Assessing the efficacy of Learning and Organization Development

Assessing the efficacy of Learning and Organization
Development Interventions: A Constructive Approach
(Part 2)
By: Dr. Daniel K. Saint, Dr. Sunil Maheshwari and Dilbag Singh
Prelude
This is Part – 2 of a four-part Research Study on assessing the efficacy of Learning and Organization
Development interventions. In Part – 1, we presented a review of the existing literature in the area of
evaluation of learning and development interventions. In the current section, we introduce the
contemporary concept of employee engagement as a very significant intermediate output of Learning
interventions. Further, this section examines the linkage between learning and organizational
development and its impact on employee engagement as well as performance and positive business
outcomes.
2.0 Introduction
Employee engagement has emerged as one of the most popular terms, not only in the HR community, but
also among other senior executives and board members. CEOs and CFOs are embracing evidence-based
analysis showing how people-based strategies that improve employee engagement clearly impact bottomline results (Boudreau & Jesuthasan, 2011) (Gruman & Saks, 2010) (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) (Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Emerging research is indicating that people truly are an organization’s most
valuable asset with engagement as the key lever to maximizing shareholder value.
Despite its popularity, however, there remains a dearth of peer reviewed academic literature on the
subject. The literature also does not provide a clear definition of employee (Shuck & Wollard, 2010)
(Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Nevertheless, various case studies and results from the practitioner world and
research organizations have established that there is a strong linkage between employee engagement,
performance and business impact. The present study explains the concept of employee engagement and
its importance for today’s business organizations in order to achieve sustainable business performance.
The study also explores the role of Human Resource Development interventions in enhancing the levels
of employee engagement in contemporary organizations.
2.1 Employee Engagement
The term employee engagement first appeared in an Academy of Management Journal article,
“Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work” (Kahn, 1990). Kahn
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
defined personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred
self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active full
role performances” (p. 700). According to Kahn the domains of meaningfulness, safety, and availability
were important to understand the phenomenon of engaged at work. Meaningfulness was defined as the
positive “sense of return on investments of self in role performance” (p. 705). Safety was defined as the
ability to show one’s self “with- out fear or negative consequences to self image, status, or career” (p.
705). Availability was defined as the “sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological
resources necessary” (p. 705) for the completion of work.
According to the earliest practitioner’s reference, employee engagement was defined as an “individual’s
involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002).
Kahn’s conceptualization of personal engagement was one of the early literatures on engagement till
Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) pointed that employee engagement was the positive antithesis to
burnout and defined employee engagement as “a persistent positive affective state characterized by high
levels of activation and pleasure” (p. 417). Together, Kahn (1990) and Maslach et al. (2001) provided the
two earliest theoretical frameworks for understanding employee engagement (Saks, 2006).
2.2 Significance of Employee Engagement
Research indicates that Employee Engagement is the key to organization's success and competitiveness.
Many scholars have claimed that engagement is pivotal for contemporary organizations given the kind of
challenges they face (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007) and they argue that organizations can gain a
competitive advantage through employee engagement (Macey et al., 2009). Macey et al. (2009)
researched a sample of 65 firms in different industries and found that the organizations scoring within the
top 25% on an engagement index had a greater return on assets (ROA), profitability, and more than
double the shareholder value compared to the bottom 25%. Employee engagement has also seen as a key
driver of individual attitudes, behavior, and performance as well as organizational performance,
productivity, retention, financial performance, and even shareholder return (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004;
Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Richman, 2006). High levels of employee engagement lead to
employees who are more productive, profitable, safer, healthier, less likely to turnover, less likely to be
absent, and more willing to engage in discretionary efforts (Buchanan, 2004; Fleming & Asplund, 2007;
The Gallup Organization, 2001; Wagner & Harter, 2006).
Employee engagement is the result of a unique bond that produces remarkable financial results for
companies. According to Gallup research, the business units in the top quartile of engagement have 12%
higher customer advocacy, 18% higher productivity, and 12% higher profitability than bottom-quartile
business units (Robison, 2009). On the one hand, if the increased employee engagement results in higher
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
return the decline in engagement leads to significant loss of productivity. The bottom quartile of business
units have 51% more inventory shrinkage, 31% to 51% more employee turnover, and 62% more
accidents than business units in the top quartile (Robison, 2009).
