ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

25 Employee Engagement and EAPs Creating a Meaningful Workplace "Managers must be trained to alter their style from one centered on policing employees, to a more positive coaching approach." featurearticle What actually motivates an employee to operate at peak levels of performance? Traditionally, this question has focused on salary and benefits. However, an employee's intrinsic interest in one's work and the personal meaning that he or she derives from the job are also motivating factors that lead an individual to perform at a high level. Researchers call this enhanced motivation, "engagement." In other words, an employ--ee's personal experience of engagement is a work--related, positive state of mind that reflects his/her passion and commitment to the job. Engaged employees work proactively, they expand their thinking as the job requires, and they actively find ways to increase their skills. They perceive that their own self interest is aligned with organi--zational goals. Consequently, they demonstrate resilience, adapt well to change, and are less likely to leave the job than an unengaged employee. However, engaged employ--ees are not workaholics! They enjoy activities outside of their jobs, and unlike workaholics, they do not suffer from a compulsive attitude toward work. Instead, they find their tasks interesting and energizing. Moreover, levels of engagement exist not only within employees, but also across organizations. Put another way, engagement can be influenced both by characteristics of an individual employee and by conditions within the workplace. It is the behaviors of managers that best reveal these organizational influences. Engagement Research Research on engagement is a work-in-progress and not free of controversy. One of the fundamental debates surrounds the many technical definitions of engagement. Some emphasize the inner psychological state of the employee, while others focus on the workplace conditions believed to influence engagement. This controversy has led to a multitude of methods for measuring work performance, creating a lack of uniformity in
2 The magazine of the Employee Assistance
25
Employee Engagement and EAPs
Creating a Meaningful Workplace
“Managers must be trained to alter their style from one centered on policing employees,
to a more positive coaching approach.”
By Chester J. Taranowski, Ph.D., CEAP
featurearticle
What actually motivates an employee to operate at peak levels of performance?
Traditionally, this question has focused on salary and benefits. However, an employee’s
intrinsic interest in one’s work and the personal meaning that he or she derives from the
job are also motivating factors that lead an individual to perform at a high level.
Researchers call this enhanced motivation, “engagement.” In other words, an employ--
ee’s personal experience of engagement is a work--related, positive state of mind
that reflects his/her passion and commitment to the job. Engaged employees work
proactively, they expand their thinking as the job requires, and they actively find ways
to increase their skills. They perceive that their own self interest is aligned with organi--
zational goals. Consequently, they demonstrate resilience, adapt well to change, and are
less likely to leave the job than an unengaged employee. However, engaged employ--
ees are not workaholics! They enjoy activities outside of their jobs, and unlike
workaholics, they do not suffer from a compulsive attitude toward work. Instead, they
find their tasks interesting and energizing. Moreover, levels of engagement exist not only
within employees, but also across organizations. Put another way, engagement can be
influenced both by characteristics of an individual employee and by conditions within the
workplace. It is the behaviors of managers that best reveal these organizational
influences.
Engagement Research
Research on engagement is a work-in-progress and not free of controversy. One of the
fundamental debates surrounds the many technical definitions of engagement. Some
emphasize the inner psychological state of the employee, while others focus on the
workplace conditions believed to influence engagement. This controversy has led to a
multitude of methods for measuring work performance, creating a lack of uniformity in
research. Schaufeli and Baker (2010) suggest that engagement is characterized by
three internal psychological factors:
Vigor;
Dedication; and
Absorption.
Vigor is described as a high level of energy and mental resilience. Dedication refers to
a sense of meaning, inspiration, and positive challenge from one’s labor. With high
absorption, the employee becomes engrossed in their work to the degree that time
appears to pass very quickly. Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou, and Bakker
(2010), suggested that engagement lies at one end of a continuum of employee
motivation. Full engagement anchors the positive side of work related emotion, while
burnout describes negative engagement. Burnout is characterized by exhaustion,
cynicism, and a sense of inefficacy on the job (Maslach & Jackson, 1996). Still other
authors have suggested that burnout is an occupational hazard of a highly engaged
employee. Since they demonstrate great personal investment in their jobs – without
appropriate management support and ample resources to perform their tasks – the
engaged are likely to overextend to the point of exhaustion (e.g. Dewa, Thompson &
Jacobs, 2011).
Worldwide research has linked the level of worker engagement with company success.
Gallup (Wagner & Harter, 2006) found that companies with high engagement saw:
Reduced employee turnover;
Increased customer satisfaction;
Greater employee productivity; and
Enhanced company profits.
