Facilitating Employee Engagement

Enhancing Employee Engagement 1

GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

Enhancing and Facilitating Employee Engagement through Appropriate Technology and

Strategic Human Resource Management

By Colin G. Gallagher, RPCV

EMPA 307 – Cohort No. 5

March 1, 2008

Instructor: Prof. Tim Loney


Abstract

This paper presents an argument that active employee engagement on the part of the employer is

vital to organizational success in difficult economic circumstances, and discusses how public

agencies can enhance the level of employee engagement in a public agency setting. Appropriate

technology relevant to employee engagement is described, and the strategic human resource

management model is linked to engagement through descriptions in the literature. Descriptions

of group techniques are provided to show how public agencies with large numbers of employees

can move efficiently and effectively through an enhanced engagement process while ensuring

alignment with the organizational goals and mission.

Introduction and Definition of Terminology

Many definitions of employee engagement have been developed and published. For the

purpose of this paper, employee engagement is defined as the process by which employees

“apply discretionary effort to help the business achieve its vision and objectives” (Abraham, et

al., 2007, p. 40) “in the form of extra time, brainpower, and energy” (Northeast Human

Resources Association (NEHRA), 2008, Definition of Employee Engagement).

The meaning of strategic human resource management is more straightforward: In this

management model, according to Ban (2005), “the role of the personnel office is to support the

strategic mission of the organization or agency as a whole. To meet that goal, human resource

(HR) leaders are urged to act as full members of the management team, linking personnel and

HR policy to agency mission, goals, and policy” (p. 19), and this involves “vertical alignment of

personnel policies and practices with an agency’s mission and strategic objectives and the

horizontal integration of personnel policies and practices with each other” (p. 26).


The concept of teams working using the increasingly available technology of the internet

has been explored by Gloor (2006), who has defined collaborative innovation networks (also

referred to as COINs) as groups of persons whose members “self-organize as cyberteams, teams

that connect people through the Internet – enabling them to work more easily by communicating

not through hierarchies, but directly with each other” (p. 11):

The individuals in COINs are highly motivated, working together toward a common goal

– not because of orders from their superiors (although they may be brought together in

that way), but because they share the same goal and are convinced of their common cause

(…) usually assembl(ing) around a new idea outside of organizational boundaries and

across conventional hierarchies. (Gloor, 2006, p. 11)

Argument for Active Employee Engagement

Many public agency employers utilize a generally passive form of employee engagement,

in which the line employees occasionally develop a concept, idea, or work to further the goals of

the organization through some special effort. When management solicits these efforts, this can

enhance the quality of the new ideas and efforts coming from employees, because a

communication has developed which helps employees across the organization realize that a

welcoming environment is being prepared for their ideas. Individual employees’ ideas are critical

to obtain, yet if employees are not provided with an avenue for ongoing group collaboration in

the work setting apart from regularly scheduled staff meetings, the practical effect of ideas

submitted through suggestion processes or programs will not generally produce the higher-

quality idea generation that can come from group collaboration. Public agency staff meetings in

many jurisdictions often have information sharing as their primary purpose, but are not often

structured with the intent to develop innovation and change. Collaborative innovation networks


(Gloor, 2006, p. 11) will enhance organizational capacity to generate valuable ideas. As

indicated by O’Connor Vos and Callahan (2007),

(s)ocial networks can (. . .) play an important role in identifying--and advancing--high-

potential employees by offering more frequent connection than, say, the monthly

meeting. The fact that online is always "on" allows for ongoing communication and more

diverse responses and reflections. Given time, participants who may not drive the agenda

at a formal meeting can share their particular expertise and keep a valuable idea moving

forward. (p. 140)

Another element of the problem of passive employee engagement processes is that in

difficult economic climates, the ideas that employees rally around and ultimately support, in

terms of meaningful savings concepts for the organization, may primarily come from the process

of collective bargaining. In times of consistently decreasing revenue, this process generally

serves to ratify, with minor modifications, savings and cost avoidance ideas which are not

options or innovations, but concepts for which adoption and approval is necessary to avoid job

losses.

It is therefore critical to take a more active approach to employee engagement by moving

beyond traditional hierarchies and reporting relationships which ordinarily govern the generation

and movement of new ideas in an organization. Organizations that have set goals for employee

engagement and retention should employ a strategic human resource management model and

develop an active employee engagement program. The active approach will require tapping into

informal networks and setting roles and positions at the door when collaborating in groups.

