Employee Engagement

in the Public Sector

A review of literature

ISSN 0950 2254

ISBN 978 0 7559 6614 1
Office of Chief Researcher
web only publication
www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

RR DONNELLEY B51563 4/07

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

4-consulting
15 Palmerston Road
Edinburgh
EH9 1TL

in association with

DTZ Consulting & Research

One Edinburgh Quay
133 Fountainbridge
Edinburgh
EH3 9QG

Scottish Executive Social Research

May 2007
This report is a web only publication. It is available on the Scottish
Executive Social Research website www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch.

The views expressed in this report are those of the

researcher and do not necessarily represent those of the
Department or
Scottish Ministers.

© Crown Copyright 2007

Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source
is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to
the Chief Researcher at Office of Chief Researcher,
4th Floor West Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
 CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1
Employee engagement 1
Drivers of engagement 1
Variations in employee engagement 2
Modelling engagement 2
Impact of engagement 2
Measuring and monitoring engagement 3
Conclusions on the literature 3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 4
Objectives of literature review 4
Literature review methodology 4
Report structure 5
CHAPTER 2 EVOLUTION AND DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 6
Introduction 6
Evolution of the concept 6
Definitions of employee engagement 9
Summary and key findings 14
CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR 15
Introduction 15
Variations in employee engagement process 15
Variations in employee engagement outcomes 16
Summary and key findings 19
CHAPTER 4 INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 20
Introduction 20
Modelling engagement 20
The role of engagement in organisational outcomes 27
Organisational variations 30
Employee variations 31
Summary and key findings 33
CHAPTER 5 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT 36
Introduction 36
Belief in engagement 36
Extent of engagement 37
Cost of engagement 41
Summary and key findings 43
CHAPTER 6 MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 45
Introduction 45
Measurement at the recruitment stage 45
Measurement among existing employees 46
Monitoring engagement 51
Summary and key findings 52
CHAPTER 7 CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LITERATURE ON EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT 53
Introduction 53
Key Findings in the literature 53
Gaps and shortcomings of the literature 55
Overall conclusions 56
ANNEX A BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

ANNEX B DETAILS OF LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING 63

Literature search methodology 63
Screening Process & Analysis 64
ANNEX C SCREENING FRAMEWORK 65
SUMMARY

Early in 2007, 4-consulting in association with DTZ Consulting & Research was
commissioned to undertake research on the importance of employee engagement within the
public sector and how the Scottish Executive could improve the engagement of its
employees. A staged approach was adopted as follows:

• Stage 1 – a literature review of employee engagement covering both the public

and private sectors

• Stage 2 – a review of the current status of employee engagement in the Scottish

Executive and ways this could be improved.

This summary provides an overview of the key findings from the Stage 1 literature review.

Employee engagement

The literature on employee engagement builds on earlier research and discussion on issues of
commitment and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), but means more than what
these terms encapsulate. The defining distinction is that employee engagement is a two-way
interaction between the employee and the employer, whereas the earlier focus tended to view
the issues from only the employee’s point of view.

Definitions of engagement, or characteristics of an engaged workforce, focus on motivation,

satisfaction, commitment, finding meaning at work, pride and advocacy of the organisation
(in terms of advocating/recommending either the products or services of the organisation, or
as a place to work). Additionally, having some connection to the organisation’s overall
strategy and objectives and both wanting and being able to work to achieve them, are key
elements of engagement. A recurring theme in the literature is the idea that engagement
involves workers ‘going the extra mile’, and exerting discretionary effort over and above
what is normally expected.

Drivers of engagement

It is clear that the organisation has a responsibility to lead engagement, and there are several
key areas the organisation can address to encourage engagement among its employees.
Leadership, effective management, open, two-way communication, pay and benefits, fair and
equal treatment, employing the ‘right’ workforce, career development and training, working
hours, and health and safety are all aspects of the work environment that organisations can
control and influence and have been found to impact upon engagement levels. However,
there is no ‘one size fits all’ model of engagement, and different employees will place
different emphases on the extent to which they value each of these elements in return for
‘going the extra mile’.

1
Variations in employee engagement

The findings of this literature review suggest that there is no discernable difference between
the dynamics of engagement within the public sector as opposed to the private sector. Rather
differences in engagement levels result from organisational characteristics; in whichever
sector that organisation sits. However, findings suggest that the public sector performs
weaker in areas relating to strategic vision and change management, both of which are
important to employee engagement.

Engagement tends also to vary across individual and job characteristics, with minority ethnic
employees and females found in some studies to have higher rates of engagement than men
or those with a disability or medical condition. In general, managers and professionals have
greater levels of engagement than their colleagues in supporting roles.

Modelling engagement

The models in the literature illustrate the factors that can affect engagement and how
engagement impacts on the wider performance of the organisation. It is clear that there is no
‘one-size fits all’ model of engagement. However, what can be concluded is that the primary
driving force behind engagement is the organisation, its view of engagement and how it acts
to create an environment conducive to engaging employees. Important areas in which the
organisation can work to improve engagement include training and career development,
effective management, promoting a clear strategic vision, communication, fair treatment, pay
and benefits, job satisfaction, cooperation and trust. These factors vary between those that
tend to be taken as given, and written explicitly into the contract of employment (i.e. pay and
benefits) and those that are organisational-dependent, cannot be taken for granted and require
the organisation to take an initiative (i.e. ensuring two-way communication, promoting a
strategic vision and building trust).

Secondary to this are some variations in individual employees, with different groups or
individuals responding differently to the environment in which they work, as discussed
above.

Impact of engagement

Regarding the impact of engagement, this study examined the general sentiment of the
literature, the evidence available and several case study examples of organisations across the
private and public sector. The impact of engagement (or disengagement) can manifest itself
through productivity and organisational performance, outcomes for customers of the
organisation, employee retention rates, organisational culture, and advocacy of the
organisation and its external image. Whilst there are several caveats to some of the results
(discussed below), it is clear that some of the major employers in the UK (Royal Bank of
Scotland (RBS) and the NHS for example) are taking employee engagement seriously and are
actively implementing measures to increase engagement levels.

2
Measuring and monitoring engagement

Measuring the extent of engagement within an organisation is usually achieved through an

employee survey. However, the real value in such a survey lies in the extent to which the
results are used as a basis to identify the organisation’s strengths and weaknesses so that the
necessary corrective actions can be taken. Although none of the literature covered explicitly
referenced a monitoring framework, several methods to continually observe and measure
engagement level were noted and included recurring surveys, focus groups, online
communication, and in the case of RBS, an extensive human capital model.

Conclusions on the literature

It is concluded that the literature reviewed is more or less consistent in its view of employee
engagement, in that the nature of engagement as a two-way interaction between employee
and employer is emphasised as is the growing importance and relevance of engagement to
organisational outcomes. However, it must be noted that these conclusions are drawn within
the context of the type of literature available on the subject. Many of the authors in this field
are either researching organisational experience and/or are responsible for the implementation
of management consultancy solutions and therefore cannot be considered as strictly
independent. There tends to be limited consideration of the costs of driving up employee
engagement, although considerable attention is given to quantifying the benefits.

3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Early in 2007, 4-consulting in association with DTZ Consulting & Research was
commissioned to undertake research on the importance of employee engagement within the
public sector and how the Scottish Executive could improve the engagement of its
employees. A staged approach was adopted as follows:

• Stage 1 – a literature review of employee engagement covering both the public

and private sectors

• Stage 2 – a review of the current status of employee engagement in the Scottish

Executive and ways this could be improved.

The focus of this report is to present the findings of the Stage 1 literature review.

Objectives of literature review

1.2 Through discussion with representatives of the Office of the Chief Researcher (OCR),
it was agreed that the research would focus on the following areas:

• Setting the context of employee engagement in terms of its definition, historical

development and context within the private and public sectors

• Understanding employee engagement in the public sector and the extent to which
it varies compared to the private and voluntary sectors1

• Reviewing interpretative models of employee engagement and their applicability

to the public sector. The use of case studies should be used to give evidence of
the practical application of employee engagement principles

• Examining the impact that commitment to the employee engagement process has
on outcomes such as efficiencies within the organisation

• Establishing how employee engagement can be measured and monitored.

Literature review methodology

1.3 Our methodology was structured in three phases as follows:

• Search process – the identification of potentially relevant literature – this is the

development of the ‘long list’

• Screening process – the review of documentation on the long list to derive a ‘short
list’ of the most relevant and seminal publications

• Analysis – the process by which the literature was analysed

Each element in this methodology is described in more detail in Annex B.

1
It should be noted however that the literature did not explicitly reference the voluntary sector and the report
reflects this by drawing on the available evidence for the public and private sectors only.

