Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 22
Chapter 22
2.1 Introduction
In This chapter the necessary theoretical framework for developing proper
perspectives of the subject has been provided. The covered areas are the evaluation and
the concept of quality of work life(QWL), QWL's dimensions and principles, how to
measure QWL , The benefits of QWL for organizations and individuals, , practices,
tools and techniques, and performance of quality, As well as benefits and challenges of
adopting lean supply chain management. At the end of this chapter is illustrated the
Quality of Work Life (QWL) is a relatively new concept which is defined as the overall
of the broad concept of quality of life, which refers to the overall quality of an
individual’s life. Quality of life includes factors such as income, health, social
relationships, and other factors such as happiness and fulfillment. QWL being the main
subject of the present study meaning, definition, scope of the QWL, and QWL in the
Indian context, etc., have been discussed in this chapter. Quality of work life parameters
which are adopted by the researcher has been discussed at the end of the chapter
In this chapter explains some concepts that are relevant to the thesis. The
covered areas are supply chain concept, supply chain management, lean concept,
lean supply chain management concept, lean principles, practices, tools and
adopting lean supply chain management. At the end of this chapter is illustrated
1
The Quality of Work Life refers to all the organizational inputs that aim at the
attributed the evolution of Quality of Work Life to various phases in history. Legislation
enacted in early 20th century to protect employees from risks inherent in job and to
1930s and 1940s were the initial steps. Emphasis was on ‘job security, due process at
the work place and economic gains for the worker’. The 1950s and the 1960s saw the
between morale and productivity, and the possibility that improved human relations that
employment opportunity and job enrichment schemes also were introduced. During
1970’s, the idea of QWL was evolved, according to Walton, as a broader concept than
the earlier developments, and something that includes the values, human needs and
aspirations.
An international conference was held at Arden House, New York in 1972. It dealt in
detail with the practice and theory of democratization of work place. In this conference
the term “Quality of Working Life’ was introduced, and the International Council for
Quality of Working Life (ICQWL) was formed to facilitate research on and action for
Quality of Working Life. During 1972 to 1980 the concern for QWL gained
ICQWL wanted to hold another International Conference, during the 1980s. In Canada,
QWL researches were gaining attention; and a weekend meeting was organized in
Toronto in 1980 to discuss ICQWL’s proposal. The first open International Conference
was organized in Toronto in August 1981 on Quality of Work Life. A large number of
2
(1981) observed that the Toronto conference demonstrated that the Quality of Working
Life is becoming an important issue of the ongoing organizational reality to enhance the
al., 1984; Mirvis and Lawler, 1984; Taylor, 1978; Walton, 1975). Some studies
associate the concept of QWL with employee’s well-being (Lawler, 1982), conditions
of work life (Elizur and Shye, 1990), income sufficiency, profit sharing, employee
advancement and work relations (Mohan and Kanta, 2013). Walton (1975) highlighted
eight dimensions of QWL, (1) Adequate and fair compensation, (2) Safe and healthy
working conditions, (3) Immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities, (4)
Opportunity for continued growth and security, (5) Social integration in the work
organization (6) Constitutionalism in the work organization (7) Work and total life
3
Exploring the underlying structure of QWL, Taylor (1978) proposed additional
items to integrate what society and employer think significant concerning QWL. As
well by means of a step by step method, Levine et al. (1984) suggested seven important
drivers for QWL, (1) The degree to which superiors treat employees with respect and
have self-reliance in their talents, (2) Diversity in daily work schedule, (3) Challenge of
work, (4) Present work leads to future work opportunities, (5) Self-esteem, (6) Extent to
which life outside of work influences life at work and (7) The extent to which work
Martel and Dupuis (2006) argued that a model of QWL consists of a complex set o f
needs. Also, Newstrom and Davis (1986) pointed out to QWL as the degree to which
employees can meet and satisfy their essential personal needs through work. Davis
(1983) defined the QWL as the quality of interactions between employees, work
Similarly, Hian and Einstein (1990) argued that QWL includes such factors as
QWL as reward and compensation systems; benefit sharing, employees’ growth, work
relations and opportunity for better participations (Robbins, 1989; Havlovic, 1991; Wan
and Chan, 2013). Sasser (1997) measured the QWL by examining the feelings of
4
employees towards work environment including job satisfaction and interpersonal
interactions.
