeavor to partition the spectrum of “engagement”, from “not at all engaged” to “fully engaged”. Research conducted by Gallup organization (2006), categorizes employee engagement in to 03 levels, as depicted on figure 03 and explained below.

Figure 03: Different level of employee engagement and the definitions 

Source: (Killham and Krueger, 2006)

·         Engaged: An organization should strive to drive all their employees to “Engaged” level as these employees provide organizations with vital competitive edge over their competition, engaged employees are highly productive and impose low risk of employee attrition (Vance, 2006). Engaged employees put in voluntary efforts in to their work and do not depend on extrinsic motivation (Armstrong, 2009).

·         Not-engaged: This type of employees usually does the minimum work needed to fulfil the job requirements and do not show enthusiasm or concern for the organization or the customers. They are more likely to miss work (take sick days off) and to leave the job if they see opportunity elsewhere. (Adkins, 2006). Not-engaged employees can be seen as a good opportunity for improvement in an organization in the sense that with the right “people strategy”, they can be transformed in to “engaged” employees, resulting in great improvements in overall organizational performance (Reilly, 2014).

·         Actively disengaged: This type of employees can cause harm to the organization they work for. They are not just unhappy, but they also openly act on their unhappiness and can drive customers away. The disengaged employees will endeavor to undermine and demotivate the engaged employees - possible double-impact to the organizational performance (Reilly, 2014)

This idea of this model could simply be explained using an example; considering the organization as a boat, being rowed by the employees in towards a specific direction & destination (the organizational goals). Employees who are “engaged”, would row with all their strength to ensure the boat (the organization) reaches its destination. Those who are “not engaged”, will not row as hard or may not row at all. Lastly, the “actively disengaged” employees will not only not row in the expected direction, but they might even discourage others or row in the opposite direction.

In the organization I work for (a large knowledge process outsourcing company in healthcare sector with 450+ employees), I have come across all these types of employees. Interestingly, the not-engaged and actively disengaged type encounters have been more frequent in the recent months (as compared to a few years back, when the company workforce was much smaller in size) and proportionally, there have been growing concerns on productivity, customer satisfaction and overall organizational performance. My observations of behavior patterns from working with the different types of employees mostly match the descriptions listed above however, there have been times where the same employee demonstrated mixed characteristics of the 03 different types.

For an example, an employee of a team I managed who was showing a high level of commitment (doing 12+ hour shifts, voluntarily), full of innovative ideas and producing exceptional results – showing characteristics of “engaged”, was later found out to be demotivating other team members and creating a negative culture – characteristics of “actively disengaged”. Therefore, it’s important to be careful when categorizing an employee as one of the three types, all the key characteristics must be considered.

References:

Adkins, A. (2016) Employee Engagement in U.S. Stagnant in 2015. [Online] Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/188144/employee-engagement-stagnant-2015.aspx [Accessed on 05 October 2019].

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page, pp.337-339.

Killham, E. and Krueger, J. (2006) Who's Driving Innovation at Your Company?. [Online] Available at: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/24472/whos-driving-innovation-your-company.aspx [Accessed on 30 September 2019].

Reilly, R. (2014) Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now. [Online] Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231581/five-ways-improve-employee-engagement.aspx [Accessed on 05 October 2019].

Vance, R. J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment. [Online] Available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Employee-Engagement-Commitment.pdf [Accessed 05 October 2019].

Measuring Employee Engagement

Measuring employee engagement can be a challenging task since it’s an activity that requires evaluating of human feelings and emotions (Robinson et al., 2004). The most commonly used tool for measuring employee engagement is an employee engagement survey. These surveys help gauge the intensity of employee engagement as well as evaluate the relationships between engagement and key business results. The findings from such surveys often provide critical information on the effectiveness of HR practices of the organization and provide insights on where changes are needed (Vance, 2006).

The surveys are usually conducted online. The guarantee of anonymity is a very important aspect of the surveying methodology – the employees will share their candid feedback only if they are certain that the survey ensures anonymity. At my current organization, tools at surverymonkey.com is used to send out the employee satisfaction surveys and the responses are not tracked with complete anonymity guaranteed hence as an employee I feel safe in sharing my honest opinion.

It is critical that an employee engagement survey contains questions that would help capture the essential data relating to the responder’s biographical characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity to name a few) and other job-related characteristics (such as department, length of service group, nature of employment). This information is critical when it comes to the analysis of the responses and coming up with strategies to increase employee engagement levels (Robinson et al., 2004). However, it must be noted that these identifying questions should not break the anonymity of the responder. For example, if the IT department of an organization only has one employee, the survey should be designed in a way that the employee from IT can remain anonymous.   