4
Report structure

1.4 Chapter 2 provides an overview of employee engagement and discusses how the
concept has evolved through the literature, which enables definitions of employee
engagement to be drawn out. It is demonstrated in Chapter 2 that employee engagement
builds on earlier models of employee commitment, motivation and organisational citizenship
behaviour, but is usually taken in the literature to go beyond these ideas. The key distinction
often drawn is that engagement is a two-way interaction between the employee and the
organisation, and that employees can be motivated and committed without necessarily
engaging with the organisation.

1.5 Chapter 3 discusses the nature of the public sector with regard to its characteristics
and the applicability of employee engagement vis-à-vis the private sector. This important
assessment informs the discussions in the following Chapters which look at modelling
engagement, quantifying its impact and measuring levels of employee engagement. Given
that much of the relevant research and survey analyses that form the basis of these
discussions have been carried out solely on the private sector or cover both sectors, it is
necessary to examine the validity of interpreting results in terms of the public sector and
translating lessons learned from the private to public sector.

1.6 Chapter 4 looks at the various models that attempt to model the drivers of
engagement. Since engagement is considered in much of the literature to involve employees
‘going the extra mile’ or exerting discretionary effort, it is important to understand what
motivates employees to work above and beyond the normal call of duty and what employees
consider important rewards in return for the extra effort. Understanding what drives
engagement from an employee’s point of view is key for an organisation that wishes to
increase engagement among its staff in a resource-efficient way. This helps to understand
how organisations can lead and encourage engagement. In the main the models outlined in
Chapter 4 are based on research and survey outcomes, and examples are provided across the
public and private sectors.

1.7 Chapter 5 builds upon the models outlined in the previous Chapter and discusses
some of the outcomes and impacts of employee engagement. As is highlighted, far from
being an abstract concept, employee engagement is measurable and has real impacts upon the
activities, outputs and outcomes of organisations. These impacts can be seen not only
through effects on ‘bottom line’ financial outputs, but also in terms of productivity; the
organisation or department ‘climate’; the organisation’s ability to achieve its strategies and
outcomes; and in the case of the public sector, on the public’s opinion and trust in that
organisation. Examining the evidence, sentiment and several case study examples leads to a
discussion on the importance of employee engagement.

1.8 Chapter 6 looks at methods by which employee engagement can be measured and
discusses the best practice emerging in the literature in this regard. As is the case throughout
this report, it is important that this discussion assesses the applicability of these measurement
tools across the public sector, as many will originate, or have been tested in the private sector.

1.9 Chapter 7 concludes the report with a summary of the key findings.

5
CHAPTER 2 EVOLUTION AND DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

2.1 The purpose of this chapter is to review how employee engagement is defined in the
literature in order to identify if a clear and common idea of what engagement is can be drawn
out. Firstly the evolution of employee engagement as an increasingly popular concept is
discussed. This allows us to build a picture of engagement, and demonstrate how it means
more than earlier concepts of commitment, motivation or organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB). Next this chapter discusses the definitions of employee engagement
throughout the literature and highlights the key characteristics by which an engaged
workforce can be identified.

Evolution of the concept

2.2 ‘Employee engagement’ is a relatively new term in HR literature and really started to
come to prominence from 2000 onwards. Melcrum Publishing (2005) found that from a
global survey of over 1,000 communication and HR practitioners 74% began to formally
focus on the issue between 2000 and 2004.

2.3 Having reviewed an extensive amount of literature, the commentary on the evolution
of employee engagement is summarised by the following points:

• It builds upon and goes further than ‘commitment’ and ‘motivation’ in the
management literature (Woodruffe, 2006 as cited in CIPD, 2006a)

• A desk review undertaken by Rafferty et al (2005) indicates that it originated from

consultancies and survey houses rather than academia

• The level of interest it has generated indicates that it is more than a passing
management fad and a considerable amount of research and analysis has been
conducted in the last 10 years or so building up our understanding of the term.

2.4 As pointed out in Rafferty et al (2005), the concept of employee engagement has as its
foundation, two well-researched precursors – employee commitment and organisational
citizenship behaviour.

6
2.5 Commitment literature - Silverman (2004) (paper presented as Appendix 1 in
Robinson et al 2004) discusses the different directions the study of employee organisational
commitment (see definitions below) has taken over the previous decade, noting that more
recent research emphasises the multidimensional nature of commitment that implies
commitment cannot be realised through one single human resource (HR) policy. In other
words, people are motivated by a range of factors, and these differ from person to person.
The earlier commitment literature, which discusses the various kinds of commitment and the
impacts of a committed workforce, lays the foundation for understanding of engagement and
the evolution of the concept. As is discussed later, commitment and engagement are not
considered to be one and the same. Whilst commitment is an important element of
engagement, engagement is considered to be more than just employee commitment.

2.6 Tamkin (2005) reviews commitment in the literature and highlights an early model by
Allen and Meyer (1990), which defines three types of commitment:

• Affective commitment – employees feel an emotional attachment towards an

organisation;

• Continuance commitment – the recognition of the costs involved in leaving an

organisation; and

• Normative commitment – the moral obligation to remain with an organisation.

2.7 As noted by Tamkin (2005), not all of these forms of commitment are positively
associated with superior performance – employees who feel high continuance commitment
for whatever reason, but lower levels of affective and normative commitment are unlikely to
produce huge benefits for the organisation.

2.8 The closest relationship with engagement is ‘affective’ commitment as explained by

Silverman (2004) (paper presented as Appendix 1 in Robinson et al 2004). This type of
commitment emphasises the satisfaction people get from their jobs and their colleagues, and
the willingness of employees to go beyond the call of duty for the good of the organisation.
It also goes some way towards capturing the two-way nature of the engagement relationship,
as employers are expected to provide a supportive working environment.

2.9 This point is expanded upon by Meere (2005), who highlights that organisations must
look beyond commitment and strive to improve engagement, as it is engagement that defines
employees’ willingness to go above and beyond designated job responsibilities to promote
the organisation’s success.

7
2.10 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) literature – this predates employee
engagement, but is highly relevant to it. The review of OCB literature by Barkworth (2004)
(paper presented as Appendix 2 in Robinson et al 2004) defines its key characteristic as
behaviour that is discretionary or ‘extra-role’, so that the employee has a choice over whether
they perform such behaviour. These behaviours include voluntarily helping of others, such as
assisting those who have fallen behind in their work, and identifying and stopping work-
related problems in the first place. As these types of behaviour are not normally part of the
reward system, absence of such behaviours is therefore not punishable by the organisation but
performance of them should lead to effective running of it.

2.11 Over 30 different forms of OCBs have been identified and defined and these have
been classified by Podsakoff et al. (2000) in Barkworth’s paper (2004) (paper presented as
Appendix 2 in Robinson et al) into seven themes:

• Helping behaviour – voluntarily helping others

• Sportsmanship – being able to carry on with a positive attitude in the face of

adversity and being willing to set aside personal interests for the good of the group

• Organisational loyalty – promoting the organisation to the outside world, and

staying committed to it, even when doing so could involve a personal sacrifice

• Organisational compliance – following organisational rules even when not being

monitored

• Individual initiative – demonstrating performance over and above what is

expected

• Civic virtue – macro-level interest in the organisation as a whole, such as a loyal

citizen would display towards their country

• Self-development – voluntarily improving one’s own knowledge, skills and

abilities in such a way as to be helpful to the organisation.

2.12 OCB links very strongly to employee engagement as it focuses on securing

commitment and involvement which lies outside contractual parameters – often referred to as
the individual ‘going the extra mile’.

2.13 In terms of the impact of OCBs on organisational effectiveness, three behaviours:

helping behaviour, sportsmanship and civic virtue, appear to lead to performance gains. The
fact that helping behaviour was not beneficial in all studies2 raises the issue of the context in
which the behaviours are to occur, as they will not be suitable in all situations.

2
As it may be the case that whilst it may improve the performance of those receiving help, it takes up the time
of the person helping, thus reducing their potential output.

8
2.14 Further, Barksworth (2004) (paper presented as Appendix 2 in Robinson et al 2004)
notes research by Organ and Ryan (1995), which found that attitudinal variables such as job
satisfaction, organisational commitment, fairness and leader supportiveness all have a
positive relationship with OCB. Task-related variables are also identified in this literature as
important antecedents to OCB. Barksworth (2004) (paper presented as Appendix 2 in
Robinson et al 2004) quotes Podsakoff’s (2000) findings that such variables as feedback and
satisfying tasks are significantly correlated to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness,
sportsmanship and civic virtue.