Islam and Siengthai (2009) defined QWL as the favorable condition and
this sense, QWL includes components related to health and wellbeing, job security, job
satisfaction, competence development and the balance between work and non-work life
(Rethinam and Ismail, 2007). Danna and Griffin (1999) suggested that the dimensions
of QWL should be beyond intrinsic factors of pay and reward to include dimensions
related organizational and human dimensions (Rethinam and Ismail, 2007). Despite this
complexity it can be inferred that the concept of QWL revolves around the wellbeing of
employees and that its dimensions in general, include employee’s satisfaction with
physical and psychological factors related to work and daily life. The QWL in this sense
reflects the interaction between employees and work environment. The perception of
5
2.4.1 Adequate and Fair Compensation
The compensation for work is always a fundamental driving force behind work so as to
earn a living for one self and family (Walton, 1973; Nirenberg, 1993). Stein (1983)
its categorical classification is somewhat different to Walton and Orpen. Similarly, Reid
compensation plays a critical role in determining the quality of work life (QWL).
quality of work life (QWL) of employees (Walton 1973, Rousseau 1978, Nirenberg
1993). The employees should not be exposed to such working conditions that can
adversely affect their physical and mental health resulting into a low level of quality of
explains the necessity of jobs to contain variety as a component of quality of work life
(QWL). It is stated that employees’ perception of the quality of work life (QWL)
depends upon the extent to which jobs allow them not only to use but also to develop
of employees working at any position or in any sector. This also relates to the idea of
6
professional learning as a means for career development or succession possibilities for
In work life literature the concept of work life is often coupled with the word balance,
employees should be able to experience work and personal lives in an integrated form
(Williams, 2000, Rapport et al., 2002). Kotze (2005) asserts that work family balance
characterize any organization, Walton (1973) and Orpen (1981) have identified five
essential for these interactions to have beneficial outcomes for employees. The
play a crucial role in QWL of any employee (Sharma, 1989; Srivastava, 1996).
level of stress leads to employee burnout which results into absenteeism and employee
turnover. The incidence of high stress level and employee burnout reflects in a low
should enjoy, whether they exercise them or not, whether the organization has set
7
formal procedures to protects the individual worker from arbitrary and capricious
Many organizations tend to employ workers on the basis of short or fixed term
contracts rather than long term contracts to minimize employee costs, the uncertainty
regarding task performance leading to a lower quality of work life (Sverke, et al., 2006).
work, and work overload factors are associated with psychological ill health. On the
other hand, a good supervisor can also help one to use one’s resources better and
manage one’s workload (Hawkins and Shohet, 2000). Social support colleagues refer to
instrumental and emotional support provided by colleagues (Van Der Doef and Maes,
1999).
manner, in terms of its products and services, will tend to value their work and careers
more highly, which in turn is likely to enhance the self esteem and well being leading to
employee turnover.
8
2.4.13 Autonomy
The job should be designed in such a manner that it affords the employee a degree of
independence and discretion (Orpen, 1981). Similarly, Newell (2002) opined that QWL
empirical results and theories about occupational stress have regarded job autonomy to
develops which results into low quality of work life (QWL) of concerned employees
(Pollard, 2001). Tubre and Collins (2000) observed that the clarity with which
term survival (Oldham, 2002; Shalley et. al., 2004). The creativity and innovation at
work is crucial for genuine psychological growth of the employees which can be
achieved through new or novel exposure to the employees (Orpen, 1981, Warr, 1994).
them towards their objectives to be achieved in a given time period as deadlines and
2004). The activities and tasks are given a certain time frame as absence of time
pressure can lead to indifference towards completion of given task (Gevers, Van Eerde
9
2.4.17 Meaningfulness and significance of work
Thomas (2000) identified the four critical intrinsic reward motivators in a job, namely,
sense of meaning and purpose, sense of choice, sense of competence and sense of
progress. Chalofsky (2003) believed that quality of work life (QWL) is higher in
workers having duties and tasks that are meaningful to him and to others in the
organization.
which invariably leads to better quality of work life (QWL) of employees. The work
becomes meaningful for employees primarily by skill variety, task identity and task
principle of Security
that work should be free from anxiety, fear, and the loss of future employment. Such
safe and secured working conditions help to foster skills, ideas and confidence of
employees.
2.5.2 The Principle of Equity: This implies fair reward for effort made by the working
people. Profit sharing between the owner and workers and equity among workers are
10
the examples of following the principle of equity. This also reflects humanization of
work.
Such a process generates the ownership feeling among workers towards their jobs.
personal privacy, freedom of speech, and equitable treatment. Besides these, ongoing
democracy.
