How an employee performs in their role has a direct impact on organisational performance which can in turn be linked to a company’s growth and profitability. But does it run deeper than just the effective management of their performance?
How an individual performs in their role is associated with the employment relationship as a whole and ACAS suggests that employees (who are committed to both their employer and their work) have increased chance of behaving in a positive and cooperative way to the benefit of themselves and the business.
Known as employee engagement, the topic has seen an increase in interest over recent years, as companies seek to remain at a competitive advantage, exploring the links between employee engagement and in turn levels of productivity and resulting profitability.
Over the years there have been many attempts to define employee engagement and in 2009 MacLeod and Clarke in their report “Engaging for Success” identified over 50 definitions.
The CIPD alone has offered various definitions on the topic and perhaps this shows most effectively that there is not one unanimously agreed definition of the subject area.
Is this because it incorporates many different aspects or is it that it holds different meanings for differing organisations, and in turn each of the employees they are trying to engage?
Is it the human aspect?
People are all different and motivated or rewarded by different things. There can be no one size fits all approach.
This surely presents the problem that organisations need to be continuously evolving any engagement strategy to make sure initiatives engage employees of all generations and take into consideration the diversity of the workforce.
Is engagement a program that should be actively pursued and promoted or is engagement a consequential result of effective management, good practice HR or other initiatives that support and nurture the overall employment relationship?