2.15 Variables that have a negative relationship include breach of the psychological
contract3, abusive supervision and task routinisation. All of these issues are, in some way,
linked to leadership style and behaviour, either directly or more subtly. Therefore, the
obvious starting point in trying to harness OCB should be from the top-down, as the impact
made by leaders and managers does seem to affect the demonstration of OCB. This finding
links strongly to the role of management in securing engagement – see later discussion.

2.16 How does employee engagement differ? It appears that engagement, although
sharing strong characteristics with each of these two concepts is about more than
commitment and/or OCB on their own. Rafferty et al (2005) draw the distinction on the basis
that engagement is a two-way mutual process between the employee and the organisation.
Sharpley (2006) (as cited in Harrad 2006) also points out that it is important to distinguish
between motivation and engagement, as it is possible to be motivated in one’s job without
necessarily feeling an attachment to the organisation. In Sharpley’s (2006) (as cited in
Harrad 2006) definition of engagement there must be a mutual feeling of support between the
employee and the organisation.

Definitions of employee engagement

2.17 As discussed above, it would seem that when engagement is talked about, it refers to a
multidimensional concept that involves some kind of two-way interaction between the
employee and the organisation. As the literature notes, employees can be motivated and
committed to their jobs, without necessarily engaging with the overall strategies and
objectives of the organisation, or without really feeling the wider impact of their efforts.

2.18 Most of the literature employs a multidimensional approach to defining employee

engagement, where the definition encapsulates several elements required in order to achieve
‘true engagement’. For example, the CIPD (2007a) defines employee engagement as a
combination of commitment to the organisation and its values plus a willingness to help out
colleagues. According to this view, engagement is about more than job satisfaction and is a
more complex concept than motivation. Similarly, Schmidt (2004) defines engagement as
bringing satisfaction and commitment together. Whilst satisfaction addresses more of an
emotional or attitudinal element, commitment brings in the motivational and physical
elements. Schmidt (2004) contends that while satisfaction and commitment are the two key
elements of engagement, neither on their own is enough to guarantee engagement.

3 CIPD (2007b) The Psychological Contract, employs the definition of the psychological contract as produced
by Guest and Conway (2002) whereby the contract refers to “the perceptions of the two parties, employee and
employer, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other”.

9
2.19 Ellis and Sorenson (2007) point to the inconsistent way in which the term engagement
has been applied by business leaders and human resource (HR) professionals over the last 20
years. They highlight the inconsistency of using the term to refer to attitudes or to employee
perceptions of specific elements of their work environment or benefits, which they feel have
‘little’ to do with engagement. They endorse a two dimensional definition of engagement
that defines an engaged employee as one who 1) knows what to do at work and 2) wants to
do the work. It is their strong view that engagement should always be defined and assessed
within the context of productivity, and that the two elements of engagement noted above are
necessary for driving productivity.

2.20 Right Management (2006) defines true engagement as every person in the
organisation understanding and being committed to the success of the business strategy, and
that this goes beyond more than just simple job satisfaction and incorporates aspects of
commitment, pride and advocacy about the organisation’s products and brand. Whilst the
onus is on the organisation to manage communication effectively to involve employees and
align them with the organisation, this clearly requires input and feedback from employees as
well to make the process work.

2.21 The CIPD Annual Survey report (2006c) defines engagement in terms of three
dimensions of employee engagement:

• Emotional engagement – being very involved emotionally in one’s work;

• Cognitive engagement – focusing very hard whilst at work; and
• Physical engagement – being willing to ‘go the extra mile’ for your employer.

2.22 The survey report states that the very engaged will go one step further and speak out
as advocates of their organisation, in what they describe as a ‘win-win’ situation for the
employee and the employer.

2.23 Some authors discuss the varying degrees of engagement employees can experience.
Meere (2005) describes three levels of engagement:

• Engaged - employees who work with passion and feel a profound connection to
their organisation. They drive innovation and move the organisation forward;

• Not engaged – employees who attend and participate at work but are timeserving
and put no passion or energy into their work; and

• Disengaged – employees who are unhappy at work and who act out their
unhappiness at work. According to Meere (2005), these employees undermine the
work of their engaged colleagues on a daily basis.

10
2.24 Buchanan (2004) describes the difference between rational commitment and
emotional commitment. Rational commitment results when a job serves employees’ financial,
developmental or professional self-interest. In contrast, emotional commitment, which has
four times the power to affect performance as its more pragmatic counterpart, arises when
workers value, enjoy and believe in what they do. According to the figures of the Corporate
Leadership Council quoted by Buchanan (2004), about 11% of the workforce are classified as
‘true believers’ and demonstrate very high levels of both commitment types; another 13% at
the other end of the normal distribution curve demonstrate little commitment and are
classified as the ‘disaffected’.

2.25 In much of the literature, the definition of engagement is illustrated by the behaviour
of good practice employers and the characteristics of engaged employees. Therefore, to
summarise, Table 2.1 highlights the following key elements that are common across much of
the literature. These have been categorised in terms of what elements can be classified as
drivers of engagement and those that are the results of engagement and the characteristics of
an engaged workforce.

2.26 The factors that determine engagement are primarily driven by the organisation, and it
is the extent to which the organisation takes these issues on board and addresses them in an
effective manner than will influence engagement levels. Of course engagement is a two-way
process and whilst engagement is organisation-led, it requires inputs from the employee as
well. It is explored in later chapters how employees place different values on these factors
and also how these driving factors can potentially vary across demographic variables.

2.27 It was interesting to note that at no stage did the literature make any reference to how
these characteristics might vary between the public and private sectors. As discussed in the
next Chapter, on the occasions where the literature discussed sectoral applicability, it
unanimously suggests that the key principles of employee engagement transcend all
organisations irrespective of sector.

11
Table 2.1 Characteristics Defining Employee Engagement

Definition Characteristics Description Sources

Drivers/inputs into engagement
Two-way relationship • “Similarity to the psychological contract – unwritten, underpinned by trust – easy to break.” Robinson et al (2004)
between employee and • “Organisations have to work to engage employees – and may have to put in a lot to reach their goal of
employer a committed, enthusiastic and engaged workforce” Robinson et al (2004)
• “An important point to note is that engagement is two-way; organisations have to work to achieve it.” CIPD (2005)
Business appreciation & • “Employees must understand the context in which the organisation operates. It is insufficient for Robinson et al (2004)
vision employees to be committed to their organisation; they also need an element of business appreciation, so
that any changes they make to their jobs could be seen to have business benefits.”
• “Of course, when you have the right people you have the trouble of creating ways of letting them know Penna Consulting (2006)
what is going on in the business and where they fit in …‘line of sight’ – in regards to business goals
and objectives.” Christian, M. et al (2007)
• “Knowing what to do at work – understanding the organisation’s vision of success and how the Segal/Sibson (2006)
employee can contribute to achieving that vision…”
• “We also have it confirmed here that communication – knowing what’s going on, what’s planned and CIPD (2006a)
why – is crucial.
• “The report describes a group of people who receive a clear vision, are inclined to support the CIPD (2006a)
organisation’s objectives, and who are also highly engaged.”
• “Fundamentally, good internal communications should be about effective transfer of knowledge or Investors in People IIP UK
meaning within the organisation, so that people understand and support the organisation’s business (2006)
goals – it’s not just about ‘broadcasting to the troops’.”
Employee Involvement • “We talk more about words like ‘involve’, ‘participate’ and ‘respond’ rather than ‘engage’. That Melcrum Publishing (2005)
means creating shared meaning and understanding in a way that our people actively want to
participate.” (BBC case study)
• “These are interesting findings and can be taken to emphasise that people want a sense of involvement CIPD (2006a)
– or being to some extent in a partnership with their employer.”
‘Elbow room’ / • “….give them lots of opportunities to contribute….” Buchanan (2004)
discretionary behaviour • “… people who have reasonable autonomy in doing their job, sometimes called ‘elbow room’, and who CIPD (2006a)
find their job challenging are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction….”
Effective Communication • “…employees having a voice – being able to express their opinion upwards to their manager and CIPD (2006a)
beyond.”
• Ref management style – “…keeps the person in touch with what is going on. Listening to suggestions.” CIPD (2006a)
• “The main drivers of employee engagement are: having opportunities to feed your views upwards; and CIPD (2006b)
feeling well informed about what is happening in the organisation….”