All these above principles help humanization of work that leads towards developing
sense of belonging, commitment and engagement for the job and organization through
better QWL.
disagreement about its measurement and interpretation. The point of view from which
the construct is defined will determine which determinants/ dimensions are relevant in
its evaluation. This will then also have an effect on the way in which research on QWL
While working with their own definitions of QWL, researchers have decided on who
instruments and tools have been developed. Ellis (2002) (Kotze, 2005) is of the opinion
that the approach taken to QWL measurement varies along a continuum from
between.
11
Since a dominant theme of much of QWL research is the assumption that
life (Wilcock & Wright, 1991) (Kotze, 2005), many QWL surveys typically measure the
satisfaction is studied most often (Kerce & Booth-Kewley, 1993) (Kotze, 2005). This
facets of job satisfaction such as pay, benefits, working conditions, changes for
Gattinker and Howg (1990), Looij and Benders (1995) and Abo-Znadh (1999)
(Kotze, 2005) is of the opinion that those who approach QWL from a socio technical
systems theory (STS) perspective usually reduce the measurement of QWL to work
content and job characteristics and the consequences that these have on internal labour
relations. Characteristics such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy,
speed of working and feedback are evaluated. Job characteristics measures differ from
job satisfaction measures in that the former scales are primarily descriptive rather than
assess the extent to which various characteristics are descriptive of their jobs.
job satisfaction, job characteristics and job involvement. It might also include a
12
considered as a moderating variable (Coetzee, 2004; Cloete & Stuart, 2004; Annandale,
Pienaar & Scholtz, 2004) (in Kotze, 2005). According to Looij and Benders (1995)
may play an important role in his/ her decision to enter, stay with or even leave an
organization. It seems as if a long -standing debate has been centered on this question of
whether personal factors or structural factors (job characteristics) are the principal
The basic assumption of the dispositional approach is that personal attributes such as
dispositional tendencies, are the primary influence on QWL, while the structural
approach assumes that situational variables, such as characteristics of the job, have the
greatest effect on QWL (Kerce & Booth-Kewley, 1993) (Kotze, 2005). Advocates of
the dispositional position argue that individuals tend to be consistent in their job
attitudes over time and that enduring dispositional attributes exert as strong an influence
therefore suggested that dispositional variables probably have a greater impact and are
more relevant for managers seeking to improve the QWL of their workers.
In the structural approach, high QWL is defined by the existence of a certain set of
organizational conditions and practices. High QWL is assumed to occur when jobs are
enriched, supervision is democratic, employees are involved in their jobs and the work
third approach, based on expectancy theories, suggests the possibility that individuals
come to the work place with different goals and needs that they seek to fulfill through
13
Although individuals’ particular needs, values and dispositions shape their work
attitudes, this approach recognize that a single, pervasive need structure cannot be
assumed. Differences in needs are therefore assumed to account for variation in work
and personal influences, with QWL determined by the degree to which the full range of
human needs are met (Kotze, 2005). This approach acknowledges aspects such as
everyone. Individuals bring different needs to the workplace and are likely to
experience the extent that these needs are satisfied (Kerce & Booth-Kewley, 1993)
(Kotze, 2005). Therefore some researchers make use of the discrepancy theory of
satisfaction to explain their results (Wilcock & Wright, 1991; Rice, Pierce, Moyer &
Brooks and Gawel (2001) (Kotze, 2005) see the goals of QWL surveys as the study
of workplace experiences, the work itself, and the world of work, in order to suggest
aspects of the workplace or work that could be modified so that the employees and the
organization reach their goals simultaneously. Lewis, Brazil, Krueger, Lohfeld and
Tjam (2001) (Kotze, 2005) measure QWL in terms of extrinsic, intrinsic or prior traits.
Extrinsic traits are salaries and other tangible benefits. Intrinsic traits include skill
levels, authority and challenge, while prior traits are those of the individuals involved,
researchers base their development of their QWL survey instruments on general topic
areas of QWL, as identified through a literature review, for example, co-worker and
14
supervisor support, team work and communications, staff training and development and
compensation and benefits (Lewis et al. 2001; Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary &
such as occupational stress models or need satisfaction and spillover theories (Brooks &
Gawel, 2001; Van der Doef & Maes, 1999; Sirgy et al., 2001) (Kotze, 2005). Often
work stress, wellness at work and other questionnaires (Cohen, Chang, Ledford (Jr)
1997; Peletier, Coutu & Lamonde, 1995; Carayon, Hoonakker, Marchand & Schwarz,
2003) (Kotze, 2005). Many other measures are being used to determine QWL, including
the Michigan Quality of Work Program which measures various work related concerns
(Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis & Cammann, 1983) (Kotze, 2005) and the Michigan
2005).