Cross, Borgatti, and Parker (2002) developed an understanding of the importance of this use of

informal networks, when they, along


with a consortium of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies (…) assessed

collaboration and work in over 40 informal networks from 23 different organizations. In

all cases, the networks (…) studied provided strategic and operational value to the

embedding organization by enabling employees to effectively collaborate and integrate

disparate expertise. (p. 2)

How can these informal networks result in an active employee engagement that is

productive to the organization – one where a public agency can ensure that the process does not

abandon alignment with the legislative body’s goals and objectives? The best way to focus the

deliberations of groups which for all intents and purposes are informal networks is to direct

employees to form and convene their own group by developing a project orientation for the

group. Managers and line employees alike should set aside their roles and allow their

organizational peers to be innovative – to define the projects which have the purpose of cost

savings or cost avoidance, without being directed or informed what those projects should be.

This process requires a temporary suspension of judgment regarding the ideas being generated,

as well as trust and a significant readiness on the part of the public agency officials and managers

to have confidence that employees will, outside of their ordinary role and reporting relationships,

be able to innovate and create strong, significant ideas without the need for confinement of the

creative process. Such an approach also requires an understanding that the group dialogue which

produces the ideas, while unpredictable, ultimately will result in refined and vetted

recommendations – not all of which will be able to be adopted by senior management, or by the

legislative body. Intranet and internet technology tools, which will be discussed later in this

paper, should be used to facilitate both signup and idea documentation processes for employees

who see an opportunity to join a group. This will facilitate an organizational strengthening


through the development of collaborative innovation networks (Gloor, 2006, p. 11). It is also

critical to ask the employees that when they are forming the groups, that they select specific

purposes for the groups in alignment with the legislative body’s goals. In this context, there is no

set starting point for when the groups will convene or when ideas will begin to flow – there

should, however, be opportunity for employees to engage with others in groups and convene to

discuss improvements at least once per year if not more frequently. Ideas which flow from these

groups would thus be designed to address effectiveness and efficiency of work processes

necessary to fulfill a particular goal or subset of objectives under the goal. According to

O’Connor Vos and Callahan (2007),

(s)ponsored social networks can improve employee engagement by creating a trusted

place for the staff to go to be heard--and where honest dialogue is part of the culture. In

contrast to traditional gripe sessions, where bad feelings seem to multiply, properly

planned and moderated employee social networks can serve as an early-warning system

for disruptive issues and a source of buy-in for corporate change. (O’Connor Vos &

Callahan, 2007, p. 140)

Limitations on group size and limits on the maximum time allowed for convening are

also suggested. At least one but no more than three hours per week should be utilized by each

group as it goes through collaborative idea generation, and dates should be developed that close

out groups which have formed and dissolve them after one to two months, depending on the

complexity of the issues that each group is trying to address.

The role of dialogue in enhancing employee engagement

Bhatnagar (2008) described the experience of Organization Sense and that company’s

dialogue technique involving the line employee and manager, which was designed to allow


employees to set “work targets that are aligned to the business strategies, develop their

competencies required for the current and future positions, (and) understand how they are being

assessed and rewarded for their career growth with the company” (p. 25). Indeed, carefully

structured dialogue, if included as part of routine organizational operation, is beneficial to the

organization not only because it enhances and encourages an open communication, but because it

requires that participants set their ordinary roles and aside and communicate as equals. This

enhances the quality of employee engagement. Martel (2003, pp. 30, 42) stated that “in order to

obtain high performance in postindustrial, intangible work that demands innovation, flexibility,

and speed, employers need to engage their employees [. . .] Engaging employees – especially by

giving them participation, freedom, and trust – is the most comprehensive response to the

ascendant postindustrial values of self-realization and self-actualization” (as cited in Bhatnagar,

2007, p. 645) Dialogue is now increasingly being utilized to formulate and foster conditions for

the development of high-performing organizations, and in fact procedures have been established

for its use in private and public sectors alike for this very purpose (Sustained Dialogue, 2009).

How is employee engagement successfully realized in the context of a group with a project

orientation, where managerial and line employees are leaving their roles at the door and

collaborating through dialogues? Per Borgatti et al. (2003), Cross, Parker, Prusak, and Borgatti

presented findings based on interviews with forty managers in which they asked the managers

“where they obtained information critical to (a) project’s success” (Borgatti, et al., 2003, p. 209).