There have been multiple case studies that show a strong relationship between employee engagement and
various performance outcomes. Three of these case studies are presented below:
Case 1: Engagement Drives Revenue at New Century Mortgage (Tritch, 2003)
New Century Financial Corporation is one of the United State’s leading specialty mortgage lenders. In
October 2001, New Century engaged Gallup to measure employee engagement and, more importantly, to
generate results-oriented dialogue between employees and managers about specific areas of high and low
engagement. Q12, so named because the process starts with a 12-question survey by Gallup, was
launched when New Century had 1,394 employees; 86% of the workforce voluntarily completed the Q12
questionnaire.
New Century’s second Q12 administration occurred in May 2002, with 78% of its 1,766 employees
participating, and a third administration took place in April 2003, involving 89% of its 2,476 employees.
Each time, after the Q12 results were in, managers and employees met to review the findings and come
01!&-2)%&!"*("!)%$(#+%3!"*%!&($%!2)!3%-4#+%3!
up with new strategies "#$%&!'(&"%)!"*(+!("!,)(+-*%&!.#"*!/
to improve engagement. After the
each administration of Q12, managers and
".#-%!#+!(!)2.5!6%7()34%&&!2'!*2.!%+7(7%3!2)!3#&%+7(7%3!"*%!.2)8%)&!*(3!,%%+!("!
employees devised and "*%!29"&%":!"*%!'(-"2)!"*("!*%4;%3!,22&"!)%<%+9%!7)2."*!.(&!"*%!#$;)2<%$%+"!#+!
executed plans to improve engagement while the company tracked the revenue
%$;42=%%!%+7(7%$%+"5!
!
generated by account executives
and loan officers
01
>/ !*(&!,%%+!2'!%+2)$29&!
across various divisions.2)7(+#?("#2+(4!,%+%'#"!"2!9&:>!
Over the course of three
&(=&!@)(3!A2))#-%:!B%.!
C%+"9)=!A2)"7(7%D&!-*#%'!
Q12 administrations, New
Century and Gallup
%E%-9"#<%!2''#-%)5!
>F+7(7%$%+"!#&!+2.!;()"!2'!
amassed enough data to29)!-94"9)%G!#"D&!*2.!.%!"(48!
show that engagement
"2!2+%!(+2"*%)!(+3!&2$%"*#+7!
29)!+%.!;%2;4%!()%!,)297*"!
doesn’t merely correlate
to better bottom-line
#+"2!)#7*"!(.(=5>!
results - it actually drives them.
C4%()4=:!A2))#-%!#&!'2-9&%3!
2+!"*%!9+#H9%!%+<#)2+$%+"!("!
When New Century’s B%.!C%+"9)=5!@9"!
first Q12 results were
%+7(7%$%+"!4#%&!("!"*%!*%()"!
2'!"*("!%+<#)2+$%+":!(+3!
tallied, 35% of employees
indicated they were
%+7(7%$%+"!#&!+2"!3%;%+3%+"!
2+!(+=!&;%-#'#-!-2$;(+=!2)!
engaged. By the third Q12
administration in April
#+39&")=5!6("*%):!(&!B%.!
2003, the percentage ofC%+"9)=!(+3!2"*%)!-2$;(+#%&!
engaged employees had
8+2.:!%+7(7%$%+"!&;)#+7&!
!
')2$!"*%!'94'#44$%+"!2'!
risen to 46% of the workforce.
By the third Q12
9+#<%)&(4!*9$(+!+%%3&!II!
&9;;2)":!)%-27+#"#2+:!
administration, 31% more
of New Century
,%42+7#+7:!(+3!7)2."*5!