According to Carayon (1997) (Kotze, 2005), diary studies can be powerful in the
studies ask people to keep track of work-related events on a frequent basis. The
frequency of measurement varies from hourly to daily to weekly, and can be used to
Based on two leading models in occupational stress research, the Job Demand
15
The factor structure of this questionnaire was assessed and cross-validated in two sub
samples of 2000 men and women from a large sample of the Dutch working population.
influential occupational stress models, the Job Demand Control Support model (Johnson
& Hall, 1988; Johnson, 1989; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the Michigan model
Support model, namely, psychological demands, skill discretion, decision authority and
social support from supervisor and coworkers. Furthermore, this questionnaire measures
physical exertion, hazardous conditions and toxic exposure, job insecurity and the
(Bergers, Marcelissen & de Wolff, 1986), which assess the key concepts of the
Michigan model, were included in the item pool. This questionnaire includes items on
role, restrict place, lack of decision authority and lack of meaningfulness of the
insecurity.
Besides items on these work stressors, items on the moderators, support from
supervisor and support from co workers and the outcome variable, lack of job
satisfaction, were included. Items were derived from the Wellness at Work-interview
content and organization of work (Maes, Kittel, Scholten & Verhoeven, 1989), a
From the above-mentioned, it is evident that many attempts have been made to
measure QWL. Definitions of what criteria are relevant differ from the point of view of
16
individuals, organizations, or society at large. Needless to say, the measures to be
included in a QWL index are not without controversy. In addition, there remain
operationalize the indicators effectively (Consodine & Callus, 2002) (Kotze, 2005).
Quality of work life program when adopted and executed effectively will result in
following benefits
Productivity and performance: Quality of work life program like flex work
schedules, alternative work schedule part time appointments, compressed work week
etc. reduces labor turnover and work place tardiness. Quality of work life program also
goals as their personal work priorities are supported by the management, thus QWL
programs ensure that the employees are more committed towards their job and perform
Absenteeism and turnover: People who are highly involved in their jobs are less likely
to quit their jobs or be absent (Kerce & Booth-Kewley, 1993). Motivation and
(Kerce & Booth-Kewley, 1993). Attendance has also been found to be related to the
degree of congruence between workers‟ needs and the characteristics of the jobs
(Furnham, 1991). QWL programs improve the physical and psychological health of the
Stress and its impact on QWL: Instability of employment, rapid change of demands
adversely affect physical and mental health. So measures of QWL to help the
employees relieve from the stress and enhances the employee satisfaction. Employees
can balance their work life and personal life better this results in stress reduction.
Work climate: QWL implies that the work conditions are favorable and that
management caters for all the needs of the people. The workplace can also provide
conditions and relationships that increase wellbeing and mental health, through greater
autonomy on the job, social support from colleagues and greater income (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006).
Positive attitudes: Employees who enjoy their work and feel happy make a very
positive judgment about their quality of work life. This enjoyment and or happiness, is
the outcome of cognitive and affective evaluations of the flow experience (Diener,
interested in the work they are involved in, therefore being fascinated by the tasks they
perform.
18
Self-actualization: According to Maslow (1954), is the desire to become more and
more from what one is to anything that one is capable of becoming, thus QWL
programs ensures the opportunity for the employees to develop by providing career
development skills, promotion and career progress which intern contribute significantly
to subjective well-being.
practitioners and business firm, but in academic community the concept was rarely
discussed. Kahn (1990) was the first academic researcher to define the concept of
of commitment and involvement of the employees towards their organization and its
values; While Perrin (2003) defined engagement “as willingness or enthusiasm that the
employee holds to spend optional effort towards the job.” In a study about antecedent
performance of his/her roles. It is the positive feeling that employees have towards
their jobs and also the motivation and effort they put into it.
