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].
I believe that 'actively disengaged' employees are the biggest threat posed to an organization. Therefore, companies must be able to identify these individuals. A few tell-tale signs include drop in productivity, increased absenteeism, taking too many breaks, arriving late to work and leaving too early (Bhattacharyya, 2018).
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment! Agreed, as Reilly (2014) stated, the actively disengaged employees will not stop at being unproductive themselves, they also will try to undermine and demotivate the engaged employees. It's very important to identify such employees and try to recondition them towards an engaged mentality, failing which consider transitioning them out.
DeleteA well-written article, The organization I work for also use many tools to transform employees to disengaged to enaged, Birthday half day leave is one strategy the organization I work used to keep the employee happy. A happy employee works with more enthusiastic where productivity level high with better efficiency. Not only birthday half day but also all the departments and branch music will play with a low volume to work happier where the employee engaged and work without stress.
ReplyDeleteThank you Nayani, for your comment! The half-day on employees birthday sounds like a great idea as it would allow the person to celebrate with their team at work as well as family. I believe such investments from the organization's part in it's attempt to keep the employees engaged, would definitely bring a much more significant return, in terms of the value the engaged employees would bring to the organization (increased productivity, lesser attrition, increased customer satisfaction to name a few).
DeleteHi Nadeeranga,Every day, disengaged workers undermine the achievements of their fellow workers. It seems, therefore, that disengagement affects not only the individual who is disengaged, but also most of the other employees. Disengaged workers execute piecemeal tasks marked by effortless, engineered or mechanical behavior (Kahn 1990)
ReplyDeleteHi Indika, I completely agree with the above thoughts. I have had to deal with such situations in my professional career a few times and it was crucial to correct the disengaged behaviors or transition the misaligned individual out, so that the engaged employees do not get unnecessarily demotivated.
DeleteAgreed with your blog, it is also mentioned in the United States Organizations with employee engagement has 147% better performance compared with competition whereas, $450 Billion to $550 Billion cost is incurred in the United Stated due to Disengaged Employees (Wells, 2017).
ReplyDeleteHi Mizni, thank you for sharing these shocking numbers. A video clip from a later post on this blog series points out that engaged employees are 87% less likely to seek other employment opportunities. In addition to the value addition through better performance, the engaged employees stay longer, reducing the costs of recruitment and training as well.
DeleteHi Nadeeranga, agree with yon and following reference is justify your points as well.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Saks (2006), a split to the concept of engagement into two distinct parts: (1) job engagement and (2) organisation engagement, which he puts forward are related but separate constructs. He argues that the relationship between job and organisation engagement vary in numerous ways, resulting in the inference that the psychological states which result in the two aforementioned forms of engagement and their consequences are not the same.
Fairly constructive article. Motivated employee is an asset to the organisation. Using a well-established motivational strategy could result in a more positive outcome from the employees. Motivational Strategies and practises considers as the catalysts for enhancing employee engagement.(De Vito, L. et al, 2016).
ReplyDeleteGreat Article! Employee engagement activities have been proven to improve productivity, and overall improve remote employees team bonding in the workplace. Bring your remote team together through Online employee engagement activities.
ReplyDeleteEngaged employees care for the company, they’re not simply working for salary and promotions but they also work effectively and efficiently for the growth of the company. Online employee engagement activities have become the most popular topic for leaders and HR professionals, because of the pandemic conditions. Filled with unique fun virtual entertaining games that help employees connect with others
ReplyDeleteEngaged employees work effectively and efficiently for the organization And the technology adds more fun to the employee engagement and the team-building of the employees. As employees are virtually connected with each other through digital platforms. Driving online employee engagement activities could be one of the most important factors for the organizations
ReplyDeleteNice Article! Find the best online employee engagement ideas
ReplyDeleteand activities on the web all in one place. These ideas help you to remote your workers and make it easy to work comfortably from anywhere.
If you're looking for an easy way to increase employee engagement and morale, Indoor employee engagement games are a great way to do it. Employees are more engaged, more productive, and more loyal to employers when they're given the chance to have fun.
ReplyDeleteLooking for engaging activities to do with your employees? Check out our Employee Engagement Activities Calendar! We have a wide range of activities, from team building exercises to fun social outings, that will get your employees interacting and having a great time.
ReplyDelete