12
Definition Characteristics Description Sources
• “… challenges you to raise the level at which you communicate with your people, making the dialogue IIP UK (2006)
increasingly two-way and giving people a greater say and stake in decisions which affect them.”
Management • “This points to the primacy of the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor, CIPD (2006a)
sometimes called ‘leader-member exchange’.”
• “Managers themselves have to show commitment to the organisation, what we would call ‘committed CIPD (2006a)
leadership’.”
• “…engagement, which is influenced by …..management capability – reflected in professional, fair and
impartial behaviour. It is possible to be motivated in one’s job without necessarily feeling an Sharpley (2006) (as cited in
attachment to the organisation or the management… however, a feeling of engagement requires a Harrad 2006)
wider sense of supporting and being supported by the organisation.”
Results of engagement/characteristics of an engaged workforce:
Employee identification • “Employees need to believe in its [organisation’s] products and services, and particularly its values” Robinson et al (2004)
with the organisation
Commitment • “Wanting to do the work – obtaining a sense of satisfaction from the job and work content and being Segal/Sibson (2006)
inspired by the organisation to perform the work.” CIPD (2006b)
• “Employee engagement, or ‘passion for work’, involves feeling positive about your job, as well as
being prepared to go the extra mile to make sure you do the job to the best of your ability.”
Pride & Advocacy • “…people’s commitment, pride and advocacy (what employees say about company products, services Right Management (2006)
and brand).”
• “We believe that the pride taken in working for their employer, and their willingness to recommend Penna (2007)
their employer as a place to work to friends, are excellent barometers of engagement and meaning”
• “Engaged employees will help promote the brand and protect the employer from the risks associated
with poor levels of service…..similarly, a strong employer brand will help in attracting and retaining CIPD (2007a)
employees”

13
Summary and key findings

• The evolution of employee engagement lies in work on employee organisational

commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour.

• Although elements of these ideas are important to engagement, engagement is

viewed in the literature to mean more than either implies. ‘Going the extra mile’,
providing discretionary effort, being aligned to the organisation’s objectives, being
capable of delivering the results and wanting to deliver results for the good of the
organisation are defining characteristics of the engaged employee. Reflecting the
two-way dynamic of engagement, capability arises from the employee’s own
abilities but must also be supplemented by the employer providing an environment
conducive to allowing the employee to work at their potential level.

• The key elements that underpin a definition of ‘employee engagement’ include:

Drivers of engagement

- A two-way relationship between the employer and employee

- The importance of the individual being able to align themselves to the products,
services and values of the organisation

- The ability of the organisation to communicate its vision, strategy, objectives

and values to its staff so that they are clearly understood

- Management give staff sufficient ‘elbow room’ and autonomy to let them fulfil
their potential

- The employer is highly effective at engaging in two-way communication with

its staff, in particular encouraging upward communication

- Lastly, that management from the top to the bottom of the organisation are
‘committed leaders’ and that the key role of the immediate line
manager/supervisor is recognised as one of the most important conduits to
achieving effective employee engagement.

Outcomes of engagement

- Staff are able to get ‘involved’ in the organisation and feel that they are
genuinely participating and contributing to its performance

- Staff have a pride in their organisation and endorse it as a place to work and do
business with to people outside the organisation

- Staff demonstrate real commitment to their job and the organisation and are
prepared to ‘go the extra mile’.

14
CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN
THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Introduction

3.1 The objective of this Chapter is to review the extent to which employee engagement
varies between the public and private sectors. This was examined on two levels:

• Are there any fundamental differences in how employee engagement operates

between the public and private sectors that would impact on interpretative
models? In particular, do the drivers of employee engagement vary between the
two sectors? And

• What evidence, if any, is there on the effectiveness of employee engagement

between the public and private sectors? Are there any marked differences
between the sectors in terms of how engaged staff are?

Variations in employee engagement process

3.2 From our analysis of the models presented in Chapter 4, the differences between the
public and private sectors have no impact whatsoever on how employee engagement works.
This reflects the fact that the positive factors impacting on employee engagement apply with
equal weight to the public and private sectors. In particular this includes:

• The importance of providing high quality management, especially at supervisory

and immediate line management level

• The importance of having a strong organisational vision and clarity in goals that are
clearly articulated and communicated to staff at all levels

• The importance of engaging in effective two-way communication between the

organisation and its staff

3.3 No interpretative model (see Chapter 4 for details) of the employee engagement
process assessed as part of the literature review has drawn any sectoral distinction: they are
generic across all organisational types in the public and private sectors. This is a key finding
of the literature review.

3.4 However, the employee engagement outcomes do vary according to a range of factors
reflecting organisational and employee characteristics. The aspiration to find a ‘one size fits
all’ model does not apply, either to all individual employees or to all organisations. These
variations are discussed below.

15
Variations in employee engagement outcomes

3.5 There is a surprisingly limited amount of research commenting on variances in

employee engagement between the public and private sectors. This may relate to the fact that
there is more in common between the sectors than there is variation and the principles of
engagement tend to be generic across both sectors. The literature reviewed tends to highlight
the relatively strong performance of the public sector in terms of job specific parameters (i.e.
public sector workers are more likely to receive compensation for working extra hours, and
find their work more worthwhile and personally meaningful) but its weaker performance in
the critical employee engagement drivers such as strategic vision and management. For
example, CIPD (2006c) in a national survey of 2,000 UK employees found the following:

• Hours worked – there are no differences between the public and private sectors
in terms of hours worked. However, public sector workers are more likely to
receive some compensation for working extra hours than those in the private
sector;

• Work-life balance – one would have expected that public sector workers would
be receiving more help from their employer to achieve a good work-life balance,
but actually there is no difference;

• Employer negatives – public sector employees are more negative about their
employers than their private sector counterparts, reporting that:

- They experience more bullying and harassment than those in the private
sector

- They are less satisfied with the opportunities they have to use their abilities

- They are more stressed and under more pressure

- They are more critical of their organisation

- They are less likely to feel their senior managers have a clear vision for the
organisation

- They have less trust and confidence in their senior managers; and

- They are also less likely to believe organisational communication.

• Job positives – however, the public sector ethos is reflected in the fact that more
public sector workers find their work worthwhile and personally meaningful.
This is an important finding, as it is discussed later in Chapter 4, that Penna
(2007) presents a model whereby ‘meaning at work’ is at the apex of the model,
and one of the most important factors in driving engagement.

• Individual/employee performance outcomes – public sector workers rate their

own performance lower than private sector employees and are more likely to
have taken more sick leave in the last year.

16
3.6 Ipsos MORI (2006) has highlighted the need for public sector organisations to
improve the way in which they manage change and develop leadership capability. It is
discussed later how engagement can help organisations manage change (see the
Cambridgeshire County Council case study which highlights how engagement was brought in
to assist a large and difficult change in the Council). Drawing upon research data from over
200 of the UK’s leading organisations, an analysis by sector shows that in many areas there is
typically little difference in employee attitudes. However, in core aspects of working life
(ref. ‘job positives’ above), public sector staff tend to be happier with:

• Job security

• Being paid fairly and their pay reflecting level of performance

• Training and development opportunities

• The feedback they receive from line managers

• Working hours.

3.7 As a result of the research, Ipsos MORI (2006) conclude that public sector employees
are more likely to feel that the work they do is interesting and, in general, perceive a greater
feeling of morale where they work.

3.8 In contrast, the public sector usually trails the private sector in two key areas: change
management and leadership capability (this is despite the fact that public sector employees
report a greater level of contact with senior management). The Ipsos MORI (2006) research
found that whilst around three-quarters of employees in both sectors understand the need for
change, there is a large disparity in terms of those who support the need for change – with 75
per cent of employees in the private sector supporting the need for change, compared to 65
per cent in the public sector. Moreover, public sector employees are significantly more likely
to feel that some of the changes being implemented are unnecessary: they believe that “there
is too much change for change’s sake”. Thus it is imperative that managers fully engage staff
in understanding the rationale for change, rather than just communicating the change to them,
and support employees through the change process.

3.9 In terms of the more practical aspects of change management, again public sector
employees are more critical. A quarter of private sector employees, compared to just 15 per
cent of public sector employees, believe that change is well managed in their organisation:
see Figure 3.1.

17
Figure 3.1 Perceptions of Change Management by Sector

Source: Ipsos MORI (2006)

3.10 The Ipsos MORI (2006) research highlights other areas in which public sector staff
are usually more critical than their private sector counterparts:

• Receiving recognition for good performance and providing opportunities for

employees to let the organisation know how they feel about things that affect them
in their work

• Having adequate /sufficient facilities or resources to do their work effectively

• The belief that their organisation puts customers first

• Confidence that they are working for a successful organisation.

3.11 As a consequence, the public sector tends to trail the private sector in core areas that
can lead to enhanced employee engagement, such as clarity of direction, effective
communication and management. The conclusion of this research is that the public sector
needs to concentrate more on how it manages change and develops leadership capability, to
contribute to delivering the Public Sector Reform Agenda effectively.