Bakkar and Scheufeli, (2008) have defined the term employee engagement that “it is
success and perform to a high standard that may exceed the stated requirements of the
job.” An engaged employee is aware of business context and works with colleagues to
improve performance within the job for the benefits of the organization (Sharma &
organization and its values. The organization must work to develop and nurture
19
engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee
Apart from this, Baig (2010) argued that employee engagement is concerned with
and the employee and between the employees themselves. According to Mortimer (as
organization, its values and a willingness to help their colleagues. Zinger (2010) defines
that “employee engagement is the art and science of engaging people in authentic and
relationship, customers, development, energy and transform the work connections into
final results.” Rashid, Asad, and Ashraf (2011) have highlighted that engagement is
the capacity of the employees to work honestly, obligation and aspiration enduring in a
business. While Wilson (2009) elucidates that an engaged employee is that who is fully
energetic, emotionally connected with the organization in achieving the goals. Thus
Bhatla (2011) has explained that the engagement is all about having a psychological
commitment toward the assigned task, which is clearly reflected in his/her dedication
towards the work. Mani (2011) has noted that an engaged employee is fully aware with
the business environment and works with the help of other employees to improve the
performance within the job for the benefits of the organization. Engaged employees put
their all efforts and enthusiasm towards their work and also care about the future of the
organization’s business, the HR manager will have to motivate them to contribute in the
20
business and productivity success and at the same time, it increases their sense of well-
being (Swarnalatha & Sureshkrishna, 2013). Employee engagement and job satisfaction
play an important role in increasing the morale of the employees. The managers have to
play active role in building satisfaction among the employees and make them engaged
in their work. While Cattermole and Johnson, (2014) opine that employee engagement
of the willingness to devote oneself and expand one’s discretionary effort to contribute
towards achieving the goals and objectives of the organization as a whole. Thus
employee engagement is the extent to which employees think, feel and act in ways that
Kahn (1990) says that in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively and emotionally during their role performances. The ideas of
each and every employee differs from each other and every employee should be given
freedom to express their views and thought. This kind of activity increases the morale of
the employees, hence the employees are motivated and engaged towards their work and
connection with the organization, emotional absence, passive and incomplete role
causes disengagement among the workers. In the views of Robinson, Perryman, and
Hayday (2004) employee engagement is closely related with feeling and perception of
the employees and the key driver of the employee engagement are effective leadership
by the top management, two way communications among the workers of the
employees.
21
Anand (2011) opines that employee engagement plays a crucial role in the hotel
because it affects everything from retention and productivity to profitability and safety.
profitability. Kahn (1992) has highlighted that fully engaged employee's lead to the
success of the organization. There are many dimensions which makes the employees
engaged towards their job. These are continuity in the organization, connected with
other staff members, integrated and focused in their job. Saradha and Patrick, (2011)
have discussed that employee engagement activities significantly improve the overall
consultancies and academics. One thing is certain: the concept of employee engagement
is ambiguous and still lacks a universally accepted definition; however, Kahn’s (1990)
Robinson et al. (2004) established substantial differences in the views of authors and
actual descriptions of engagement and what drives engagement. They argued, “There is
engagement and its drivers may possibly differ in every organization, and job itself”
drivers (CIPD, 2007). Ketter (2008), adding to the debate, suggesting that, due to
numerous studies that have been carried out on employee engagement, there are over 26
different drivers of engagement. O’Neal and Gebauer (2006) suggested that employee
22
engagement drivers or definitions vary globally, depending on the country, culture and
factors. However, several studies have been carried out, with each itemizing different
most of the engagement drivers identified across different studies, to give more in-depth
Most notable amongst the studies is the Gallup Q12 questionnaire of engagement.
Gallup, potentially the most prominent firm associated with employee engagement,
characterized engaged employees as “those who work with enthusiasm and feel a
philosophical connection to their organization and job, along with innovative mind-set
to move the organization forward” (Gallup, 2006). This definition views engagement as
employees being passionate about their organization and having a strong bond with the
organization, not because of the monetary value attached, but for the sole purpose of
achieving organizational goals. Gallup developed the Gallup Q12 instrument, known as
expectations to which, they argued, form the foundation of strong feelings of employee
engagement. These sets of questions, according to Gallup, are basic questions that every
engaged employee should be able to answer yes to. So far, 1.5 million employees have
participated in the Q12 instrument (Robinson et al., 2004). The questions are
summarized below.
3. At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?
23
4. In the last seven days, have you received recognition or praise for doing good
work?
5. Does your supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about you as a person?
7. Does the mission/purpose of your company make you feel your job is
important?
10. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to you about your progress?
11. In the last year, have you had opportunities to learn and grow?
Another set of engagement drivers was developed by Siddhanta and Roy (2011).
The drivers developed in their study were on the basis of 12 major studies conducted by
research firms, such as Gallup, Towers Perrin, Blessing White, The Corporate
Trust and integrity: According to Siddhanta and Roy (2011), employees tend to
communicate better with managers and organisations that are honest, trustworthy and
go by their word. Such managers make employees more engaged in their jobs. This idea
is also supported by Cleland et al. (2008), who indicate that employees trust managers
individuals, encourage employees and are just and fair in providing feedback for their
24
employees. This view can be argued to be similar to one of Sak’s (2006) engagement
models (perceived organizational and supervisor support). Sak argued that organizations
and supervisors that encourage and support their employees are likely to have a more
engaged workforce.
