Managing for sustainable employee engagement

By Rachel Lewis and Emma Donaldson-Feilder

Employee engagement has long been believed to be, and is now widely
accepted as, a key factor in achieving performance in the workplace.
However, if managers focus purely on engagement, without considering
employee wellbeing, they risk any engagement created being
unsustainable. Our research aims to help managers understand how to
build sustainable employee engagement, by developing a framework of
manager behaviours required to both build engagement in employees
whilst also protecting their wellbeing.

What is employee engagement?

Although the term employee engagement is widely used in management practice
and literature, definitions vary widely between academia and practice.
Organisational definitions of engagement tend to refer to engagement with the
organisation and describe it in terms of employee outcome behaviours (such as
going the extra mile, demonstrating commitment to the organisational values
and objectives). Academic definitions in contrast tend to place more emphasis
on engagement with roles and tasks and define engagement as a cognitive state
(what engagement feels like rather than what it produces).

In our research we aimed to define employee engagement in a way that

encompasses the range of definitions across academic research and practice:

‘Being focused in what you do (thinking), feeling good about yourself in your role
and the organisation (feeling), and acting in a way that demonstrates
commitment to the organisational values and objectives (acting).’
(Lewis et al, 2011)

Why is employee engagement important?

Employee engagement is important for two reasons – firstly that it is

consistently believed across business to have powerful effects on productivity
(for instance 94% of the world’s most admired companies believe engaged
employees creates a competitive advantage – cited by Engage for Success,
2012) – and secondly, that it does have powerful effects on productivity. The
recent publication by the Engage for Success task force entitled ‘Nailing the
Evidence’ (Rayton, Dodge, D’Analeze, 2012) presents a detailed business case
for the evidence – showing positive impact of engagement at the organisational
level (on operating income, revenue growth, productivity, innovation,
profitability, retention, customer service, reduced absenteeism, safety), and at
the individual level (job satisfaction, mental and physical wellbeing).

The fragility of engagement in a changing world

Despite its importance, employee engagement may be becoming increasingly
fragile and difficult to sustain. Indeed, figures suggest that, in the UK,
engagement levels are worryingly low: that only one third of employees in the
UK are engaged (Wiley, 2009), that those strongly engaged may be less than
10% (CIPD, 2010) and that two thirds of employees are disengaged,
unsupported and detached (Towers Watson, 2012).

Organisational change is perhaps the only constant in today’s working life. In

the last decade, global competition, harsh economic conditions, continuous
innovation and new technology has resulted in organisational restructures,
downsizing and changes in the nature and structure of work. This has impacted
employees, with many having to cope with higher demands and fewer resources
than ever before. In addition, the boundaries between work and non-work life
are increasingly blurred, with internet and mobile technologies enabling
employees to work around the clock and from any location.

It is likely that both the financial and technological changes in the way we work
have meant that employees are enabled, and impelled, to work harder and
longer. Recent surveys (e.g. Towers Watson) show that employees are more
anxious, and more worried about their futures than in previous years. Employees
were found to be working longer hours, taking less time off to recover and
experiencing higher levels of stress. They may also be more likely to take
sickness absence and intend to leave their organisation.

It is possible that the way engagement tends to be defined within organisations

may actually be exacerbating its fragility and the potential negative impact on
psychological wellbeing. If engagement is perceived as and measured by
employees ‘demonstrating additional effort’, this could create an unsustainable
situation where engaged employees are expected to work ever longer and
harder to demonstrate their commitment. Over time, working in this way could
negatively impact on an individual’s wellbeing.

Of course, just working longer hours isn’t necessarily detrimental. Research

suggests that it is not the hours worked, but the underlying motivations behind
the hours that is key. Therefore, working longer hours isn’t a problem if that
individual is doing so for enjoyment and vitality – but it can lead to poor
psychological health if the individual is working longer for reasons such as they
feel they have to, or feel a compulsion to.