18
3.12 These findings in the UK are supported by research in Canada conducted by the
Auditor General of British Columbia (Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia,
April 2002). The British Columbia public service received an engagement rating of 59 per
cent compared to 79 per cent for the top 50 companies to work for in Canada (Hewitt
Associates: The 50 Best Companies to Work for in Canada, as cited in Office of the Auditor
General of British Columbia 2002). In comparison to the leading private sector companies,
British Columbia’s public service employees are relatively happy with their work, are just as
committed to staying with their employer, but due to a climate of distrust, a lack of
confidence in their managers, and a feeling that the public hold a negative view of them as
workers, they are not as proud of where they work. Only 43 per cent would highly
recommend their department to a friend seeking employment, compared to 86 per cent in the
comparison group. Again the public sector compares favourably in job content, but is weak
in terms of organisational identity and advocacy amongst staff.

Summary and key findings

• No interpretative model (detailed in Chapter 4) of the employee engagement

process that has been reviewed has drawn any sectoral distinction: they are generic
across the public and private sectors.

• However, the employee engagement outcomes do vary according to a range of

factors reflecting organisational and employee characteristics. The aspiration to find
a ‘one size fits all’ model does not apply.

• In general, public sector employees are more satisfied with their job characteristics,
but are significantly less satisfied with key drivers of employee engagement
compared to the private sector.

• These weaknesses include lack of orientation to organisational objectives and lack

of advocacy.

• However, variations in employee engagement within sectors are far more significant
and important than any reported variations between the public and private sectors.
The challenge is for employers to understand the importance of employee
engagement within their own organisation and to address it effectively. These issues
are addressed in more detail in Chapter 4.

19
CHAPTER 4 INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

4.1 This chapter looks at the models of engagement as found throughout the literature. It
was highlighted in Chapter 2 that from an employer’s point of view, engagement is often
about employees ‘going the extra mile’ or exerting ‘discretionary effort’. It was also
discussed that many of the factors that drive engagement are under the control of the
organisation. However, employees will place different emphasis on the extent to which they
value each of these factors in exchange for their discretionary effort. This chapter therefore
examines the models of engagement in the literature to determine what the key drivers of
engagement are, and the extent to which employees value these, and what employees find
connects them to the organisation, motivates them to perform above and beyond expectations
and compels them to actively promote the interests and objectives of the organisation.

4.2 Although the organisation has primary responsibility for leading engagement, there
are also secondary employee and job specific factors which can affect levels of engagement.
These are also discussed in this chapter to provide a more comprehensive picture of the
factors that determine engagement. The findings are presented under the following headings:

• Modelling Engagement – a series of the most relevant interpretative engagement

models are presented.

• Role of Engagement in Organisational Outcomes – this section illustrates the

mechanisms through which engagement can impact on organisational outcomes.

• Organisational Variations – an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies

between organisations.

• Employee Variations – an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies

between employees.

Modelling engagement

4.3 As highlighted by CIPD (2007a) there is no definitive all-purpose list of engagement

drivers. There are many individual and organisational factors that determine whether
employees become engaged, and to what extent they become engaged. This section
highlights the models that illustrate these factors and the importance that employees place on
them in becoming engaged.

4.4 The approach to employee engagement, discussed by Robinson et al (2004), stresses

the importance of ‘feeling valued and involved’ as a key driver of engagement. Within this
umbrella of feeling valued and involved there are a number of elements that have a varying
influence on the extent to which the employee will feel valued and involved and hence
engaged. Figure 4.1, which is based on a diagnostic model in Robinson et al (2004),
illustrates the drivers of engagement suggested through a survey of over 10,000 NHS
employees. Robinson et al (2004) state that this can be a useful pointer to organisations
towards those aspects of working life that require serious attention if engagement levels are to
be maintained or improved.

20
Figure 4.1 Robinson et al (2004) model of the drivers of employee engagement

Source: Robinson et al (2004)

4.5 Although tested within the NHS, the authors suggest that many of the drivers of
engagement will be common to all organisations, regardless of sector. However as is
discussed later in this chapter, engagement levels can vary according to demographic and job
related factors. What is noted from the model above is that some of these factors are what
would be fundamental or contractual requirements for the organisation (the ‘hygiene’
factors), such as pay and benefits and health and safety, whereas others are the areas where
the organisation must ‘go the extra mile’ to ensure effective communication, management
and cooperation.

4.6 Penna (2007) presents a hierarchical model of engagement factors (see figure 4.2),
which illustrates the impact each level will have on the attraction, engagement and retention
of talent. They propose a model with “meaning at work” at the apex, which they maintain is
borne out by the research carried out into meaning at work. In this context, Penna (2007)
defines meaning at work as the situation where a job brings fulfilment for the employee,
through the employee being valued, appreciated, having a sense of belonging and congruence
with the organisation and feel like they are making a contribution. In this model, as the
hierarchy ascends and the organisation successfully meets each of these engagement factors,
the organisation becomes more attractive to new potential employees and becomes more
engaging to its existing staff.

21
Figure 4.2 Penna (2007) model of hierarchy of engagement

Meaning

Leadership Trust
Respect
Increasing engagement
Opportunity
Promotion
Development

Learning and Development

Pay Working Hours Benefits

Source: Penna (2007)

4.7 Interestingly in this model the ‘hygiene’ factors appear at the foundation of the model,
indicating the nature of these factors as a necessary, but not sufficient, building block upon
which the organisation must further develop in order to engage staff.

4.8 Work by Schmidt (2004) (see figure 4.3) frames engagement within the context of
organisational health and Workplace Well-Being4 (WWB). As discussed in Chapter 2,
engagement is defined by Schmidt (2004) as the overarching label that brings employee
satisfaction and commitment together. This model highlights the importance of commitment
to the job as driven by job satisfaction, and also notes the importance of the supportive
organisation. By creating the right conditions to generate high levels of employee
engagement, the organisation can drive high performance – with high performance being
defined as the achievement of the overarching public sector goal of advancing the public
good. The model depicts the flow of organisational dynamics that begins with recruitment
and moves through support for work, to workplace well-being, to engagement and finally to
high levels of organisational performance.

4
Note that the author (Schmidt 2004) defines WWB as “a holistic approach to creating high performance
organisations through establishing the right conditions to generate high levels of employee engagement. This
approach assumes that achieving high levels of organisational performance depends on employees who are
strongly committed to achieving the goals of the organisation, and who show this through their actions. This
behavioural objective is influenced in turn by levels of employee satisfaction, and by supportive, respectful and
healthy work environments.

22
Figure 4.3 Schmidt (2004) model of organisational dynamics in the public sector

Advancing the greater

public good

High
Levels of
Organisational
Performance

Employee Engagement

Workplace
Well Being

Physical Health, Safety and

Wellness and Work Supports

Recruiting and Retaining

the Right Workforce

Source: Schmidt (2004)

4.9 This model implies that the foundations of engagement lie in policies to recruit and
retain the right workforce (i.e. in terms of employing specific competences, knowledge and
experiences required for success as well as diversity) and to promote health, safety, and well-
being. Schmidt (2004) bases the model on a variety of studies and writings, implicit in which
is the notion that it is WWB that drives engagement. CIPD (2007a) concurs with this view of
the importance of well being, stating that engagement is ‘wholly consistent’ with an emphasis
on employee well-being.

4.10 In Schmidt’s (2004) discussion, WWB itself is driven by commitment and job
satisfaction, which in turn are determined by a number of factors. It is a similar idea to the
model presented by Robinson et al (2004) where ‘feeling valued and involved’ was the key
driver of engagement, but in turn was influenced to a varying degree by a range of factors.
As is the case throughout much of the literature, Schmidt (2004) does not present a definitive
list of the drivers of commitment and satisfaction (as the drivers of engagement) but reviews
several studies and reports. Concentrating here on the studies presented by Schmidt (2004)
that appear to be based on a more robust approach (e.g. regression analysis as opposed to
theorising) the following results are of interest:

23
4.11 WorkUSA (2000) - This survey used regression analysis to identify the key factors
affecting employee commitment:

• Trust in senior leadership

• Chance to use skills

• Competitiveness of rewards

• Job security

• Quality of company’s products and services

• Absence of workplace stress

• Honesty and integrity of company’s business conduct

4.12 ERIN Research - The Region of Peel (a large municipality in Ontario, Canada)
carried out an employee survey in 2002. Schmidt (2004) advocates the robustness of the
results, from the Canadian public sector, due to the use of ‘advanced statistical techniques’
and ‘excellent’ return rates on the survey of 72%. The survey identified job satisfaction and
commitment as the drivers for the engagement model, with the following factors found to be
important to each:

Job satisfaction:

• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;

• Fair pay and benefits;

• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers;

• A satisfactory work environment, as defined by:

- A reasonable workload;
- Good relations with immediate supervisor;
- Smoothly functioning organisational dynamics;
- Good relationships with colleagues; and
- Effective internal communication.

