MANAGE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

TO MANAGE PERFORMANCE
ALAN M. SAKS & J AMI E A. GRUMAN ( 2011)
u Summary - the shift
to relationships and
communication . . . . . . . 1
u Summary continued,
background, and the
psychology of engagement 2
u The results are in! . . . 3
I SSUE 2 VOLUME 4 2011
Employee
Engagement & Performance
The shift from performance goals and results toward employee
engagement and performance and its prehistory, might also enhance
manager-employee communication and manager-employee
relationships.
Helping you achieve
your performance goals
Formal performance management
processes fail due to incriminating
evidence like administration steps,
processes, and tools that are not
related to day-to-day work. They
suggest shifting away from the formal
composition toward concentrating on
the enhancement of manager-employee
relationships and communication.
A good collaboration between them
will help the employees to care more
about the outcomes of performance
management. The employees of
a company are the heart of every
achievement of the corporation.
According to Macey, Schneider,
Barbera, & Young (2009), on an
engagement index the top 25 % of 65
companies in several industries had a
higher return on assets, profitability,
and shareholder value. So the key
for being successful is the people in
the company. The stronger focus on
employee engagement is inescapable if
an organization wants to reach higher
productivity goals. This necessitates
an evaluation of the current working
environment of every employees
surrounding. While producing ideas to
increase performance there is a trend
toward facilitation of performance
rather than management of
performance (Das, 2003). Nowadays
it has become harder to evaluate
performance due to advanced control
areas, decentralization, a rising
percentage of professionals, and the
missing know-how.
I NDUSTRI AL AND ORGANI ZATI ONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
RESEARCH BRI EF
Performance management is as much about managing the context in which
performance occurs as it is about managing performance itself. (Jones, 1995)
Kahn (1990), defines engagement as the harnessing of organizational members
selves to their work roles; in engagement people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances
perform
smarter:
Satisfaction vs.
Engagement
The term Job Satisfaction places
responsibility on the employee to
derive fulfillment from the role itself.
Engagement allows employees
to express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally
within the role they perform.
In service industries, engagement
is the leader in customer-rated
performance, and contributes to
job satisfaction.
Getting the most
from our research
analysis
The individuality and personal
traits of every employee
becomes visible through
engagement. Personal
engagement contributes
in a strong way to their
self-determination and in
identifying themselves
with the tasks. Other
influencers of performance
are job involvement, job
satisfaction, and intrinsic
motivation. A study of the
hospitality industry, found
that there is a connection
between engagement and
customer-rated performance
through the switching effect
of the service climate.
Psychological meaningfulness
means incentives for the
commitment to get a return
of ones self-in-role. In
other words when people
feel they are needed and
treasured in the organization.
Psychological safety focuses
more on the damage of
somebodys reputation or
career by contributing to role
performance. Psychological
availability means how much
somebody is available to
bring oneself into a role. The
managers have to implement
these three conditions to
offer the employees a choice
for self-engagement. Also
managers must diminish
job demands which can be
the reason for burn-out or
disengagement and in addition
to that they should offer job
resources that elevates the
experience of meaningfulness,
safety, and availability.
Today the description of a
job and good performance
are enlarged. All in all,
performance management
should focus on managing
employee engagement to
manage performance.
Communication leads to personal engagement
of individuals, that enables intrisic motivation
and a shift of the service environment.
Psychological meaningfulness
is related to somebodys
belief of how important it is
to reach the self-motivation
level to provide performance.
SAKS & GRUMAN

Employee engagement seems to be a current topic in the work environment, but

actually it goes back over 20 years when it was first mentioned in an academic
journal in 1990. During the 70s and 80s the focus of HR was on employee
satisfaction. This concentrated on the employee rather than on the organization as a
whole. After that there was a movement from satisfaction to commitment, to get the
job of your life. It was all about employee loyalty. But commitment is just a part of
engagement. Due to globalization and the change from a manufacturing economy
to a service economy, it led to focus on being more flexible, competitive, and goal-
orientated.
Background
To invest more in your staff showed higher employee commitment, motivation,
productivity, and profit. Companies discovered the positive effect of engagement.
So what is engagement? There is no all-over-the-world definition for it. It might
be an employees ambition and duty to the company. It is emotion, behaviors, and
relationships between the employee and the organization.
In the future, engagement will find a way to be sustainable too. Engagement will
give directions to facilitate the right motivation and attractions for the always
changing workforce.
The rise of engagement in service-
based businesses: A shift from
Staff is your greatest capital
to Staff is your only capital
SAKS & GRUMAN
The results are in!
The creation of the three
psychological conditions
is the role of management.
In doing so, management
can effectively focus
on managing employee
engagement rather than
performance management.
These conditions are required
for employees to choose to
engage themselves in their
work and roles. The topic
of communication will then
naturally focus on what the
employee needs to experience
meaningfulness, feel safe,
and be available to engage
themselves in a self-in-role.
The communication of goals
and outcomes will still be
required, but no longer the
focus of performance. The
change in communication
may also result in improving
manager-employee
relationships, fostering a
risk free environment.
There are obstacles to
reorientation such as a high
level of job demand causing
burn-out. Managers would
need to lessen the demand
to ensure the longevity of
an efficient, effective, and
engaged employee. Role
conflict and role ambiguity
can cause disengagement
of an employee, resulting
in uncertainty, and perhaps
creating a high risk
environment. Managers would
be required to provide well
defined roles that stay within
the boundaries of specific
role performance. A lack of
job control, opportunities
for development, task
variety, feedback, and
social support can negate
all attempts at creating
the three psychological
conditions. Managers
should have resources
for employees that are
accessible and can facilitate
safety, meaningfulness,
and availability. To foster
improved performance
managers may have to shift
to a focus on engagement
management techniques
rather than the performance
management process. The
customary approach to
performance management
may be suitable for some
performance roles, that are
traditionally static. The
service industry and other
contemporary performance
roles that are not as procedural
and easily discernible, and are
more suited to engagement
management.
However, all jobs, should they
be static, stable, changing,
or complex will benefit
from employee engagement,
because engagement increases
effective performance.
Employee engagement
enhances performance,
therefore to fix
performance management
companies need to manage
employee engagement to
manage
performance.
Employees will choose to engage themselves when
the three psychologilcal conditions are in place.
This article is based on the following research paper:
Manage employee engagement to manage performance
Saks, A.M., & Gruman, J.A.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 2011.
Psychology of Engagement
Psychological safety is the perception the employee has of how safe it is to be
themselves while performing their job. To be professional in a workplace a clear perspective
of what is acceptable behavior is needed. Concise codes of conduct that clearly state
boundaries of acceptable behaviors enable a reliable, predictable social environment. In
turn, this environment promotes self-expression, while removing the risk of damage to
self-image, status, or career. Interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics,
management style, and norms all influence the perception of employee psychological safety.
Psychological meaningfulness is the belief of how significant it is to bring oneself to
a role performance. The level of significance can be related to the incentives an employee
receives to engage, and their perception that contributing a self-in-role brings a return
on investment. Task characteristics, role characteristics, and work interactions are all
factors that influence meaningfulness. Psychological meaningfulness should instill a
feeling that the employee is valued, worthwhile to the organization, and that they matter.
Psychological availability is the perception an employee has of how willing they are
to bring themselves into a role, or self-in-role. People have physical, psychological, and
emotional resources, and an employee can pull from these resources to bring them into their role
performance. Although an employee may be willing, the availability may not be present due to
lack of physical energy, insecurity, lack of emotional energy, or worry in their outside lives.
Written by Franky Fiordimondo & Stephanie Vorleitner
Graphic Design by Franky Fiordimondo