!
employees were engaged!"#$%&'(#)*+,$-+..('+$/%$-(#('+-+#/!!
than had been just 18 months earlier. The rise in the engagement was followed
with the rise in revenue, J<%)!"*%!-29)&%!2'!#"&!,)#%'!&%<%+I=%()!%E#&"%+-%:!B%.!C%+"9)=!*(&!.%("*%)%3!"*%!
analysis showed that the branches where engagement increased consistently over
&"2)$&!2'!(!4#'%"#$%5!K+!0LLM:!29"&#3%!%<%+"&:!#+-493#+7!"*%!69&&#(+!,2+3!3%'(94"!(+3!
"*%!$%4"32.+!2'!*%37%!'9+3!N2+7!O%)$!C(;#"(4!A(+(7%$%+":!;)2$;"%3!(!4#H9#3#"=!
the period of three administrations
performed markedly better than the branches where scores declined.
-)#&#&!"*("!3)2<%!$(+=!2'!B%.!C%+"9)=D&!-2$;%"#"2)&!29"!2'!,9&#+%&&5!O*%+:!"*%!
Per person revenue grew$()8%"!+#-*%!#+!.*#-*!B%.!C%+"9)=!2;%)("%&!II!&%-9)#+7!42(+&!'2)!4%&&I"*(+I
more than six times faster.
-)%3#".2)"*=!,2))2.%)&!II!.(&!)2-8%3!.#"*!&-(+3(4&!(,29"!;)%3("2)=!4%+3#+75!P+3:!
(4(&:!"*%!&"2-8!$()8%"!"(+8%35!@9"!B%.!C%+"9)=!&%-9)%3!,(+8!'#+(+-#+7!"*("!(442.%3!
#"!"2!&9)<#<%!"*%!4#H9#3#"=!-)9+-*:!%+39)%3!"*%!#+39&")=!&-(+3(4&!.#"*!#"&!#+"%7)#"=!
Samatvam 9+H9%&"#2+%3:!(+3!#+-)%(&%3!#"&!&"2-8!;)#-%!II!')2$!(!'#<%I=%()!42.!2'!Q15RS!;%)!&*()%!
Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
#+!J-"2,%)!0LLM!"2!Q1S!)%-%+"4=5!
T2!.*=!*(&!B%.!C%+"9)=!-(44%3!#+!"*%!$(+(7%$%+"!-2+&94"(+"&U!>V*%+!=29D)%!
Case 2: Employee Engagement results in Increased Revenue and Profits at a Caterpillar Dealer
(Robison, 2006)
Founded by John Fabick in 1917, Fabick CAT now had more than 600 employees in 12 locations - each
considered a company in its own right - with headquarters in Fenton, Missouri. Fabick CAT sold, rented,
blame them for thinking that," says Fabick. But the disappointing results of the second
n galvanized a few of Fabick's managers, notably Don Mercille.
and repaired Caterpillar construction equipment.
epartment was and is Fabick CAT's most engaged workgroup, and Mercille believes
engagement program will work if it's merely an annual survey. "I wanted to show that
In 2002,
Gallup"and
was
hiredgoing
to administer
its 12-item
local program,"
says Mercille,
it wasn't
away. We wanted
employee employee
e a culture and way of life at Fabick CAT, not just a program. It's very much part of our
engagement survey, the Q12, at Fabick
CAT and to train the managers to facilitate engagement. The results were not good, only 16% of Fabick
wave's results were disseminated, change started to seem less optional. Every
CAT's employees were engaged, or fully committed to their work. Business leaders understand
ed impact plans based on their engagement results -- they decided where the problem
to fix them, who would lead the charge, and how they would evaluate their efforts. (See
engagement
a Feedback.
baseline Now
measurement
h Employeefirst
Survey
Results" and assessment
"You've Gottenreflects
Employee
What?" in and that subsequent administrations
ea on this page.)
indicate
change. Unfortunately, Fabick CAT's results weren't any better the second time -- the percentage of
rtment, Mercille made himself a fixture at impact planning sessions. Then, as the
d becoming more involved in the process, Mercille stepped back and let them take
engaged
in 2003
was still
stuck at
Fabick
loyees' outlook
started employees
to change, moving
from outright
skepticism
to 16%.
anticipation
of
This time, having worked harder, they had reason to expect better.