From this perspective, if engagement is measured in terms of working long and

hard, it may mean that employees who are seen as, or rewarded for being
‘engaged’ may not be feeling ‘engaged’. Research by CIPD and Kingston
Business School (Gourlay et al, 2012) reinforced this, exploring the motivations
behind employee engagement. Their work defined two types of engagement.
Both may involve similar behaviours from employees such as putting in
additional effort at work, but one, termed emotional engagement, was where
employees enjoyed work and identified with the work values; and the other,
termed transactional engagement, where employees were displaying engaged
behaviours because they were interested in reward or were in fear of losing their
job/reward if they didn’t. Emotional engagement was associated with positive
outcomes of increased wellbeing and decreased family conflict and burnout;
whereas transactional engagement was associated with increased family conflict
and burnout. Further, research suggested emotionally engaged employees could
become transactionally engaged if they were given increasingly high work
demands and pressures.

Therefore, measuring engagement by employee outcomes may be both clouding

the evidence, and potentially worsening the problem. Instead, employers need
to engage employees in a way in which is sustainable and healthy.

Wellbeing + Engagement = Sustainability

There is evidence to suggest that employee engagement and psychological
wellbeing work together in predicting outcomes (Fairhurst & O’Connor, 2010), in
that those employees who were highly engaged and had high levels of wellbeing
were the most productive and happy; and those disengaged with lower levels of
wellbeing were likely to contribute least to the organisation. The relationship can
be represented as follows:

High productivity Most productive

Engagement

but high burnout and happy

and more likely employees
to leave

Least contribution More likely to

from employees stay, less
committed to
organisational
goals

Wellbeing

Adapted from Lewis et al. (2012)

There is also preliminary evidence (Robertson & Birch, 2010) that employee
psychological wellbeing is important for sustaining employee engagement by
enhancing the relationship between employee engagement and productivity.
This suggests that if organisations only focus on initiatives that target
employees’ commitment and ‘going the extra mile’, without nurturing employee
psychological wellbeing, the impact will be limited and unsustainable.

How managers can sustain employee engagement

Various reports highlight line managers as one of the most important influences
on engagement (e.g. Alfes et al, 2012; McLeod & Clarke, 2008). It has also been
consistently shown that that managers are key to the health and wellbeing of
employees. For instance, Dame Carol Black’s review of the health of Britain’s
working age population (Black, 2008) stated that ‘good line management can
lead to good health, wellbeing and improved performance’ and a recent review
of evidence by Kelloway and Barling (2010) stated ‘sufficient data have now
accumulated to allow the unambiguous conclusion that organisational leadership
is related to, and predictive of, health and safety relevant outcomes in
employees’.

This suggests that one of the key ways to achieve sustainable engagement in
employees, will be to focus on improving line manager skills and relationships.

Management behaviour for sustainable employee engagement

Our recent research has brought together two frameworks from our previous
work: management behaviour for enhancing employee engagement on the one
hand; and management behaviour for preventing and reducing stress at work on
the other hand. The methodology taken is shown in the flowchart below. For full
methodology for development of the ‘Management behaviour for enhancing
employee engagement’ framework, see Lewis et al. (2011), for development of
the ‘Management behaviour for preventing and reducing stress framework, see
Donaldson-Feilder et al. (2009), and for the development of the management
behaviour for sustainable employee engagement framework, see Lewis et al.
(2012).

Phase 1: Eliciting behaviours. Interviews with 48 employees of a global services provider

Competency framework for managing engagement produced

Phase 2: Preparing Managing engagement QR. Behavioural statements extracted.

QR tested qualitatively (n=17) and quantitatively (n=127)
Reliability analysis resulted in 102 item QR

Phase 3: Validating ‘Managing Engagement’ Framework. 7 organisations, 506 DRs, 126 managers
responded to QR. Also asked on health, performance, engagement, job design.
Reliability and factor analysis resulted in 41 item ‘Managing Engagement’ QR.