Pugh and Dietz (2008) suggest that companies with a better work environment,
including greater opportunities for career growth, and a culture of support and open--
ness, outperformed organizations that faired poorly in these areas. There are many
other studies linking engagement to productivity. The Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (UK) published a paper extolling the virtues of engagement. The
document includes a review of the linkage literature. (MacLeod & Clarke 2009). Attridge
(2009) also produced an excellent review with a focus on EAPs.
Variables that Facilitate Engagement
As mentioned earlier, certain personal characteristics identify individuals likely to demon-
strate a high level of engagement. Managers and executives, for instance, usually have
greater levels of engagement. Employees who are highly educated are also typically
more engaged, but they often show greater loyalty to their profession than to the
organization they work for. Generally speaking, engaged workers experience
better health, a higher state of well--being, and positive social relationships both within
and outside of work. Because these characteristics correlate with productivity, some
consultants advocate work--based programs to directly address subjective well--being
and other quality of life interventions, independent of direct association with the
workplace.
Organizational conditions that correlate with worker enthusiasm are termed, “drivers of
engagement.” Gallup conducted probably the most familiar research in this area.
The factors associated with engagement are reflected in an employee’s agreement with
statements similar to the following: “I am doing something I am good at;” “I have all the
things I need to do my job;” “I know exactly what I should be doing;” “Every week some-
one notices something positive about my work;” “People care about me at work;” “I have
a mentor at work;” “People listen to my opinions;” “I understand how my job is related to
the company’s goals;” “I receive respectful feedback at work;” and, “My job offers me
opportunities for advancement” (Wagner & Harter, 2006).
To facilitate engagement, more effort should be expended by organizations to create a
meaningful work experience. This includes redesigning jobs to reduce high strain (i.e.
demanding tasks with little discretion over how to perform them). This doesn’t suggest
that work should be any less challenging or that employees are not held accountable.
Rather, it means that jobs should have variety and permit a worker as much autonomy,
creativity, and discretion as possible. A sense of justice, fairness, and freedom from
harassment are other fundamental requirements of engagement. The presence of
maltreatment or workplace bullies significantly suppresses engagement. Trust,
fairness, and respect are not luxuries for companies, but are universal requirements for
peak performance.
In addition, the “people skills” of supervisors remain probably the single most important
influence on workplace engagement. Managers must be trained to alter their style
from one centered on policing employees, to a more positive coaching approach. While
these lofty recommendations for management skills and a positive organizational culture
are seldom met, research clearly demonstrates that workplaces that strive to attain these
goals are likely to be successful.
Measuring Engagement
Consulting aimed at improving engagement should often begin with an assessment of
an organization’s current working conditions. This is often accomplished through work--
place surveys designed to identify drivers of employee productivity and satisfaction.
Although engagement surveys evolved from employee satisfaction analysis, the two
assessments are not synonymous. Engagement surveys are intended both to identify
drivers that might be unique to a particular group and also to assess the presence – or
absence – of workplace conditions identified as applicable to any workplace.
Large consulting firms periodically announce estimates of engagement as indicators for
national and international levels of worker enthusiasm. Typical estimates reveal that only
1/4 to 1/3 of the workforce is highly engaged. Therefore, research suggests that the
potential resource of employee motivation and passion is largely wasted.
Several standardized measures of engagement have been developed. These
instruments can be used either to ascertain individual levels of engagement, or by
aggregating data, they may make estimates about engagement across an entire
organization:
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) includes
subscales for the assessment of vigor, absorption and dedication.
(www.beanmanaged.eu/pdf/articles/arnoldbakker/article_arnold_bakker_87.pdf)
The Shirom--Melamed Measure of Vigor within the Workplace is also available at
the following link: (http://www.tau.ac.il/~ashirom/research.htm).
The most wildly used measure for burnout is the Maslach Burnout Inventory, by
Maslach and Jackson (1996).
The Chestnut Outcome Suite is designed as a comprehensive measure of EAP
performance and contains a subscale on engagement (Lennoxa, Sharara, Schmitzb,
& Goehnerc, 2010) (www.chestnutglobalpartners.org/ResearchTools/Tools/
WorkplaceOutcomeSuite.aspx).
Management Training
Regardless of whether an organizational evaluation is conducted quantitatively or
qualitatively, consultants can provide programs to address obstacles to motivation.
These trainings usually begin with leadership. In most American organizations
supervisors have little formal training in managing people and no training in job design.
Administrators must first understand the basic components of an engaging workplace,
including helping workers build self efficacy and creating an environment of social
support.
“Transformational” management is an emphasis in today’s business classes. This
perspective underscores the importance of developing a supervisor’s leadership skill. In
other words, the most effective leaders motivate by offering both a challenging
workplace where employees are encouraged to grow their skills, and yet still
require worker accountability. To achieve these outcomes, transformational leaders must
model a positive vision for their group, demonstrate realistic optimism, and engage
in authentic communication. These changes require a significant shift from what has
been considered sufficient management skill. However, in most organizations, training
resources for this psychologically enlightened style of supervision are seldom available.