These findings revealed

the importance of the person sought out for information being willing to cognitively

engage with the information seeker. People who were willing to engage in problem

solving helped seekers to create knowledge with sufficient understanding and clarity that


they could take action on it (…) these people taught rather than dumped information on

the seeker – a behavior that if developed among a network can improve the effectiveness

with which people learn from each other. (p. 223)

Developing a high-performing organization thus requires enhanced employee

engagement, and a willingness on the part of employees in the organization to engage in

collaborative problem solving. According to Wall et al. (1992), in such a process “we are moving

to a high-involvement HR model (. . .) in the workplace, which will not realise its potential

unless operating workers are more highly engaged in technical problem solving” (as cited in

Boxall & Macky, 2009, p. 5). Some employees may find themselves ready to conclude their

participation in the group effort sooner than others, or may be compelled by external reasons

(e.g. a public works employee who is called out to respond to flooding, or a police officer who is

called back to provide support to an evolving situation). In these cases, the intranet and internet

tool set becomes a particularly useful part of the process, because the employee may not be able

to participate in-person throughout the full scope of the dialogue, but may have contributions

which could be submitted through a computer at a time better suited to the employee’s needs

which would enable the larger group to view and understand all employees’ contributions, albeit

with some of the ideas being provided through asynchronous communication. The intranet and

internet, if properly utilized, provide tools that can enhance employee engagement through a

mode of communication which may be asynchronous due to individual considerations, but which

presents clear opportunities for a highly transparent collaboration.

Intranet and Internet Tools for Enhancing Employee Engagement

Resistance to technological innovation is being overcome as a younger generation of workers

with new skills and readiness for technological inclusion look toward internet-based technology


as a means of increasing efficiency and effectiveness of organizations. The increasing use of the

internet as a platform for new applications and services presents an opportunity to enhance

employee engagement and to realize collaborative innovation networks (Gloor, 2006, p. 11).

MixedInk (MixedInk, LLC, 2009), a free online tool, allows groups of individuals to write

collaboratively about an idea, draw from each other’s concepts, and rate the collaboratively

generated ideas in an asynchronous manner, online – enabling innovation to occur in an ongoing

way, with clear and measurable results. Google Docs (Google, 2009) allows users to selectively

share and co-author documents online, either in real time or asynchronously. Jute Networks (Jute

Networks, LLC, 2009), another free online tool which is in development, provides an online

environment where users create discussions around issues. The online framework is designed to

encourage an evolution of discussion and a transfer of information about events, and the

conversation can be changed from “discussion” to “project” status, clarifying the purpose of the

communication phases. SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey.com, 2009) is another free tool which

allows users to develop and customize online surveys with a rich variety of features.

SurveyMonkey has been used in the County of Monterey to facilitate employee surveys (T.

McCormick, personal communication, 2009). Keyhubs (Keyhubs, LLC, 2009) is a free online

tool which enhances the ability of individuals in a group with a well-established hierarchy of

reporting relationships to unveil the informal networks in small or large groups – particularly

useful for visualizing how members of an organization interact and exchange knowledge well

beyond the organizational chart. The intranet of the public agency should not be ignored, either,

as it can be used to inform employees across the whole agency of the results of the work of

groups or departments. Additionally, the intranet can be used to limit the advertisement of an


internet-based survey to the employees of the public agency, or for other group-specific

advertisement needs.

Tying it all together

This paper has thus far presented a brief overview of the argument for an active and enhanced

employee engagement program, the importance of dialogue in the employee engagement

process, and has presented some tools which could easily and without cost be put to use to

facilitate documentation and tracking of ongoing group communication. In order to properly

analyze and synthesize the ideas covered in this paper, it is important to observe what the

experiences of others have been who have already evaluated engagement processes. Francis and

D’Annunzio-Green (2005) found that increasing levels of engagement corresponded to higher

levels of performance in the organization (p. 79), but also found that there was a tension in the

organization in evaluating short-term results versus long-term benefits of organizational efforts.

Xarchos and Charland (2008), in their experience with Innovapost’s successful utilization of

Web 2.0 for employee engagement, found that there are “three key organizational attributes that

are important to ensure success” (p. 17):

1. Organizations need executives that allow experimentation. There must be a willingness

among top managers to allow their employees to experiment with new technologies and

business models. In turn, this experimentation can help uncover hidden talent within your

organization and present business opportunities you never knew existed.

2. Discipline around IT portfolio management and funding allocations. Because of the

pressure brought on by earnings targets, it is often difficult for management teams to

support initiatives that do not produce an immediate return on investment. Management

must look beyond their current needs to set aside part of their budget to fund strategic


investments and innovation that will support long-term growth.