s together
that the
paid a lot of attention to what highly effective
managers were doing and realized that their success boiled down to communication. "Communication is
key -- one workgroup at a time, one location at a time," says Fabick. By the third Q12 administration, the
of attention to what Mercille and his other highly effective managers were doing and
r success boiled down to communication. "Communication is key -- one workgroup at a
percentage of engaged employees had increased to 33% -- a significant change. After third administration
n at a time," says Fabick. By the third Q12 administration, the percentage of engaged
ncreased to 33% -- a significant change. (See graphic "Boosting Employee Engagement
Fabick realized that to continue the positive enhancement of employee engagement at Fabick CAT, they
)
still had more to do. It was time to start
ck realized
he culture
k CAT, he
do. It was
ng "the right
ht jobs," then
mize their
ugh
development.
putting "the right people in the right jobs,"
then help them maximize their performance
through strengths-based development. In
2004, Fabick started a systematic investment
cientist stuff;
nnecting
e right way,"
o in 2004, to
ee
ick CAT
cally
loping the
gths of its
es, and
gers. The
ed managers
ining on how
rease
it began
veloped
ect new
gers who
nts to
oles. Fabick
to develop the talents and strengths of its
parts,
service,
sales,
and
operations
managers. The managers were provided
with comprehensive training on how to
manage
to
Organization
increase
started
engagement.
using
Gallup-
developed interviews to select new people
and managers who had the right talents to
succeed in their roles. Over the course of 5 years, Fabick administered Q12, 5 times and the employee
engagement scores went up from 16% to 45%.
Fabick CAT invested about $500,000 in Gallup programs. During this time, Fabick CAT's profit
increased by 100%, while revenues only increased by 15%. However, according to Fabick the profit and
revenue increases showed that the return on investment on from their engagement initiatives was 600%.
Fabick CAT invested $500,000 on its people. And people are how Fabick CAT made $3 million back.
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
the Firewall
As mostfinancialand operational data is too
sensitive to take off site, the modeling itself
took place within company firewalls with a
rwo-part consultant analysis team consisting
of a statistician and a strategist. The combination of these two minds ensured that
relationships tested in the model reflect both
statistical accuracy and the reality of business.
act within that structure to maximize
business results. Decisions are made within
organizations with express purposes. Deductive models allow organizations to test how
well their structure and processes are working. While the PVL process is rigorous, it is
also adaptive.
• Leadership tenure and staffing levels
should contribute to customer satisfaction,
but do they?
• What is the most effective HR program or
investment to increase customer
satisfaction?
Case 3: Linking Employee Engagement
Business
Outcome
The processto
allows
for revisions
to the blue- at Lowes (Coco et al, 2011)
print as variables are added or removed and
Step 4: Identifying
for the testing of more than one model as new
is presented.
The finalhired
model isspring
Performance
In 2007, Lowe's a U.S.-based homeinformation
improvement
retailer
internationalThemes
an employee research
constructed through creating different verThe modeling process began with collecting
with
Executive
Buy-In
sions and testing each with different
the data from the various data holders in
and all
analytics
firmand
from
Philadelphia.
The objective
tonew
develop
a
methodology
that
can determine the
theoretical
assumptions towas
look at
relathe
various systems
cleaning
it before
Upon development of the initial models, the
merging it into one cohesive system. Lowe's
include nearly 600 variables in the initial data
set to be analyzed. The team used a combination of correlations, factor analysis and
regression to reduce the number of variables
to the most predictive in each core area on
the blueprint. For example, analysis determined which observed variables had the most
predictive impact to be used to measure
tionships that make sense in the context of
the company. The model continues to be
adapted until it reflects the best fit.
researchers and Lowe's HR team conducted
sessionthe
with researchers
the data holders established
to
impact of people on financial results. During the process of creatinga working
the model
fully explore the implications and refine the
model. The team validated the model and
results and then analyzed the data to make
sure it was pulling out the right initial themes
that existed across the enterprise.
that there is a direct connection between engagement and customer satisfaction and the linkages to
When the structural equation modeling process was complete, Lowe's had several core
models that clearly delineated data correlations and causal linkages and the strength of
those relationships.
revenue, shrink rates and a number of other areas.