Interventions with Individuals
Two interventions have been demonstrated to improve the line--worker’s personal level
of engagement: the careful identification of employee strengths; and “job crafting.”
Assessing a worker’s talents, and then matching these skills to appropriate tasks
may enhance both employee productivity and well--being. Several psychometric
assess--
ments for the identification of strengths have been developed. The most famous is the
Strengths Finder (Buckingham & Clifton 2001), but other instruments are available
(The VIA at www.authentichappiness.com and Realise2, at www.cappeu.com).
Although testing may be used to identify skills, even simple conversations with
employees, examining work history or probing for job preferences may suffice.
Job crafting builds on strength identification (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008). Most
job descriptions present an array of assignments that may leave considerable latitude for
employees to select tasks or choose the methods that produce results. Once an
employee is able to identify his/her talents, job crafting allows them to emphasize
the activities in which they are most likely to be successful. Yet again, few workplace
resources are available to assist either managers or individual employees in creating
more meaningful work experiences, be it through strength identification, job crafting, or
any other process.
Engagement and EAPs
In today’s lean organizations, few opportunities exist for the training and management
support necessary to transform the workplace. Consequently, by either supporting
existing engagement initiatives or helping to begin initiatives such as the ones
described in this article, EAPs can position themselves at the center of efforts to
increase the quality of an employee’s work life. Particularly in smaller organizations,
EAPs may be the only resource for supervisor coaching. Unfortunately, EAP
management consultants are typically professionally trained therapists who may lack
business experience. For that reason, the engagement literature may help these
specialists understand the components of a productive and meaningful work experience
and also offer an overarching structure by which management interventions can be
recommended. Unique opportunities may also exist for EAPs to help individual workers
achieve a more meaningful occupational life. Today, few employees would feel safe
discussing disengagement with supervisors. However, through confidential individual
consultations designed to identify strengths and opportunities, EAPs can improve both
individual employee well--being and the engagement levels of an entire organization.
Chester J. Taranowski is the Employee Assistance Manager with Aon Corporation in Chicago, Illinois.
References
Attridge, M. 2009. Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research and Business
Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4): 383 – 398.
Berg, J. M. Dutton, J. E. & Wrzesniewski, A. 2008. What is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? Ann Arbor: The Center
for Positive Organizational Scholarship, University of Michigan, Ross School of Business.
Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. 2001.Now, Discover Your Strengths. New York: The Free Press.
Dewa, C.S. Thompson, A.H., & Jacobs, P. 2011. Relationships between Job Stress and Worker Perceived
Responsibilities and Job Characteristics. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 2(1): 37--46.
Lennoxa, R. Sharara, D. Schmitzb, E. & Goehnerc, D. 2010. Development and Validation of the Chestnut Global
Partners Workplace Outcome Suite. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. 25(2): 107 – 131.
MacLeod D. & Clarke N. 2009. Engaging for Success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement.
London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at www.bis.gov.uk.
Maslach, C. Jackson S., E., &. Leiter, M. P. 1996, Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd Edition, Menlo Park:
Mindgardens.
Pugh, S. D. & Dietz, J. 2008. Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, (1), 44--47.
Salanova, M. Schaufeli, W. Xanthopoulou, D. & Bakker, A. 2010. A Meta--analysis of Work Engagement: Relationships
with Burnout, Demands, Resources and Consequences. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and
Research. Eds. A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter. New York: Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W. Bakker, A.B. 2010. Defining and Measuring Work Engagement. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of
Essential Theory and Research. Eds. A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter. New York: Psychology Press.
Wagner, R. & Harter, J. K. 2006. “12: The Elements of Great Managing.” New York: Gallup Press.
| JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE | 2nd Quarter 2011 | WWW.EAPASSN.ORG |
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Job crafting captures the active changes employees make to their own job designs in ways that can bring about numerous positive outcomes, including engagement, job satisfaction, resilience, and thriving. This briefing introduces the core ideas of job crafting theory for management students by defining it, describing why it is important, summarizing key research findings, and exploring what it means for employees, managers, and organizations.
Article
Full-text available
Macey and Schneider (2008) frame the construct of employee engagement at the individual level of analysis, butmuch of the interest in the practitioner and consulting communities (e.g., Buchanan, 2004; Jamrog, 2004) and several influential academic studies in this domain (e.g., Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005) are framed and conducted at the organizational level. Macey and Schneider leave the level of analysis issue open but do suggest that adding additional levels of analysis to the research repertoire on employee engagement would be a fruitful direction for future research. Because research and practice are already moving in this direction (perhaps ahead of solid theory development), we provide belowa brief rationale for why it may be valuable to conceptualize engagement at the organizational level of analysis and offer a few suggestions for how researchers may want to proceed.