3. Involve all your people. Our experience has shown that the more people that get

involved, the better it gets. Companies that make an effort to interact with their people

via Web 2.0 initiatives can gain an enhanced understanding of their employees’ wants,

needs, and concerns. This knowledge can lead to improved communications, HR program

development and employee engagement. (Xarchos & Charland, 2008, pp. 17-18)

Gagnon, Jansen, and Michael (2008) found that “the relationship between strategic

commitment and engagement in strategic supportive behavior was positive and significant” (p.

438). Agnvall (2007) provided examples of senior human resources professionals at Hendrick

Health System who developed an employee talent show as part of the process of developing

interest in a “web-based employee engagement survey” (p. 85), and of Driscoll’s employees

efforts -- although some employees had never used a computer, those employees also completed

a similar survey, and “the company had a 91 percent participation rate” (p. 88). However, all of

the effort will be for naught unless the organization “acts on results” (p. 89) of the surveys,

particularly if the surveys solicit employee suggestions on a given issue. As Osborne and Plastrik

(2000) have pointed out, “To be successful, an employee suggestion program must meet two

standards for credibility:

Employees must believe that managers really want suggestions.

Suggestions that are made must lead to change.” (Osborne & Plastrik, 2000, p. 487)

Personnel policies and procedures can help in setting the tone for enhanced employee

engagement. Some jurisdictions have already taken the initiative in developing procedures which

communicate to employees that ideas are welcomed. The City of Salinas Personnel Manual has a

section on employee suggestions, which reads in part:


(. . .) It is essential that supervisors protect the important investment the City has in its

employees. Therefore, a supervisor is responsible for providing employees under his or

her supervision with the following: (…) Encourage Suggestions. Be receptive to

employee suggestions by showing the employees that the department is interested in

them, thus bringing fresh ideas into the organization. (City of Salinas, 2007)

In order to facilitate idea generation, training in technological methods often will need to be

occur, and line employees who use technology in their daily lives should be encouraged to lead

trainings for other employees who want to enhance their familiarity with new technology.

According to Singer (2003), “(s)everal competencies identified through ICMA University's

Practices for Effective Local Government Management clearly apply to leadership and

management in a tech-enabled workplace” (p. 8), including “(t)echnological literacy, by which a

leader ensures appropriate technology uses that will improve service delivery, information

sharing, and citizen engagement” (p. 9).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Providing opportunities across an organization for groups whose work leads to the formation of

collaboration innovation networks, utilization of intra-organizational group dialogue, and

selective use of web-based technologies to facilitate both real-time and asynchronous

conversations as part of an active employee engagement program will enhance the ability of

modern public agencies to adapt to changing economic circumstances as well as increase

retention and the sense of empowerment throughout the organization.


References

Abraham, J., Gamzon, S., Katsoudas, A., Olsen, S., Weems, P., Gould, C., et al. (2007,

December). US human resource services: HR innovation. Retrieved January 10, 2009,

from PricewaterhouseCoopers:

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/B2C5F147958ED3E8852572380075C57E

Agnvall, E. (2007, October). Collecting Feedback. HR Magazine , 52 (10), pp. 85-89.

Ashley, D. (2005). Robust Technologies and Intuitive Interfaces Drive Employee Engagement.

Employee Benefit Plan Review, 59 (12), 18-21.

Axelrod, R. H., Axelrod, E. M., Beedon, J., & Jacobs, R. W. (2004). You don't have to do it

alone: how to involve others to get things done. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent Management Strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES

employees: key to retention. Employee Relations, 29 (6), 640-663.

Bhatnagar, J. (2008). Managing capabilities for talent engagement and pipeline development.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 40 (1), 19-28.

BlessingWhite Inc. (2008). 2008 Employee Engagement Report - what drives employee

motivation and retention. Retrieved January 25, 2009, from BlessingWhite: employee

engagement, leadership development and building high-performance :

http://www.blessingwhite.com/EEE__report.asp

Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D. J., Burt, R., Coleman, J. S., Cross, R., Gladwell, M., et al. (2003).

Networks in the knowledge economy. (R. Cross, A. Parker, & L. Sasson, Eds.) New York,

New York, United States of America: Oxford University Press, Inc.


Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems:

progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19 (1),

3-23.

Brizius, J. A., Christopher, G. C., Dyer, B. R., Foster, S. E., Miller, M. G., Popovich, M. G., et

al. (1998). Creating high-performance government organizations: a practical guide for

public managers (1st ed.). (M. G. Popovich, Ed.) San Francisco, CA, United States of

America: Jossey-Bass.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

City of Fort Wayne, Indiana. (2007). High Performance Government Home. Retrieved October

26, 2008, from City of Fort Wayne:

http://www.cityoffortwayne.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1012&Itemid=1154

City of Salinas. (2007, April 5). Human Resources Personnel Documents: Personnel Manual.