Nature of the job: Siddhanta and Roy (2011) highlighted ‘nature of the job’ as one of
the drivers of engagement. They claimed that for employees to be fully engaged, the job
engaged, the job should be challenging, have clear goals and accountability; there
should be freedom to act, purpose and meaning, important work and resources
Career growth opportunities: : Siddhanta and Roy (2011) study suggested that
organizations that lay more emphasis on employees’ development and career path are
Pride: The study also found that an establishment with a good reputation instills
organization.
Co-workers: The survey also found that good working relationships between employees
and co-workers are important if employees are to be engaged (Cleland et al., 1999)
Another study was carried out by Towers Watson in May 2012. Towers Watson is a
growing business. Hence, a capable and motivated leader will not only drive the
business forward, but also find suitable ways of making employees work beyond their
required role. Morgan (2004) supported the argument by suggesting that certain
(2008) stated that “bad leadership and management policies can have a negative impact
on engagement behaviors'”.
Stress, balance and workload: Engaged employees know how to manage stress and have
a flexible work arrangement, i.e. a healthy balance between work and personal life.
They also believed that for employees to be engaged in their jobs, the organization must
make sure the employees understand the organizational business goals, steps they need
to take to achieve those goals and how their jobs contribute to achieving those goals.
Supervisors: Additionally, they argued that organizations must employ the supervisor’s
knowledge on how to manage employees, how to assign tasks suited for all employees’
skills, and employ supervisors that will act in a dependable manner, be consistent with
Organization's image: Besides the above mentioned drivers, the organizational image
was also argued to boost engagement. Further review suggests that organizations must
strive to build a brand name that is highly regarded by the general public, and display
honesty and integrity when dealing with employees and business activities with the
general public. This act can, to a large extent, propel the employees to be engaged.
26
In agreement with most of the already mentioned drivers, the Institute of
Employment Studies in a survey carried out with the NHS, identified more drivers they
believe propel an employee to be fully engaged. Their findings suggest that the
extent to which employees are able to voice their ideas, views and values, and have
managers listen to such contribution, is a strong way for employees to be more engaged
The opportunity for development in their jobs also increases the employee
organizations are concerned for their employees’ wellbeing. They also pointed out that,
for engagement to be achieved, the managers will have to play an important role in
The study also found that other drivers of engagement are attached to the sense of
feeling valued. However, it is also important to note that some of the drivers identified
in their studies have been recognized to boost other concepts, like motivation.
consulting and talent management. The firm carried out a survey on engagement and its
drivers and came up with factors they attribute to boosting engagement in employees.
Aon Hewitt’s global engagement research was carried out between 2008 and 2011. It
included 6.7 million employees and represents more than 2,900 organizations. The
Quality of life: Quality of life is a factor that makes the employees feel relaxed. For
27
Company practices that drive engagement according to Aon survey include policy and
diversity,
This analysis describes the employment understanding of what has changed, and
what engages the current workforce. By identifying these drivers, employers can be
aware of how to meet the needs of their employees and it highlights the specific areas of
enhancement that have a major impact on engagement and production results (Aon
Hewitt, 2012). The drivers highlighted in the Aon Hewitt survey differ from the IES
(2003) survey, although both studies recognized reward as a source of engagement. This
28
This diagram represents what drives employees to be engaged at work (Aon Hewitt, 2012)
The Wyatt Watson survey, carried out in 2008, revealed a few engagement drivers
institute dialogues among senior management and all employees, and act on employee
Compensation and benefits: Their study symbolizes a strong driver of engagement. This
dimension encompasses far more than just pay levels. The Wyatt Watson studies
indicate how linking pay to performance, maintaining peer pay equity, communicating
the value of total compensation and ensuring satisfaction with benefits all drive
engagement .