24
Commitment:

• Job satisfaction;

• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;

• A positive perception of senior management; and

• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers.

4.13 The analysis of the survey found a correlation between satisfaction and commitment
of 0.57 suggesting that the two concepts are related but deserve separate analysis. Further,
what also emerges from these results is that satisfaction is a driver of commitment, but not
vice versa, as commitment does not appear as a key factor in the analysis of what drives
satisfaction.

Management and communication

4.14 The importance of good management and effective communication has been
highlighted as key vehicles through which employee engagement can be implemented. As
Robinson et al (2004) highlight, organisations must work to engage employees and establish
a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. Michelman (2004) notes that
the defining contribution of great managers is that they boost the engagement levels of the
people who work for them. Michelman (2004) suggests that they achieve this through
concentrating on four core areas of managing people:

• Selection;

• Expectation setting;

• Motivation; and

• Development

4.15 Michelman (2004) points out that in leading engagement, great managers will seek
the right fit for a person’s talent, they work to see that employees are rewarded for their
performance and they endeavour to ensure that talent is developed through progressively
more challenging and meaningful assignments.

4.16 A research report into employee engagement by Melcrum Publishing (2005) based on
a global survey of over 1,000 multinationals concluded that from an organisation’s point of
view it is the senior executives that ‘set the tone’ of engagement in an organisation, whatever
the size. There are a number of actions and strategies that senior management can make use
of to inspire engagement among employees and motivate them to go the extra mile. The six
top drivers of engagement from the senior management perspective were found to be:

25
 • Communicating a clear vision of the future

• Building trust in the organisation

• Involving employees in decision making that will affect them

• Demonstrating commitment to the organisation’s values

• Being seen to respond to feedback

• Demonstrating genuine commitment to employee’s well being

4.17 The same Melcrum Publishing (2005) report also examined the role of line managers
in encouraging engagement. In this regard, the survey results imply that ‘creating a climate
of open communication’ is the single most important action for line managers in affecting
levels of employee engagement, with 60% of those surveyed claiming it is the most important
element.

4.18 Regarding the importance of communication, Moorcroft (2006) discusses the

restructuring that took place at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in 2004. It was noted at that
time that there was a need to engage rather than inform employees and thus better align their
performance with the organisation’s vision and business goals. Formerly, communication
strategies had focused on informing employees and creating awareness. However a new
strategy was designed by the company in order to engage employees (and thus generate
desired behaviours) that would help create outcomes (measurable effects) in support of the
organisation’s objectives.

4.19 The strategy has four key objectives:

i) Help employees develop a better understanding of how what they do relates to

the organisation’s vision, strategies and goals;

ii) Create a more dynamic and interactive communication environment that

involves employees in thinking about and understanding how they can
influence business results;

iii) Ensure employees are getting the information they need to help frame and
guide their day-to-day decisions; and

iv) Promote and recognise the desired behaviours and outcomes in

communication.

26
4.20 This strategy is illustrated by RBC in the following model:

Figure 4.4 RBC’s new model of employee communication

ENGAGE

Outcome

Business
Value

Processes Tactics

INFORM

Source: Moorcroft (2006)

4.21 Moorcroft (2006) notes that the ‘old’ model was focused on developing tactics and
methods by which to inform employees, or create awareness, of company news and
objectives. However, the new model (see figure 4.4 above) is based on engaging employees
in the communication process in order to achieve the desired outcomes and thus build the
business value. This is achieved by helping employees have a better idea of how what they
do impacts upon the organisation and by promoting behaviours that help achieve
organisational objectives. Moorcroft (2006) reports that the changes to employee
communications are beginning to show solid results, with employee alignment and
engagement scores improving. Interestingly, the communication budget has actually been
reduced at the same time, illustrating that a more focused and thought through strategy can
result in better value for money.

The role of engagement in organisational outcomes

4.22 This section discusses the models that illustrate the place of engagement in the wider
operations of the organisation and the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on
the wider context.

4.23 Although a review of the quantitative evidence is provided in Chapter 5, this chapter
brings together the elements of various models that illustrate the nature in which engagement
can have an impact upon the organisation. Heintzman and Marson (2006) use the private
sector service-profit chain model as a basis for producing a public sector equivalent (see
figure 4.5). They base the model on research carried out in Canada on what the top public
sector challenges are, namely;

• Human resource modernisation;

• Service improvement; and

27
 • Improving the public’s trust in public institutions.

4.24 Heintzman and Marson (2006) point out that the private sector has, for over a decade,
documented the links between employee engagement and client satisfaction, and between
client satisfaction and bottom line financial results. The authors note that the third element
(the bottom line) cannot be transferred directly to the public sector but based on research on
the link between public service outcomes and the public’s rating of overall government
performance, they suggest the following public service value chain:

Figure 4.5: Heintzman and Marson’s (2006) public sector value chain

Engaged Citizens’ Service Trust & Confidence in

Employees Satisfaction public institutions

Source: Heintzman and Marson (2006)

4.25 Whilst Heintzman and Marson (2006) state that work is still underway to document
the drivers of employee engagement with respect to this model they state that possible
candidates (based on secondary research quoted within the paper) are:

• Support for the goals and mandate of the organisation;

• Effective leadership and management;

• Supportive colleagues and work unit;

• Tools, authority and independence to do the job;

• Career progress and development; and

• Workload.

4.26 Heintzman and Marson (2006) cite emerging Canadian evidence that supports this
concept. They suggest that by understanding the drivers of engagement and the link between
engagement and performance of the institution, this tool can be used across public sector
management to make significant improvements in employees’ work and in the overall
performance and perception of the public sector.

4.27 A model produced by the CIPD (2006c) and presented in the organisation’s Employee
Attitudes and Engagement Survey’ of 2006, brings various elements of employee
engagement together in one overarching model (see figure 4.6). This then formed the basis
of the survey, which was carried out across the private and public sectors.

28
4.28 The model, which illustrates the linkages and important factors in each of these
elements, is provided below, with arrows indicating directions of influence:

Figure 4.6: The CIPD (2006c) model of employee engagement model

WORKING ATTITUDES
LIFE TO WORK

INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
FACTORS

MANAGEMENT,
LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNICATION

Source: CIPD (2006c)

4.29 Individual factors are those such as gender, age, ethnicity and disability (discussed in
more detail later in this chapter). Working life describes factors such as occupation, hours of
work and pay, as well as important issues such as bullying or workplace harassment.

4.30 Management, leadership and communication refers to how employees view their
managers and leaders, how much opportunity they have to participate in organisational
decision making and levels of trust. As CIPD (2006c) highlights, these factors have been
found in research to be very important in determining levels of engagement. This is also the
area where managers can have an important influence.

4.31 Attitudes to work refers to employees’ perceptions of their jobs and includes levels of
well-being, satisfaction, enthusiasm, commitment and loyalty. It is important to note here
the two-way interaction in this model between attitudes to work and engagement. Whilst
satisfaction, commitment, stress and loyalty factors feed into levels of engagement, it follows
from the model that organisations that successfully engage their employees will engender
greater levels of job satisfaction and loyalty, for example.

4.32 The engagement box itself refers to the CIPD’s (2006c) three types of engagement (as
discussed in section 2.21 above) – cognitive, emotional and physical. Finally, in the model
above, engagement and attitudes to work lead to outcomes for the organisation, in terms of
individual performance, intent to quit and absence levels. The model was used by CIPD in
their annual attitude and engagement survey, with the finding that there is in fact a lot that
managers and leaders can do to drive up engagement. Levels of trust and confidence in
senior management and line managers were found to be ‘disappointingly low’ in the survey,
however CIPD (2006c) cites this as an opportunity for managers to evaluate how their own
organisation compares with the national sample and to consider how best to harness the
engagement levels of their own workforce.

29
Organisational variations

4.33 The literature has highlighted that the primary responsibility for leading engagement,
and influence over the factors that determine engagement, lies with the organisation. Whilst
no evidence of difference has been found between the dynamics of engagement between the
private and public sectors, what the literature does reveal is that the variations within sectors
are in fact far more significant. In short, it appears that there is a clear distinction between
leading edge organisations that are strong in employee engagement and the majority that are
either ignorant of the subject or which are failing to address the matter effectively,
irrespective of whether they are in the public or private sector. This section highlights some
examples of this through case study evidence.

4.34 The literature identified a number of case studies of good practice in both the public and
private sectors that were being held up as exemplars for others to follow. Examples, which
demonstrate what can be achieved in the public sector, include Cambridgeshire County
Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – see case study profiles below.