Retrieved October 26, 2008, from City of Salinas:

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/services/hr/pdf/Personnel_Manual.pdf

Corsello, J. (2006). Compensation as the Foundation to a Talent Management Strategy. Boston:

Yankee Group Research, Inc.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social

Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration. California Management Review,

44 (2), 25-46.

de Mello e Souza Wildermuth, C., & Pauken, P. D. (2008). A perfect match: decoding employee

engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 40 (3), 122-128.


Francis, H., & D'Annunzio-Green, N. (2005). HRM and the pursuit of a service culture:

managerial encounters with competing discourses. Employee Relations, 27 (1), 71-85.

Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J., & Michael, J. H. (2008). Employee Alignment with Strategic

Change: A Study of Strategy-supportive Behavior among Blue-Collar Employees.

Journal of Managerial Issues, XX (4), 425-443.

Gallagher, C. G. (2008, August 23). Network Organization Design: How Organizations with

Civic Engagement or Public Outreach Objectives can utilize Social Network Analysis

and Collaborative Networks to foster Dialogue and Economic Growth. Marina, CA,

93933.

Gallup, Inc. (2001, March 15). Feedback for Real. Retrieved January 25, 2009, from Gallup

Management Journal: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/811/Feedback-Real.aspx

Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative

Innovation Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google. (2009). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Welcome to Google Docs:

http://docs.google.com/

Hanifan, L. J. (1920). The Community Center. Boston: Silver, Burdett, & Company.

Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. E. (2006, October). Positive Social Interactions and the Human Body at

Work: Linking Organizations and Physiology. Ross School of Business Working Paper

Series, Working Paper No. 1056 . Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America: Ross

School of Business.

Jute Networks, LLC. (2009). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Jute NRM – know your network:

http://jutenetworks.com/


Keyhubs, LLC. (2009). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Keyhubs - A Simple, Online Tool for

Mapping Informal Networks: http://www.keyhubs.com

Konrad, A. M. (2006, March/April). Engaging employees through high-involvement work

practices. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1-6.

Kravchuck, R. S., & Schack, R. W. (1996). Designing Effective Performance Measurement

Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public

Administration Review, 56 (4), 348-358.

Martel, L. (2003), Finding and keeping high performers: best practices from 25 best companies.

Employee Relations Today, 30 (1), pp. 27-43.

Maxwell, G., & Farquharson, L. (2008). Senior managers' perceptions of the practice of human

resource management. Employee Relations, 30 (3), 304-322.

MixedInk, LLC. (2009). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from MixedInk - Free Collaborative Writing

Tool: http://www.mixedink.com/main.php

Northeast Human Resources Association (NEHRA). (2008, June 23). Creating a culture of

employee engagement. Retrieved January 25, 2009, from Boston.com:

http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/062308.shtml

O'Connor Vos, L., & Callahan, S. (2007). Direct-to-Consumer 2.0: Try It, You'll Like It.

Pharmaceutical Executive, 27 (5), 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140.

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital.

Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), 569-582.

Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventor's fieldbook: tools for transforming your

government (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA, United States of America: Jossey-Bass.


Singer, M. (2003). Tech Knowledge and Governance: How Can Managers Integrate Technology

Issues? Public Management, 85 (2), 6-11.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2009, February 2). SHRM Economic Stimulus Prize

Winners and Their Case Studies. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from SHRM Online - Society

for Human Resource Management:

http://www.shrm.org/about/awards/Pages/econstudies.aspx

Soltani, E. (2005). Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal.

International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22 (8), 796-818.

SurveyMonkey.com. (2009). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from SurveyMonkey.com - Powerful tool

for creating web surveys. Online survey software made easy!:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

Sustained Dialogue. (2009). Results-Oriented Dialogue for Corporations and Organizations.

Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Sustained Dialogue Home:

http://www.sustaineddialogue.org/programs/results-oriented_dialogue.htm

Wall, T., Jackson, P. and Davids, K. (1992). Operator work design and robotics system

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (3), 353–362.

Xarchos, C., & Charland, M. B. (2008). Innovapost uses Web 2.0 tools to engage its employees.

Strategic HR Review, 7 (3), 13-18.

Facilitating Employee Engagement

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Facilitating Employee Engagement

Similaire à Facilitating Employee Engagement (20)

Facilitating Employee Engagement