EXHIBIT 2: LOWE'S FIRST STORE MODEL BLUEPRINT
Management
Engagement
Better Shrink
Numbers
In this model, ovals indicate an item that is constructed of multiple variables and rectangles indicate
individualdiagram
variables. Lines
with arrowsthe
on both
ends are co-varying
relationships, meaning
that the
The above
depicts
correlation
established
at Lowes.
two items impact each other. Lines with arrows pointing in one direction indicate that one item is
impacting the other. The numeric values are regression error terms that show how much impact
one item has on another (e.g., if A impacts B with a score of .14, then when A moves one unit, B
will move .14). Positive values Indicate that when one item goes up, the other item will also go up.
Negative values indicate that when one item goes up, the other item will go down.
Lowe's was careful to focus on key strategic
themes to ensure management would focus
on business priorities with the follow-up
engagement action planning. Once the themes
were understood from an HR perspective
they were shared with the executive team.
Through dialogue with the executive team,
they agreed upon enterprise-wide themes and
they shared the themes with each function
(Finance, Operations, etc.)
While the executive team was supportive of
value linkage's objectives, some questioned
whether models could establish the causeeffect relationships. As the models were built
in concert with finance, operations and
research, the insights were acknowledged
from functional stakeholders. With this
acceptance, Lowe's was able to use the models to prove a direct connection between
engagement and customer satisfaction and
the linkages to revenue, shrink rates and a
number of other areas.
The data analytics work at Lowe’s was used to structure a model
that showed manager engagement
Lowe's started the review and buy-in process
with the HR leadership team, then the execu-
>
improved employee engagement and that improved customer engagement that impacted both revenue and
VOLUME 34/ISSUE 2 — 2011
31
expense. An intense training and development program was developed to improve manager engagement
and leadership competence. Now Lowe’s had the evidence-based knowledge to show direct linkages
between training and corporate financial performance.
The analysis of the above mentioned 3 case studies clearly establishes a linkage between Employee
Engagement and the performance outcomes such as Customer Satisfaction, Sales, employee performance,
retention and profitability.
There many more similar cases where enhanced employee engagement has lead to favorable business
outcomes. According to a UK government study, branches of a leading multinational bank that displayed
an increase in levels of employee engagement had a 16% higher profit margin than those, which had a
decrease in employee engagement levels (Clarke & MacLeod, 2009). Another study of 64 organizations
by Kenexa reveals that the organizations with highly engaged workforce achieve twice the annual net
income to those with less engaged workforce (Kenexa, 2008). A similar study by Towers Perrin found
that a 5% increase in employee engagement leads to .7% increase in operating margin (Perrins, 2004). In
a UK based fortune 500 manufacturing company, the turnover and absenteeism were respectively 14.5%
and 8% respectively whereas for highly engaged teams the turnover and absenteeism were 4.1% and
4.8% respectively (Wellins, Bernthal, & Phelps, 2005).
In addition to these case studies, a meta-analysis conducted by The Gallup organization in 2013 also
provides us with evidence that there is direct linkage between employee engagement and multiple
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
business outcomes. The database for this analysis included 263 research studies across 192 organizations
in 49 industries and 34 countries. The analysis covered 49,928 business/work units including 1,390,941
employees. There were two objectives of the analysis, first one being to explore and establish the
relationship between employee engagement and the following seven outcomes:
1. Customer loyalty/engagement
2. Profitability
3. Productivity,
4. Employee Turnover
5. Safety and Health (Accidents)
6. Shrinkage (Thefts)
7. Absenteeism
The second objective of the study was to explore whether the correlations between engagement and
outcomes will generalize across organizations for all outcomes. That is, the correlations will not vary
substantially across organizations, and in particular, there will be few, if any, organizations with zero or
negative correlations.