Article
Full-text available
High levels of work engagement are when employees are involved with, committed to, enthusiastic, and passionate about their work. This article provides a review of the literature on employee engagement, based on studies from academic and business sources. Areas of focus include defining the concept of employee work engagement, how it is measured, how often it occurs, the costs of disengagement, the business benefits linked to positive engagement, and how workplaces can be changed to encourage engagement. The findings indicate that work engagement can be improved through adopting certain workplace behavioral health practices that address supervisory communication, job design, resource support, working conditions, corporate culture, and leadership style. Also featured are several case studies from employers who measure and use employee engagement data to improve their work culture, retain employees, and increase business financial success. Implications for improving the service of employee assistance and behavioral health providers are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
This chapter presents an overview of the way engagement is conceptualized and measured, particularly in academia but also in business. Our purpose is not only to present a state-of-the art review of current scientific knowledge, but also to link this with notions of engagement that are being used in business contexts, particularly by leading international consultancy firms. In doing so, we focus on work engagement across all kinds of jobs and not on such specific types of engagement as school engagement, athlete engagement, soldier engagement or student engagement that have been described in the literature as well. The chapter sets out with an overview of various concepts of engagement, including a discussion of related concepts such as extra-role behavior, personal initiative, job involvement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, positive affectivity, flow, and workaholism. Next, various engagement questionnaires are presented and their psychometric quality is discussed in terms of reliability and validity. The closing section attempts to integrate the various conceptualizations of engagement into a more comprehensive model of employee motivation and engagement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Few studies have examined the relationship between perceived responsibilities by workers and job characteristics and experiences of stress. To examine the relationship between job stress and work responsibilities and job characteristics. We analyzed data from 2737 adults who were labor force participants in the province of Alberta, Canada. A logistic regression model was employed to examine factors associated with high job stress. About 18% of the studied workers considered their job as being "highly stressful." Workers who were male, did not consider their job a career or who were highly satisfied with their jobs were significantly less likely to identify their jobs as "highly stressful." The probability of describing a job as "highly stressful" significantly increased as workers perceived their actions have an affect on those around them or when their jobs required additional or variable hours. A number of factors are associated with experiencing high work stress including being more engaged with work. This is an important finding for employers, offering insight into where interventions may be targeted.
Article
This article describes the development and validation of a five-item scale Workplace Outcome Suite designed as an open access instrument aimed at facilitating empirical research on Employee Assistance Program (EAP) interventions. The suite contains five-item measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, work engagement, life satisfaction, and workplace distress. All but the absenteeism measures are effect-indicator structures derived from classical psychometric theory. The absenteeism measure used a formative model that captures the individual components of being away from the job site because of personal problems. These components are not thought to be internally consistent with one another but rather represent distinct manners that force time off. Two separate validation studies of the suite, one with a paper-and-pencil modality (N = 220) and another with a telephone interview modality (N = 228) tested the reliability of the scales, the structural validity of the items, and the construct validity of the unit-weighted scale scores. The effect-indicator scales were found to have moderate (in the range of .75) to excellent levels (in the range of .90) of internal consistency. Only two items in the Work Engagement scale produced low factor loading for the telephone interview study, but the low loading did not replicate in the paper-and-pencil study and thus was considered spuriously low for the time being. None of the items produced factor loading below .30 in the paper-and-pencil study. Correlations of the scale scores with self-reported measures of relevant behavior and emotions provided limited evidence of construct validity for all five scales. The results suggest support for the use of the Workplace Outcome Suite to evaluate EAP services and interventions.
A Meta--analysis of Work Engagement: Relationships with Burnout, Demands, Resources and Consequences. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research
  • M Salanova
  • W Schaufeli
  • D Xanthopoulou
  • A Bakker
Salanova, M. Schaufeli, W. Xanthopoulou, D. & Bakker, A. 2010. A Meta--analysis of Work Engagement: Relationships with Burnout, Demands, Resources and Consequences. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Eds. A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter. New York: Psychology Press.
Defining and Measuring Work Engagement In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research
  • W Schaufeli
  • A B Bakker
Schaufeli, W. Bakker, A.B. 2010. Defining and Measuring Work Engagement. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Eds. A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter. New York: Psychology Press.
12: The Elements of Great Managing
  • R Wagner
  • J K Harter
Wagner, R. & Harter, J. K. 2006. "12: The Elements of Great Managing." New York: Gallup Press.