Cambridgeshire County Council – Good Practice Case Study5

Profile: 18,000 staff & turnover of £550m

Approach: it has had a formal people strategy since 2001 – it is clear about developing the organisation,
having a single culture, employee development and creative ways to reward good performance. In 2005 the
Institute for Employment Studies (IES) ran a culture audit out of which the ‘Inspire Project’ was born – the
objective being to change the way people work and communicate. A new framework defining 17 behaviours
was rolled out with the assistance of the Hay Group. The project included work on leadership development,
with managers – including the Chief Executive – receiving 360-degree appraisals and team-building
workshops.
It has also led to a new customer service charter and employee charter. The latter outlines not only what the
Council can expect from its employees, but also what they can expect in return – “it is the psychological
contract made explicit”.

Impact: in HR benchmarks the Council has top quartile performance including absence management, and
bottom quartile costs for HR service delivery. HR even sells its best practice to other public-sector
organisations to generate revenue. The staff survey results are very strong:
85% of employees thought they were doing a worthwhile job
84% said that managers listened to their ideas
90% felt they had the chance to give feedback during appraisals; and
71% said they had enough opportunities to raise issues of importance

“We are not a traditional authority – we seem to have more ways to get messages out and actively listen to
people than you see in most organisations.”
“If you don’t start with your workforce, how can you reach the public?”
“18,000 ambassadors are better than 18,000 assassins.”

5
Johnson (2006)

30
 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council – Good Practice Case Study6
Profile: 13,500 staff

Historic Performance: in 2002 the Council was in the ‘doldrums’, with 1 star and rated as ‘weak’ in the
Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Only 24% of staff rated morale as ‘high’.

Approach: Rotherham’s ‘Exchange Programme’ was runner up in the ‘Improving Business Performance
Through Engaging Staff’ category of the CIPD People Management Awards. A representative ‘Reach-in’
panel that gives detailed feedback and quarterly focus groups to handle hot topics supplemented conventional
methods such as staff surveys and an employee suggestion scheme. Through effective promotion the number
of employee suggestions increased six fold from 50 per year to 300. “Letting people know the outcomes of
their suggestions was the most important part of the process.”

The Council’s wider mission to motivate and inspire is encapsulated in their HEART approach:

• Help each other learn and develop

• Empower through open communication
• Appreciate and respect others
• Recognise and acknowledge contributions
• Try new ideas and initiatives.

Impact:
Staff turnover is down from 18% to 9%
Average absence is down from 13.8 days to 9.2 days
Rotherham is now a three star council and rated as ‘strongly improving’.
65% of staff responded that they are happy at work.
“Happy employees are more likely to come to work.”
“We know staff feel valued, and confident that they are having an input into our success as a council.”
“The culture has changed from one that was progressing slowly to one that wants to achieve, and is
achieving results.”

Employee variations

4.35 The final variable impacting on employee engagement relates to employees

themselves. A number of studies have produced quantitative research findings that
demonstrate the impact that biographical and job characteristics can have on employee
engagement. One of the most in-depth was conducted by the Institute for Employment
Studies (IES) (as analysed by Robinson et al 2004) which analysed attitude survey data for
2003 from 14 organisations in the NHS (>10,000 completed questionnaires). The key
findings were:

Biographical characteristics

• Gender – the difference in engagement scores between men and women was not
significant (although note that some surveys (see CIPD 2006c discussed below)
find that females are generally more engaged than males – this difference may be
due to the fact that the NHS study surveys across employees within the same
organisation, whilst the CIPD survey cuts across a wide variety of industries and
organisations).

6
Brockett (2006)

31
 • Ethnicity – minority ethnic employees have higher engagement levels than their
White colleagues. Black, Chinese and Asian employees have higher scores than
those in Mixed and White groups.

• Age – engagement levels go down slightly as employees get older – until they
reach the oldest group, 60 and over, where the highest engagement levels of all are
displayed. The high level of engagement levels expressed by experienced
employees, who may be considered to be approaching the end of their working
lives, suggests an untapped source of potential in many organisations.

• Work-life balance – those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of
workplace stress and are likely to find it difficult to balance work and home life.
Robinson et al (2004) therefore suggest that attention to family friendly policies
could increase the engagement levels for this group.

• Caring responsibilities – the need for a family-friendly approach and greater

emphasis on work-life balance is further underlined by the fact that employees
with caring responsibilities for children have significantly lower engagement
levels than those who have no caring responsibilities.

• Medical – those with a disability/medical condition have lower engagement levels

than those who do not have such a condition.

4.36 CIPD (2006c) in their national survey of 2,000 employees across a wide spectrum of
public and private sector employers found broadly similar findings to the NHS survey,
although several disparities are noted:

• Gender – women were found, in general, to be more engaged than men, but they also
tend to be doing different kinds of jobs. Women are more satisfied with their work
and hold more positive views of their senior management team than do men. They are
more loyal to their organisation as an employer and report higher levels of loyalty to
their customers and clients than men. This is in contrast to the NHS survey result
conducted by IES and analysed by Robinson et al (2004), where it was found that
there was no discernable difference between engagement levels between men and
women. As discussed above this may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveyed
employees across the same organisation whilst CIPD (2006c) cut across a range of
different industries and organisations. This may suggest that males and females are
responding in a similar fashion to the same NHS environment but that in general
differences in male/female engagement may be due to participation in different
occupations and industries.

• Age – workers aged 55+ are more engaged with their work than younger employees,
and they are also happier with their work-life balance, working shorter hours than
others. Employees aged under 35 are significantly less engaged with their work than
older workers. Again this is contrast to the NHS results where it was found that
engagement levels go down as age increases, although both surveys find that workers
in the 55+ or 60+ bracket are more engaged.

32
 • Disability – employees with a disability are less engaged due to a range of negative
factors including: bullying and harassment, not being listened to, the stress of work, a
feeling of less control over their work, and higher levels of anxiety.

• Managers – they find their work more important and more meaningful than non-
managers do. Their responses on communication and involvement are much more
positive than those of non-managers, and managers feel that they have more support
and recognition and are listened to more than non-managers are.

• Flexible contracts – some surprisingly strong differences were found between those
working on a flexible contract (e.g. flexible hours, term time contracts, homeworking
etc.) and other workers. Those on flexible contracts tend to be more emotionally
engaged, more satisfied with their work, more likely to speak positively about their
organisation and least likely to quit than those not employed on flexible contracts.

4.37 However, it is particularly important to point out that demographic variables should
not be seen in isolation as predictors of performance or engagement. CIPD (2006c) stresses
the following:

“…what we have found is that good management practice and a conducive

working environment can lead to high levels of engagement and performance
amongst all groups of workers.”

4.38 CIPD (2006c) also note the following regarding job characteristics:

• Job group – the nature of the job makes a big difference to engagement levels. In
general, managers and professionals have higher levels of engagement than do
their colleagues in supporting roles.

• Working pattern/hours – full-timers are significantly more engaged than part-

timers, while employees who work days are more engaged than their colleagues
on shifts or on a rota. This suggests that employers need to work harder with
people who are not necessarily at work during ‘standard’ working times – to
ensure that they receive communications, are managed effectively and have
opportunities to grow and develop in their jobs.

• Length of service – engagement levels go down as length of service increases –

an indication to employers that they need to ensure that longer-serving employees
continue to be exposed to new and interesting challenges.

Summary and key findings

4.39 This chapter provided a discussion of the key models that emerged from the literature.
As discussed in Chapter 3, there is nothing in the literature to suggest that the models relevant
to the private sector do not have a direct applicability to the public sector also. Although
some survey results found subtle differences between the sectors, in general the differences in
engagement across demographic factors apply across the board to both sectors. The key
points that emerge from an examination of the models of engagement are:

33
• There is no one-size fits all definitive explanation of what drives engagement. Each
of the models and research studies discussed presented a range of different factors
and placed varying importance on each. What can be concluded is that the
organisation first and foremost has the power of influence over a range of factors
(contractual and extra-contractual) and employees place a varying degree of
importance on these.

• Feeling valued and involved is the key to the Robinson et al (2004) model of
engagement, although other factors such as training and development,
communication and job satisfaction are important in determining the extent to which
employees feel valued and hence engaged.

• The Penna (2007) model of engagement noted that pay and benefits were at the
foundation of the model but ranked lowest on the extent to which they would retain
staff if other factors were lacking. In that model value and meaning at work are at
the apex, with leadership and learning and development also cited as important
factors in driving engagement from the employee’s point of view.

• The RBC model of communication was also highlighted, and it was noted that it
succeeded as it strived to engage employees rather than just inform. The
organisation realised that the previous model of informing employees, rather than
engaging them, was not helping to promote the ‘line of sight’ from employee actions
to the overall objectives and outcomes for the organisation. This model highlights
an important element of engagement – that communication is more effective as a
two-way process that involves the employee, as opposed to merely presenting them
with information.

