Factors Influencing Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is organization-specific, culturally sensitive, and varies according to profession, industry and worldwide (Kular et al. 2008; Gupta & Sharma 2016). This is mainly because the emotional and intellectual attachment of employees to the organization can vary depending on the type and size of the company; some organizations are for profit while others are not for profit, for instance, the public service organizations, public universities, intergovernmental organizations are not for profit (Armstrong & Taylor 2020). Some industries are service-oriented, others production-oriented. Regardless of the type of industry or type of organization, every organization is concerned about active employee engagement, which includes physical, cognitive, and emotional aspects of role performance such as commitment, involvement, attachment, discretionary effort, energy, positive attitude and psychological presence (Kahn 1990; Gupta & Sharma 2016). 

While employees are concerned about job satisfaction, the employers expect more than mere satisfaction because the most satisfied employees may not be the most engaged, although there is a link. (Mishra & Mohanty 2016; Armstrong 2017). Armstrong and Taylor (2020) described two aspects that influence engagement. The first is the rational aspect, i.e. the employees 'understanding of their roles, and the second is the emotional aspect, i.e. the employees' feelings for the organization. Scholars have identified various factors influencing engagement consistent with this concept, as indicated below.

• The work itself, opportunities for personal growth, leadership, the work environment (Armstrong & Taylor 2020). 
• Perceived supervisor support, rewards and recognition, procedural justice, distributive justice and perceived organizational support as the predictors of employee engagement (Saks 2006). 
• Career development, effective management of talent, leadership, clarity of company values, policies and practises, respectful treatment of employees, Company's standards of ethical behaviours, Empowerment, Fair treatment, performance appraisal, pay and benefit, communication, nature of the job, organization politics, emotional factors, productivity (Chandani et al. 2016).  
• Teamwork, pleasant working conditions, considerate treatment of employees, growth opportunities, flexible‐working practices, and good leadership and management practices foster employee engagement. (Rama Devi 2009).
  

Although drivers may vary, some of them identified above pertain to commitment, not to engagement and these factors may not drive engagement; for example; 

"…engaged employees are not necessarily committed to their organization; that a committed employee is not necessarily motivated to work harder; and that people may be committed to the organization in terms of wanting to stay with it, possibly because they may have nowhere else to go, but are still disenchanted with their jobs" (Armstrong & Taylor 2020, p.336). 

The drivers for engagement are industry-specific; for example, a study in the health care sector identified organizational culture, reward, working environment, training, HR practices, reputation and values, communication, and physical environment drivers (Suomi et al. 2021). A public sector study in India suggests that pay, job content, and objectivity are drivers of engagement (Mohapatra & Sharma 2010).

 

A study conducted in the UK identified that satisfaction with one's co-workers related significantly to engagement (Avery et al. 2007). Another study conducted at a University showed that attitude to work and organization, learning and development, relationship with superiors, communication and cooperation, work organization and also reward and motivation (Czaplicka-Kozlowska & Stachowska 2018).

In summary, it is evident from the studies mentioned above that various factors affect employee engagement depending on employer and employee factors. Hence, identifying specific drivers of employee engagement in an organization requires careful attention. 

 References:

Armstrong, M 2017, Armstrong on reinventing performance management: Building a culture of continuous improvement, Kogan Page Publishers.

Armstrong, M & Taylor, S 2020, 'Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice'.

Avery, DR, McKay, PF & Wilson, DC 2007, 'Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 1542-56.

Chandani, A, Mehta, M, Mall, A & Khokhar, V 2016, 'Employee Engagement: A Review Paper on Factors Affecting Employee Engagement', Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 15.

Czaplicka-Kozlowska, IZ & Stachowska, S 2018, 'Factors Shaping Engagement of Employees on the Example of University Workers', Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 455-66.

Gupta, N & Sharma, V 2016, 'Exploring Employee Engagement-A Way to Better Business Performance', Global Business Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 45S-63S.

Kahn, WA 1990, 'Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work', Academy of management journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.

Kular, S, Gatenby, M, Rees, C, Soane, E & Truss, K 2008, 'Employee engagement: A literature review'.

Mishra, S & Mohanty, JK 2016, 'The Predictors of Employee Engagement: A Study in a Ferro Alloys Company of India', Global Business Review, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1441-53.

Mohapatra, M & Sharma, BR 2010, 'Study of Employee Engagement and its Predictors in an Indian Public Sector Undertaking', Global Business Review, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 281-301.

Rama Devi, V 2009, 'Employee engagement is a two‐way street', Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 3-4.

Saks, AM 2006, 'Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement', Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Suomi, K, Saraniemi, S, Vahatalo, M, Kallio, TJ & Tevameri, T 2021, 'Employee Engagement and Internal Branding: Two Sides of the Same Coin?', Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 48-63.