Phase 4: Validating managing engagement QR and producing sustainable engagement QR. 3 months
later. 7 orgs, 378 DRs, 108 managers responded to QR on managing engagement and MCPARS.
All additional qs from Phase 3 also included. Reliability and factor analysis resulted in 54 item
‘Sustainable Engagement’ QR.
The results revealed a ‘Managing for sustainable employee engagement’
framework made up of five behavioural themes, or competencies, as follows:

‘Managing for sustainable employee engagement’ framework

Competency Brief Description

Open, fair and consistent Managing with integrity and

consistency, managing
 emotions/personal issues and taking
a positive approach in interpersonal
interactions
Handling conflict and problems Dealing with employee conflicts
(including bullying and abuse) and
using appropriate organisational
resources
Knowledge, clarity and guidance Clear communication, advice and
guidance, demonstrates
understanding of roles and
responsible decision making
Building and sustaining relationships Personal interaction with employees
involving empathy and consideration

Supporting development Supporting and arranging employee

career progression and development

Underlying these five behavioural themes are 54 behavioural indicators providing

details of what each behavioural theme/competency means. These also form a
54 item questionnaire that is a measure of whether a particular manager is
‘managing for sustainable employee engagement’.

‘Managing for sustainable employee engagement’ questionnaire /

behavioural indicators

Open, fair and consistent

1 Is overly critical of me and other team members
2 Blames me and other team members for decisions taken
3 Focuses on mistakes
4 Demonstrates a lack of faith in my capability
5 Tells me what to do rather than consulting me
6 Doesn't allow decisions to be challenged
7 Uses humour and sarcasm inappropriately
8 Shows favouritism
9 Talks about team members behind their backs
10 Criticises me and other team members in front of others
11 Treats me with respect
12 Is unpredictable in mood
13 Acts calmly in pressured situations
14 Passes on his/her stress to me
15 Is consistent in his/her approach to managing
16 Panics about deadlines
17 Seems to give more negative feedback than positive feedback
18 Imposes 'my way is the only way'
Handling conflict and problems
 19 Acts as a mediator in conflict situations
20 Deals with squabbles before they turn into arguments
21 Deals objectively with employee conflicts
22 Deals with employee conflicts head on
23 Uses HR as a resource to help deal with problems
24 Seeks help from occupational health when necessary
25 Follows up conflicts after resolution
26 Supports employees through incidents of abuse
27 Doesn't address bullying
28 Makes it clear he/she will take ultimate responsibility if things go wrong
Knowledge, clarity and guidance
29 Does not give advice when required
30 Deflects responsibility for problem solving to senior management
31 Gives vague rather than specific advice
32 Does not clarify role requirements and expectations
33 Is not clear of their own role requirements
34 Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the role I do
35 Does not communicate whether I am on track or not
36 Does not give adequate time for planning
37 Demonstrates a lack of understanding of processes and procedures
38 Does not follow up on action points
39 Is too busy to give me time
40 Is indecisive at decision making
Building and sustaining relationships
41 Shows interest in my personal life
42 Checks I am feeling okay
43 Shows understanding of the pressures I am under
44 Provides regular opportunities to speak one to one
45 Brings in treats
46 Socialises with the team
47 Is willing to have a laugh at work
48 Takes an interest in my life outside work
49 Regularly asks 'How are you?’
Supporting development
50 Takes time to discuss my career development
51 Actively supports my career development
52 Offers opportunities for career progression
53 Plans/arranges time off from day-to-day tasks for development opportunities
54 Arranges development activities

What can managers do?

The messages from evidence presented here are clear: a) employee
engagement is important for performance, but is likely to be unsustainable
unless it goes hand-in-hand with employee wellbeing; and b) manager behaviour
is pivotal to both engagement and wellbeing. The ‘managing for sustainable
employee engagement’ framework provides managers with specific indications of
what they can do in order to create sustainable employee engagement in their
team.