Strategic direction and leadership: Strategic direction and leadership are key drivers of
engagement. Employees need to have confidence in the future and to understand and
They also indicated that organizations with strong customer focus make customer
satisfaction a top priority, base decisions on what is best for customers and hold
29
In a different study, MacLeod and Clarke, (2009) wrote a report for Chartered
culture that gives employees a line of sight between their profession and the image and
aims of the organization”. Such leaders are tactical, anticipatory, proactive and
organization is going and why, in a way that gives workers information and an in-depth
They are critical and offer transparency about what is required from employees and
plays an important part in giving appreciation, feedback, coaching and training. They
also indulge in treating people as individuals, with justice, equality and respect, and
with a concern for employee well-being. They also make certain that work is planned
resourcefully and effectively. In companies that do this well, managers treat people as
individuals. Standard Chartered Retail Bank is a good example of the tasks managers
engage in. The manager’s duty is summarized as “Know me, focus me, and value me”
(MacLeod & Clarke, 2009, p. 75). Finally, the CIPD (2007) also added that managers
who are fair and visibly committed to the organization tend to increase engagement in
Employee voice: Another factor identified by McLeod and Clark is employees feeling
confident to air their views and be listened to, both in relation to how to do their work
30
that practice the above policy, there is a stable, liberated flow of information and ideas
with transparency across the organization. This entails having an administrator who is
willing to pay attention to employees, who is not fearful of the division of labor
Organizational lives the values: “A conviction amongst employees that the business
functions with the right ideals, and that good behavioral norms are adhered to, which
leads to trust and a sense of integrity”. For organizations that practice this, ideals and
behaviors are united, providing honesty, reliability and confidence in employees. Any
problem between these creates mistrust and cynicism (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009)
Organizational purpose: Organizational aims and goals are a very important area in
Springett (2004) on how employees experience a sense of meaning at work, found that
engage staff than those focused on shareholders, profits, or a mix of stakeholder needs;
people’s day jobs if the motivational effect is to be achieved (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009)
Engagement and engagement drivers have been mostly studied by organizations and
consulting firms, creating a hole in the academic analysis of the concept; however, from
the engagement drivers above, one can notice that the construct engagement is very
broad and can have many drivers. Adding voice to the argument was Shaw (2005) who
pointed out that “it’s arguably unfeasible to justly measure in a survey all the actions
behind engagement”, due to the fact that, “there are potentially thousands of different
individual actions, attitudes, and processes that might affect engagement” (Dicke, et al
31
identified by these studies have been also associated with other constructs; for example
customer focus, strategic leadership, opportunities, trust and integrity, making the
construct more of a three-way construct, i.e. between the organization, the employees
Saks (2006) is one of the few academics to study employee engagement. His
research on engagement itemized five factors as the basis for employee engagement.
These are:
Excluding procedural and distributive justice, other elements have also been
Another survey was carried out by Mollnaro and David (2005) of The Banff Centre;
32
Successful organization: Every employee wants to be associated with success and,
vision, core purpose and has a well-planned business stratagem in place (Mollnaro &
David, 2005) .
Working for admired leaders: “Accepted leaders” is one of the most significant
Organizations that have a strong network of admired leaders create the conditions for
highly talented and proficient colleagues. As a result, organizations that can provide
engagement and it has also been identified as a driver of job satisfaction (Herberg,
1959). Recognition could be “monetary rewards and compensation, but it also can refer
to the appreciation and direct feedback that employees receive from managers”
(Mollnaro & David, 2005). This recognition and appreciation demonstrates that
employees are valued and respected and that their contributions are acknowledged by
the organization. Robinson et al. (2013) demonstrated that ‘feeling valued and involved
is one of the major employee engagement drivers’. Recognition also means that leaders
notice the often unnoticed things that employees do to make their organizations
Living a balanced life: According to Mollnaro and David (2005), organizations with
cultures that value work-life balance and aid workers to achieve it, will be rewarded
33
with extremely engaged employees. Work-life balance does not mean that employees
are not loyal or committed to their organizations; it means that employees want to lead
whole lives, not lives solely centered on work (Mollnaro & David, 2005) .
Doing meaningful work: Like Kahn (1990) and other related employee engagement
studies, Mallnaro and David also identified meaningful work in their studies as one of
the tools that drives engagement. Meaningful work “is often work that makes a
Employees often desire to see how their work affects the organization's vision and
strategy. They also want to know that the organization's customers are ‘touched’ by
their work (Mollnaro & David, 2005). Similarly, in the only study to empirically test
Kahn’s (1990) model, May et al. (2004) found that meaningfulness, safety and
cited in Truss et al. 2008, p. 5) argued “people’s perceptions of ‘meaning’ with regard
to the workplace are clearly simultaneous to their levels of engagement and, ultimately,
their performance”. They argue that employees actively seek meaning through their
work and, unless organizations try to provide a sense of meaning, employees are likely
to quit.
Researchers have observed that there are certain barriers which inhibit employee
engagement. Hauck (2011) reported that improper performance appraisal and lack of
skills in the managers are barriers of employee engagement. Sales Benchmark Index
(2014) has candidly discussed that income inequality; job insecurity and work life
imbalance are major barriers of employee engagement. The typical pay for performance
policy is also a barrier of employee engagement (Hauck, 2011). Other key barriers of
34
• Poor leadership and ineffective management of manpower in the organization
reported that employees do not leave organization they leave their managers.