The meta-analysis found that some of the above listed outcomes are a direct result of employee
engagement (i.e., employee turnover, customer loyalty, safety, absenteeism, productivity and shrinkage),
and other outcomes are indirect or more downstream consequence of intermediary outcomes (i.e., sales
and profit) (Schmidt, Harter, Killham, & Asplund, 2012). For the purpose of that study, the business units
were divided in to halves; the top half is defined as the average of business units scoring in the highest 50%
on the Q12, and business units scoring in the bottom half comprise the lowest 50%. Table 1 illustrates the
higher performance of Business units in the top halves over and above those in the bottom half:
Table 1:Performance of business units in top half versus the one in bottom half.
Outcome
Success Differential
Higher Customer loyalty metrics
56%
Turnover (Lower probability of
turnover)
44%
Productivity
38%
Profitability
27%
Safety and Health (Accidents)
44%
Absenteeism
56%
Shrinkage
70%
The study also compared the composite performance of the business units between the two halves, the
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
ones in the top half had a 113% higher success rate within their own company, and a 170% higher success
rate across business units in all companies studied. As per the conclusion of the study there is substantial
relationship Employee Engagement and each of the above listed seven performances outcomes and it is
highly generalizable across organizations. Therefore, practitioners can focus on employee engagement in
a variety of situations with confidence that it will lead to business performance information (Harter et al,
2013).
In the light of the above-mentioned empirical data, it can be concluded that employee turnover, customer
loyalty, safety, absenteeism, productivity and shrinkage are direct consequences of higher engagement
whereas sales and profit are the downstream outcomes. Figure 1 presents this conclusion:
Figure 1: Relationship between Employee Engagement and Business Outcomes
Employee Engagement Employee Turnover Customer Loyalty/
Satisfaction Safety & Health Productivity Shrinkage Sales/Revenue ProBits Absenteeism 2.3 Role of Learning and Organizational Development in Employee Engagement
As organizations and scholars are paying more attention to employee engagement, the learning and
development professionals and scholars are expected to play a role in enhancing the engagement level of
employees.
From an employee perspective, learning and development is relevant for providing employees with
necessary knowledge and skill resources to perform their tasks. As per Kahn (1990), these resources
make them feel available to fully engage in their roles. These resources also make employees feel more
secure about their ability to perform their job thereby lowering their anxiety and increasing feelings of
availability.
As described by Kahn (1990), individuals are more available when they feel secure, and self-efficacy,
hope, optimism and resilience are important dimensions of security. All of these variables can be
developed through learning and development interventions. Schaufeli and Salanova (2008) suggest that
offering employees training that provide experiences of vocational success, encouragement, and reducing
the fear of failure can promote enhancing engagement.
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
According to a Gallup research in Singapore, learning interventions help in increasing the engagement
levels of the employees. However, the impact is not very significant as most of the learning needs and
subsequent interventions are based on a deficit-based approach. Focusing on areas of weakness is
essentially damage control that aims at eliminating defects and inspires only adequate, not superior
performance. The learning and development efforts should be focused on building upon the strength areas
of the employees in order to make significant impact on the engagement levels of employees (Gopal,
2005).
In order to examine how learning can play a role in employee engagement, the American Society for
Training & Development (ASTD) engaged the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) for conducting
a survey and developing a study. The study was conducted in 2007 and was titled as “Learning’s Role in
Employee Engagement.” Two third of the respondents to the survey said that the quality learning and
development opportunities positively influence employee engagement and 54% responded that the
breadth of these opportunities also enhance engagement. Career development also came out as of the key
driver to engagement with 76% of the respondents voting for it (Learning’s Role in Employee
Engagement, 2007). The study also recommended that learning a can help creating a engagement culture
by ensuring that the organizational leaders, including immediate supervisors/managers, have better skills
in the area of engagement improvement.
Therefore, learning and development professionals can play a pivotal role in enhancing engagement by a
three-fold approach:
1. Conducting developmental interventions with a focus to increase the knowledge and skills of the
employees and hence enhancing their performance leading to higher engagement.
2. Building upon the employee’s strength areas and helping them develop into excellent performers in
their respective roles.
3. Enhancing the skill levels of the organizational leaders and immediate supervisors/managers in
fostering employee engagement.