The questions on employee engagement surveys are often literal statements where the employees can pick an option from “Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree or Strongly agree”. Figure 05 shows a sample layout for engagement survey with the rating scheme. The scale on the sample doesn’t include an option for the responders to select “Neutral”. It can be argued that the option to respond as “neutral” could help differentiate a not-engaged employee from an engaged or actively disengaged person discussed on the previous post of this blog.

Figure 05: Sample Employee Engagement survey.

Source: (Armstrong, 2009).

Figure 06 lists some examples of statements used on employee engagement surveys by reputed organizations. As seen with the statements used by Dell Inc., the statements should be simply worded, specific and relatable for the employee.

Figure 06: Sample questions for Employee Engagement surveys.

Source: (Vance, 2006).

According to Vance (2016), the below are some of the key areas that the statements/questions on an engagement survey should cover:

1.    Pride in employer

2.    Satisfaction with employer

3.    Job satisfaction

4.    Opportunity to perform well at challenging work

5.    Recognition and positive feedback for one’s contributions

6.    Personal support from one’s supervisor

7.    Effort above and beyond the minimum

8.    Understanding the link between one’s job and the organization’s mission

9.    Prospects for future growth with one’s employer

10. Intention to stay with one’s employer

Due to their simplicity and effectiveness, many organizations chose surveys as their method of gauging employee engagement. Other means such as focus groups and one-on-one interviews would also be helpful in measuring employee engagement and diagnosing related issues (Armstrong, 2009).

At my current workplace, a bi-annual survey is shared with all employees. The survey has most of the characteristics discussed on this post. The HR team of the organization also conducts interviews with focus groups. The management team most of the time uses the feedback received via surveys and discussions to make sure that necessary adjustments are made on the company’s HR strategies & other policies/procedures. These practices have helped the organization get recognized as one of the best places to work in Sri Lanka in 2019, by Great Place to Work Sri Lanka ® Institute.

     Bonus fact: Interesting point to note is that carrying out employee engagement surveys itself could also enhance employee engagement. This is because, by asking for employees’ opinions/feedback and then implementing strategies based on those survey results, the organization conveys the message to its employees that their input is respected (Vance, 2006).

References:

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page, P. 1019.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement. 1st ed. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies, pp.13-20.

Vance, R. J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment. [Online] Available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Employee-Engagement-Commitment.pdf [Accessed 01 October 2019].

Significance of Employee Engagement

$483 billion to $605 billion – that’s how colossal the damage made by “actively disengaged” employees to the U.S. economy is, each year in productivity losses (Gallup, 2017). To put this in context, the cost of productivity losses from disengaged employees to the U.S economy per year, is more than 5 times the GDP of Sri Lanka in 2017, which was $87 billion (Sri Lanka Department of Census & Statistics, 2018).

Employee engagement is achieved when an employee’s enthusiasm for work is stimulated and directed towards the success of the organization (Armstrong, 2009). This means that there exits a definite correlation between employee engagement and organizational success. It can also be inferred that the employee disengagement is a factor that can contribute to the failure of an organization.

Its important to understand how engaged employees can benefit an organization and its even more important to be aware of the adverse effects actively disengaged employees can cause. Video 2 summarizes some of the key significances of employee engagement. Below are some of the key points: 

·         Engaged employees perform better than those who are disengaged

·         Engaged employees are 87% less likely to seek other employment opportunities

·         Engaged employees take fewer sick days off than disengaged employees

·         Engaged employees act as ambassadors of the organization, ensuring customer satisfaction by going above and beyond 

It’s vital to look at the flip-side of the above as well:

·         Disengaged employees perform below par, compared to those who are engaged

·         Disengaged employees are 87% more likely to seek other employment opportunities

·         Disengaged employees take more sick days off than engaged employees

·         Disengaged employees do not act as ambassadors of the organization, they will at most only do what they are “asked to do”

Video 2: Why employee engagement matters

 Source: (ENGAGE, 2016)

Though most organizations may chose to believe that their employees are engaged (or at least not actively disengaged), Gallup survey from 2018 summarized on Figure 07 shows a shocking 13% of the workforce in the U.S are actively disengaged while only 34% are engaged.   

Figure 07: Employee Engagement Trending in the U.S 

Source: (Harter, 2018)

At my current workplace, employee satisfaction surveys are used to measure engagement but the data gathered is not analyzed in ways that it can infer the percentage of engaged, disengaged and actively disengaged employees separately. However, it was interesting to note on the last survey, that most of the questions had about 10 to 20 responses falling in to “completely disagree” category (negative responses). Even more interestingly, upon closer examination it was found out that those 10 to 20 responses mostly came in from a common group of responders. This can be taken as an indicator of the presence of actively disengaged employees, though the number seems insignificant compared to the total employee population of 450. 

Over the last three years, the number of these “completely disagree” response has been increasing and symptoms of disengagement such as increase in employee turnover and drop in productivity have come to light. It would be fascinating to analyze the data further to find correlations between the negative responders and the key performance indicators of those teams & departments.