Engagement looks at how much people want to exert extra effort and will engage in
the discretionary behaviors that contribute to business success. Although data is still
gathered on processes and practices, the focus is on the difference these practices make
usable information to inform change. Because the surveys help identify the practices
that drive engagement, they help link activities and output. The following section
The employer must listen to his employees and remember that this is a continuous
process. The information employee’s supply will provide direction. This is the only way
to identify their specific concerns. When leaders listen, employees respond by becoming
more engaged. This results in increased productivity and employee retention. Engaged
employees are much more likely to be satisfied in their positions, remain with the
(feedback through surveys) without planning how to handle the result can lead
35
employees to disengage. It is therefore not enough to feel the pulse; the action plan is
just as essential.
starting point towards the efforts to optimize employee engagement. The key to
successful employee satisfaction surveys is to pay close attention to the feedback from
the staff. It is important that employee engagement is not viewed as a onetime action.
2.11.1 Job Satisfaction: According to Wang (as cited in Davis, 1981) job satisfaction is
organization. According to Clifford (as cited in Wright & Davis, 2003) job satisfaction
they expect to receive versus what actually employees received.” Employee engagement
is directly related with the job satisfaction. If an employee is engaged towards the work,
definitely he/she will be fully satisfied with the job. Basbous (2011) said an engaged
make their employees engaged by providing various financial and non financial
incentives and assign the task according to their area of interest. This will make the
employee more appreciative of his job and satisfied with his career.
36
2.11.2 Organizational Commitment
(Saks, 2006). An engaged employee is fully committed towards the job as well as
organizational goals and objectives and gives complete loyalty to the organization
the degree to which employees are considering leaving the organization. Intention to
quit includes basically the reasons why employees are going to quit the job and what
factors made the employee leave the organization. The engaged employees do not
frequently quit the job, but stay in the organization for longer period of time (Swetha &
Kumar, 2011).
voluntary and informal behaviors that can help co-workers and the organization.
Clifford (as cited in Organ, 1988) defined organizational citizenship behavior “an
individual behavior that is voluntary and not tied directly to any reward or recognition
performs the work politely and helps in making effective and sound working
a Competitive business.33 In the U.S., 17% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is
37
spent on health care.34 seniors spend up to 40% of their income directly on their
health35 Competition means that today's hospitals must focus on being the provider of
One way to provide superior services is to ensure that employees are treated as
partners in the health care delivery process. Historically, health care administrators have
not always considered employee satisfaction when it has assessed the organization's
competitive edge. Only since 2008 have health care administrators worried about how
satisfaction.
Another competition issue that hospitals face is being able to recruit top talent for
meeting the demand for quality patient care.37 There are an insufficient number of new
health care graduates entering the medical workforce to meet the demands for hospitals.
Not only do hospitals need to recruit this talent, but they need to retain these individuals
In addition to the inadequate supply, health administrators also need to worry about
employee retention or turnover. Personnel costs are a major expense in any hospital
budget, with nurses as the largest percent of employees. The nursing turnover rate is
21.3% ,with even higher rates in the critical care areas. Although the nursing shortage
has slowed over the past few years related to the recent recession, it is anticipated that
showed that between 3.4% and 5.6% of a hospital's operating budget can be spent on
38
employee turnover. When hospital employees leave an institution, 21% of the turnover
costs are related to separation expenses, temporary replacement costs, and expenses
related to recruiting, hiring and employee orientation. The remaining 79% of the cost
related to turnover is due to loss in productivity.23 In 2010 it was reported that the
national operating margin was 5.5% and in Michigan the average is 2.8%. Employee
2000, the Center of Health Design implemented the Pebble Project. Using an evidenced
based design this project helped hospitals address turnover, improve quality and
promote patient safety. They studied the clinical and financial advantages of designing a
Hospital and Karmanos Cancer Institute had design features and policies that improved
patient satisfaction, decreased turnover, reduced medical errors and decreased costs.29
Some hospitals are looking to improve their financial outcome by not only improving
the patient and staff environment, but also by looking at alternative ways to deliver
Forum for People Performance states, "While some improvements in care quality can be
improvements are achieved through people (2)."24 Hospitals have also found that
employee engagement and satisfaction does relate to patient satisfaction. Health care
employees that are not satisfied in the workplace can negatively impact the quality of
39
care and adversely affect patient satisfaction.23 Engaged hospital employees create a
positive patient experience and disengaged hospital employees tend to create a negative
patient experience.25 A dissatisfied patient talks to more friends and family about the
40