2.4 Conclusion
Employee engagement is a relatively new concept and there is no consensus about a single and universal
definition in the academic literature. However, multiple research studies cited in the present paper provide
a very strong case for practicing and fostering engagement in the organizational setting. The research
clearly establishes a link between employee engagement, better performance and superior business results
leading to sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore, it becomes imperative for Organization
Development practitioners to identify ways and means of facilitating higher employee engagement in
organizations. The study also proposes ways by which HRD professionals can contribute towards
enhancing the employee engagement levels in organizational settings by fostering an engagement culture.
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
Focusing on strength based learning and development efforts and enhancing the skills of organizational
leaders and immediate managers can help in bringing about such a cultural change leading to higher
engagement levels of employees. In upcoming series, the researchers will make an attempt at presenting a
more contemporary model of evaluating the learning impact that aligns the learning and development
efforts in the modern organizations towards enhancing employee engagement levels.
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.
References
Bates, S. (2004, February), Getting engaged HR Magazine, 49(2), 44−51.
Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48−52.
Boudreau, J., & Jesuthasan, R. (2011). Transformative HR: How Great Companies Use Evidence-Based Change for
Sustainable Advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buchanan, L. (2004). The things they do for love. Harvard Business Review, 82, 12, 19-20.
Clarke, N., & MacLeod, D. (2009). Engaging for Success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement. Richmond,
Surrey: UK Government.
Coco C. T., Jamison F., Black H. (2011), Connecting People Investments and Business Outcomes at Lowe's: Using Value
Linkage Analytics to Link Employee Engagement to Business Performance, People & Strategy, 34, 2, P 28 - 33
Fleming, J. H., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human sigma. New York: Gallup.
Gopal, A., (2005), The Limits of Employee Training: Learning programs alone don't engage employees, according to a survey
of Singapore's workforce, Gallup Management Journal.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2010). New Developments in Performance Management. Human Resource Management
Review , 21 (2), 123-136.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee
engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268−279.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. K. (2013). The relationship between engagement at work and
organizational outcomes: 2012 Q12 meta-analysis. Omaha, NE: Gallup
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kenexa. (2008), The Impact of Employee Engagement. Kenexa Research Institute. Wayne, PA: Kenexa.
Learning’s Role in Employee Engagement (2007). Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Dale Carnegie Training:
http://www.dalecarnegie.com/assets/1/7/ASTDEmployeeEngagementStudy.pdf
Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and
competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5 (12), 89-96.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). 'Job burnout.' Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Perrins, T. (2004). Reconnecting with Employees: Quantifying the value of engaging your workforce. London: Tower Perrins.
Robison, J. (2006). A Caterpillar Dealer Unearths Employee Engagement: What this company gained from investing in its
people, Gallup Management Journal.
Robison, J., (2009), What Leaders Must Do Next, The Gallup Business Journal Online, (Accessible at
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/120791/Leaders-Next.aspx)
Saks, A. M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 6 ,
600-619
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2008). Enhancing work engagement through the management of human resources. In K.
Näswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. 380−402). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for
organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki, Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp.
135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schmidt, F. L., Harter, K. J., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2012). The Relationship between engagement at work and
organizational outcomes 2012 Q12® Item level Meta Analysis. Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Gallup:
http://strengths.gallup.com/private/Resources/Q12Meta-Analysis_Flyer_GEN_08%2008_BP.pdf
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource
Development Review, 9 (1), 89-110.
The Gallup Organization (2001, March 15). What your dissatisfied workers cost. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved from
http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/439/what-your-disaffected-workers-cost.aspx
Tritch, T., (2003), Engagement Drives Results at New Century: The specialty mortgage lender shows how engaged employees
dramatically, and measurably, outperform their disengaged counterparts, Gallup Management Journal.
Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The great elements of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.
Wellins, R. S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005). Employee Engagement: The key to realizing competitive advantage.
Retrieved 09 02, 2013, from Development Dimensions International:
http://www.wip.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_employeeengagement_mg.pdf
Samatvam Academy, M-1/31, DLF City Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002, India.