Having established the significance of employee engagement, it is critical for any organization to be aware of where it stands & what percentage of employees fall in to each of the categories, so that the necessary remedial action plans/strategies can be implemented before it’s too late – specially for fast growing organizations, this is a vital aspect of ensuring sustainable growth.

References:

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page, pp 338-340.

Gallup (2017) State of the American Workplace. [Online] Available at: https://news.gallup.com/file/reports/199961/SOAW_Report_GEN_1216_WEB_FINAL_rj.pdf [Accessed 23 September 2019].

Harter, J. (2018) Employee Engagement on the Rise in the U.S. [Online] Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx [Accessed on 23 September 2019].

Sri Lanka Department of Census & Statistics (2018). ECONOMIC STATISTICS

OF SRI LANKA 2018 [Online] Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/EconomicStat/EconomicStatistics2018.pdf [Accessed 15 September 2019].

Contemporary Challenges with Employee Engagement in Fast Growing Organizations

Size does matter! To elaborate further, there is a clear correlation between the size of the organization and the percentage of engaged employees, according to research by Gallup (2017). The larger the organization, the lesser the percentage of engaged employees is. Figure 08 makes this point very clear - there is a 12% drop in employee engagement level, as the size of the organization goes from less than 25 employees to 5,000 or more.

Figure 08: Percentage of Engaged Employees by Company Size

Source: (Gallup, 2017)

Another way to interpret Figure 08 is, in organizations with less than 25 employees, about 51% are disengaged or actively disengaged while for organizations with 5000+ employees, this percentage rises to 71%. This becomes even more alarming when the percentages are converted to numbers – the 71% totals to 3,550 disengaged or actively disengaged employees for an organization with a workforce of 5,000 people. 

Though these numbers are concerning, the reason why larger organizations have a lesser percentage of engaged employees is not so difficult to understand. In a small sized company, the chances are that most of the employees would know each other, the leaders of the organization would know each of the employees. Further, the employees would have a clear understanding of the organizational mission & vision as well as how the role they play within the organization fits into the big picture – according to Armstrong (2009), the employees’ understanding of their role and how it fits in the holistic view, is one of the two key elements that must be present for engagement to exist. If the employees have questions, they have the privilege of being able to reach out to the leaders (Gallup, 2017). According to Northouse (2007), leadership has a strong influence on the level of engagement of an employee. As the number of employees increase, the employees and the leaders would grow apart and the organizational leaderships ability to stop an employee feeling like just another brick in the wall, would decline hence the higher rate of disengagement.

At the organization I am currently employed at, the size of the workforce has grown from 50 employees in 2013 to 450 in 2019. According to an employee satisfaction survey from 2015 when the company size was 109 employees, only 03 responses (3%) have been received as “strongly disagree” or “disagree” to the statement “I would recommend a friend to work here” whereas the same question had 14 such responses (5%) in 2018 when the company size was 285. Similar patterns have been seen over the years on the other underlying questions on the surveys. This indicates a slight increase in probable disengaged/actively disengaged number of employees, as the size of the company grew.

For instance, think of a lemonade stand run by three happy little kindergartens – how much energy & passion each of the three little “employees” would bring to the table, in their business. Now imagine, if just a fraction of that engagement can be replicated in an organization with 5,000 employees – how the business would thrive!

References:

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page, pp 338-340.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice. 7th ed. California: SAGE Publications, pp.170-172.

Gallup (2017) State of the American Workplace. [Online] Available at: https://news.gallup.com/file/reports/199961/SOAW_Report_GEN_1216_WEB_FINAL_rj.pdf [Accessed 16 September 2019].

Video: Why Most of the Employees are Not Engaged at Work

From a TEDx event in 2015, Video 03 is a presentation by Jeff Havens where he uses his clever presentation skills to brings forth some of the key reasons as to why most of the employees today are not engaged in their work. The speaker clearly distinguishes between “Satisfied” and “Engaged” employees. He also stresses on the significance of leaders (the leadership style) on employee engagement with examples of popular leaders Steve Jobs and President George Washington. The speaker also elaborates on the “sandwich” technique which leaders can use when providing negative feedback to employees in a more effective way. 

                                                   Video 03: Why aren't more of us engaged at work?

                                                Source: (Havens, 2015)

References:

Havens, J. (2015) Why aren't more of us engaged at work?. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7Z_3aE5cE [Accessed on 08 September 2019].