As a manager, you can use the framework to help you by:

 Identifying which behaviours you already use and which ones you could
change: When you look at the ‘managing for sustainable employee
engagement’ framework, you will probably find that some of the
behavioural indicators are things that you already do (or avoid doing in
the case of the negative behaviours) whereas others are not part of your
current approach. It might be helpful to get feedback on whether others,
particularly those who work directly for you, see you doing these things or
not. If your employer provides an opportunity for upward or 360 degree
feedback, this is in an ideal way to find out others’ views in a systematic
and confidential way.

 Changing behaviour where appropriate: Where there are elements of the

‘managing for sustainable employee engagement’ framework that are not
part of your current management repertoire, you can use the specific
behavioural indicators underlying the framework to help you make
changes to your behaviour. You might find coaching or other learning and
development activities helpful in making and sustaining these changes.

Managers also need to focus on ensuring they engender real engagement in

their employees: this means you need to beware of rewarding or encouraging a
‘façade’ of engagement in which individuals are acting engaged, perhaps by
working long and hard, but not really thinking or feeling engaged, in terms of
their underlying motivations. Individuals who are just working long and hard,
and are not emotionally engaged are likely to have poorer wellbeing and their
performance and engagement is unlikely to be sustained over time.

Conclusion
In the current economic and workplace context, employee engagement could
potentially help organisations survive by improving productivity and
performance. However, the same context that makes engagement desirable also
makes it potentially fragile. It is important that managers to behave in ways that
engender both engagement and wellbeing in their teams. The newly developed
‘managing for sustainable employee engagement’ behavioural framework offers
opportunities to support this.

Further details
This article is adapted from our research report Managing for sustainable
employee engagement: Developing a behavioural framework. For the full report,
including a reference list and more information on methodology, result and
implications, go to http://www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-
reports/engagement-behavioural-framework.aspx. And for a short guide based
on the research, go to http://www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-
reports/engagement-behavioural-framework-guidance.aspx.
References

Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C.,& Gatenby, M. (2010). Creating an
engaged workforce, CIPD, London.
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/_creating_engaged_workforc
e.htm

Black, C. (2008). Dame Carol Black’s Review of the health of Britain’s working
age population: Working for a healthier tomorrow. London, TSO.

CIPD (2010). Creating an engaged workforce. Available from:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/nr/rdonlyres/dd66e557-db90-4f07-8198-
87c3876f3371/0/creating_engaged_workforce.pdf

Donaldson-Feilder, Emma, Lewis, Rachel and Yarker, Joanna (2009) Preventing

stress: promoting positive manager behaviour. (Project Report) London, U.K.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Fairhurst, D., O’Conner, J., (2010). Employee Well-being: taking engagement

and performance to the next level. London, U.K.: Towers Watson. Available from
the Towers Watson website: www.towerswatson.com/research/1550.

Gourlay, S., Alfes, K., Bull, E., Baron, A., Petrov, G., Georgellis, Y., (2012)
Emotional or Transactional engagement – does it matter? Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development. (Research Insight)

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention

in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 24 (3), p 260-279.

Lewis, R., Donaldson-Feilder, E., & Tharani, T., (2011). Management

competencies for enhancing employee engagement. London, U.K.: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development. Available from the CIPD website:
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/research/management-competencies-for-
engagement.aspx

MacLeod, D. & Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for success: enhancing performance

through employee engagement. London: Office of Public Sector Information.
Retrieved 20th September 2010: www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf

Rayton, B., Dodge, T., & D’Analeze. (2012). Engage for Success -The Evidence.
Employee Engagement Task Force ‘Nailing the Evidence’ workgroup. Available
from the Engage for Success Website http://www.engageforsuccess.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/The-Evidence.pdf

Robertson, I., & Birch, A. J., (2010) The role of psychological well-being in
employee engagement, paper presented at British Psychological Society
Occupational Psychology conference, Brighton, January.
Towers Watson (2012). Global Workforce Study. Available from:
http://towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-
Study.pdf

Wiley, J. (2009). Driving Success Through Performance Excellence and Employee

Engagement. Kenexa Research Institute.