Strategies for Increasing Employee Engagement Level in Fast-Growing Organizations

Driving an “Engagement Culture” is the essential foundation to build an organizations employee engagement initiative. Organizations must use the findings from their engagement surveys in order to identify the key factors that drive engagement & organizational KPIs in their context and then pick the ones that are of the highest importance to the business, in order to design engagement initiatives around those specific items (Vance, 2006). In today’s highly competitive business world, more and more organizations are becoming aware of the importance of employee engagement and are taking up initiatives to increase the employee’s engagement levels. As evident on Gallup surveys from 2018, the percentage of engaged employees is on an increasing trend in the U.S. (increased from 30% in 2012 to 34% in 2018) and this is by no mere coincidence but through organizations investing on building a culture of engagement (Harter, 2018).

A variety of different approaches are discussed in literature, in terms of the techniques/strategies an organization should exploit in order to increase employee engagement. According to Armstrong (2009), a strategy for enhancing employee engagement must consider the below 05 key areas, which will be discussed in detail with relation to a fast-growing organization.

     1.    The work itself: The nature of the work the employees are assigned to do, can intrinsically trigger their engagement to increase. Employees today prefer work that is intellectually challenging and interesting which also gives them a sense of accomplishment while making themselves feel significant in the organizational big picture (Armstrong, 2009). In fast-growing organizations, the job roles are usually very specific (narrow job scope) & can often be monotonous because the roles are designed mainly with efficiency in mind. At my current workplace, certain roles where these drawbacks exist, are handled carefully by using methods such as periodic job rotation. For example, a job role for a specific sub-function where the team members were required to do quite a lot of monotonous data entry work, was combined with a less monotonous sub-functional role to create a “hybrid” role for the combined team.

      2.    The work environment: This has to do with cultivating a culture of positive attitude towards work, encouraging interest and excitement in the work while reducing work pressure. The organizational talent management practices should be clearly defined. The employees should feel that their workplace is a psychologically safe place to work. Ensuring the employees have appropriate physical working conditions (example: chairs, desks, computers, air conditioning, internet connections) also play a role in employee engagement. From my experience, the managers of a growing organization play a vital role in making the work place a psychologically safe place to work. On the other hand, today’s employees demand good physical working conditions – this is one aspect where my current organization has gotten very positive feedback on employee satisfaction surveys from the employees.   

      3.    Leadership: Here, Armstrong (2009) focuses mainly on the very important role played by line managers in increasing employee engagement levels. Also, the author emphasizes on the training of line managers and prospective managers to equip them with the skills and knowledge required to play this role. My current organization has invested in this area greatly and there are a few training programs that are mandatory for different levels of leaders. Ongoing performance management is done through a human resource management system and there are periodic trainings & refreshers conducted for the managers on performance management techniques.  

     4.    Opportunities for personal growth: Creating a learning culture is an important aspect in nurturing employee engagement. Discretionary learning instead of obligatory (often unproductive) training programs should be encouraged – this process takes place when employees truly are interested in acquiring the skills and knowledge that are needed to support the organization’s mission (Sloman, 2003 Cited in Armstrong, 2009). An essential aspect of this strategy is that the employees should have an enough amount of flexibility for them to be able to expand on their roles and contribute in areas that they are talented in.

However, this can be challenging unless the guidelines are clearly defined, specially in fast-growing organizations. The primary role an employee is expected to play, should not get significantly affected due to him/her focusing on other areas they wish to contribute in. Career development related guidance and support should also be covered in the strategy. At my current workplace, the employees are encouraged to contribute to a suggestions scheme, the suggestions necessarily do not have to be related to their job role – they are recognized on the evaluations for their contributions and there are monetary rewards and Non monetary rewards/awards (recognition from the top) based on the value addition the suggestion brings in. From a career guidance standpoint, each team member who joins the organization is assigned an experienced team member (a team lead or a manager) as their “mentor” & the mentor acts as a “career counselor” among other things, sharing their wisdom with the new comers. All these things combined, has created a strong cultural foundation of learning and continuous improvement. However, it must be said that as the organization continues to grow, the focus on these initiatives seem to have slightly diluted.

5.    Opportunities to contribute: The opportunities for the employees to contribute with their opinions and ideas is a critical aspect of making sure that the employee feels that they are an important part of the organization. Open communications must be encouraged, and hierarchical organizational structure shouldn’t be allowed to limit the bottom layers of employees communicating with the top. At my current organization, formal employee satisfaction surveys are sent out quarterly and it consists of a few open-ended questions where the employees can share their honest opinion. The organization has an “open-door” policy, across the board. As the organization continues to grow, the manager to team members ratio has increased to about 1 to 40, this was about 1 to 25 a few years ago – nifty changes in organizational structure has helped keep the communications open despite the increase in the ratio. Any growing organization should consciously make changes to its organizational structure to make sure there are no roadblocks to open communication. 

References:

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page, pp 338-340.

Harter, J. (2018) Employee Engagement on the Rise in the U.S. [Online] Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241649/employee-engagement-rise.aspx [Accessed on 04 September 2019].

Vance, R. J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment. [Online] Available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Employee-Engagement-Commitment.pdf [Accessed 04 September 2019].