• Management and communication were highlighted in particular in several models

(i.e. Robinson et al (2004) and Penna (2007)) as being key organisational drivers of
engagement. Here it was found that promoting a clear vision of the future, being
seen to respond to feedback and demonstrating a genuine commitment to the
employees’ well-being are all important actions at an organisational/managerial
level.

• Several models that illustrate the overall impact of engagement and the mechanisms
through which factors feed into engagement and how in turn engagement affects the
overall organisational outcomes were also presented. What Schmidt (2004) points
out as the overarching goal of public organisations – advancing the greater public
good – can be affected by engagement levels through an overall mechanism that
involves various elements from the ‘right’ workforce through workplace well-being,
engagement, organisational performance and finally advancing the public good.

• Finally the CIPD (2006c) model of engagement was presented, which presents an
overall picture of the place of engagement within a wider scope of individual
factors, aspects of working life, management, attitudes to work and outcomes for the
organisation. This demonstrates that engagement should not be considered in
isolation, and these other factors should be taken on board when measuring
engagement and considering engagement strategies.

34
• The effect of the models was not found in the literature to vary across public and
private sectors, rather it is organisational characteristics within either sector that
determines engagement.

• Secondary to the organisational lead in driving engagement are several demographic

and job-related factors that highlight variations in engagement. It was noted from
several studies that those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of workplace
stress and are most likely to find it difficult to achieve a work/home life balance.
Further, those with caring responsibilities for children are less likely to be engaged.
These results tie in with the Robinson et al (2004) model which highlighted family
friendly policies as an important organisational driver of engagement.

35
CHAPTER 5 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction

5.1 This chapter looks at the impacts of employee engagement, and is presented under the
following headings:

• Belief in Engagement – the extent to which the literature supports the contribution
of employee engagement to improved organisational performance.

• Extent of Engagement – the extent to which employees are engaged based on survey
evidence.

• Impact of Engagement – a review of the impact evidence relating to positive

outcomes in the following areas: productivity, customer outcomes, employee
retention, ‘meaning at work’, advocacy and organisational climate.

• Cost of Engagement – the extent to which the literature assesses the costs associated
with employee engagement.

• Importance of Engagement – the Chapter concludes with a review of case study

evidence which highlights the importance of employee engagement to employers.

5.2 From the literature it appears that the impacts of engagement, and of disengagement
are wide-ranging and can have effects at all levels, from individual employees, to the climate
of the team or department through to organisational performance. Far from being an abstract
concept, the literature finds very real and measurable impacts upon organisational
performance of the effects of employee engagement and disengagement. However, the
robustness of the evidence base must be considered before drawing firm conclusions. The
subject of engagement is still relatively new in the literature and is not a well-studied
academic research field; in particular, many of the studies have been carried out by
management consultancies and research houses who may in part be biased towards positive
results. Further, there is very little consideration in the literature regarding the cost of
engagement schemes and how these compare to any benefits received.

5.3 However, notwithstanding these caveats, the literature does provide sufficient
indicators and consensus for some broad conclusions to be drawn out, as discussed below.

Belief in engagement

5.4 From the literature review it is clear that the overriding sentiment throughout the
leading texts is very positive with regard to the impact employee engagement has on
organisational performance. This is illustrated by some of the key statements that emerged
from the literature: see Table 5.1.

36
Table 5.1 Literature view on impact of engagement

Impact of Employee Engagement

Statement Source
“There are clear links between employee engagement and Briggs (2005), Australian
effectiveness, which, in turn, affect productivity. Employee engagement Government Public Service
goes to the heart of organisational capability issues” Commissioner as cited in Meere
(2005)
“….high levels of engagement have been found to be associated with a CIPD (2006c)
whole range of beneficial outcomes, including high levels of
performance”
“….there appears to be a general willingness to accept the Robinson et al (2004)
underpinning finding: the higher the level of employee commitment, the
better the business outcome. If employee engagement is indeed one-
step beyond commitment, the reward should be even greater”
“….it takes little persuasion on a theoretical level to convince a Melcrum Publishing (2005)
business leader that employees who are more committed, work harder
and smarter will be better for the company than those who turn up, do
merely what they are obliged to do and leave”
“Your organisation’s success depends on people’s true Right Management (2006)
engagement…..Research has shown that engaged employees make for a
stronger organisation and better business results”
“Employers want engaged employees because they deliver improved CIPD (2007a)
business performance”

Extent of engagement

5.5 The research findings which are emerging suggests that only a small proportion of
employees can be described as engaged, with a far greater proportion of respondents to
surveys reportedly either not engaged or disengaged. For example, a Gallup survey of 2004
(carried out on US employees, as reported in Meere (2005)) found that nearly one fifth of
employees were disengaged and over half ‘not engaged’: see Table 5.2. Meere (2005) also
provides statistics relating to the UK, which show a similar trend: see Table 5.3.

Table 5.2 Results of US Gallup poll of employee engagement

Classification 2004 Results

Engaged 26%
Not engaged 55%
Disengaged 19%
Source: US Gallup results quoted in Meere (2005)

Table 5.3 Results of UK Gallup poll of employee engagement

Classification 2003 Results

Engaged 19%
Not engaged 61%
Disengaged 20%
Source: UK Gallup results quoted in Meere (2005)

37
5.6 The CIPD (2006c) Employee Attitude and Engagement Survey 2006 finds slightly
higher results than suggested by the statistics above. Covering 2,000 workers across the
public and private sectors in the UK, the survey finds that 35% of employees are actively
engaged with their work. However, care needs to be taken when discussing what workers are
engaged to. Robinson et al (2004) highlights that an interesting finding in the NHS survey
was that the professionals surveyed often felt a higher level of loyalty to their work (or to
their patients) than to the organisation as such. Robinson et al notes that to some extent this
may not matter to the organisation if these individuals perform in a manner that achieves the
objectives of the organisation anyway. However, where engagement with the organisation
will clearly be important is in regards to organisational level changes in strategy for example.
In these instances organisations seek to have employees aligned with the overall strategy and
perform their work to that end.

Impact of engagement

5.7 The models presented in Chapter 4 illustrated the mechanism by which employee
engagement can feed into overall organisational performance. It follows that if employees
are not engaged with the overall strategies and objectives of an organisation then their day-to-
day activities will not be focused on achieving these objectives. This section reviews
evidence in the literature to determine the extent to which these effects can be described and
quantified.

Productivity and organisational performance

5.8 The Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) (2004) completed a study of engagement
levels of over 50,000 employees across the globe and found that those employees who are
most committed:

• Perform 20% better, which CLC (2004) claims infers that moving from low to high
engagement levels will induce an increase in employee performance of 20 percentile
points; and

• Are 87% less likely to leave the organisation, which CLC (2004) states indicates the
significance of engagement to organisational performance.

5.9 On the other hand, in reporting on the costs of employee disengagement, Meere
(2005) discusses a survey carried out by ISR on 360,000 employees from 41 companies in the
world’s 10 largest economies and finds that in companies with low engagement both
operating margin and net profit margins reduced over a three year period, whilst in
companies with high levels of engagement both these measures increased over the same time
period.

5.10 Although this survey was based on private sector companies and measured
organisational performance through financial indicators, the implications for an organisation,
private or public are the same – the difference between low and high engagement can be real
and substantial. The models discussed in Chapter 4 demonstrated the mechanisms through
which low engagement can impact upon organisational performance, however that
performance is defined and measured.

38
5.11 Melcrum Publishing (2005) also report that in the US, Gallup estimates that
disengaged workers cost US business between $270 and $343 billion per year due to low
productivity. Meere (2005) also reports evidence that close to one-third of CEOs identified
engaging employees in the company’s vision, values and goals, as one of the three factors
most important to their organisation’s success.

Customer outcomes

5.12 Customer focus is one organisational objective that does apply across both the private
and public sectors, although it may manifest itself in a slightly different form. In this regard,
a survey by Right Management (2006) found that 70% of engaged employees indicated they
had a good understanding of how to meet customer needs, whilst only 17% of non-engaged
employees scored high on this measure. As definitions of engagement would suggest, the
engaged employees were found to have a better understanding of how their actions
contributed to the organisation’s overall customer focus.

Employee retention

5.13 Similarly, employee retention is an issue for the private and public sector alike. Right
Management (2006) found that 75% of engaged employees planned to stay with the
organisation for at least five years, whilst only 44% of non-engaged employees planned to
stay. On this issue Towers Perrin (2003) also found that a highly engaged workforce is a
more stable workforce – in their survey two thirds of highly engaged employees had no plans
to leave their jobs versus just 12% of the disengaged. According to Towers Perrin (2003),
whilst high engagement does not guarantee retention, it does increase the chances of retaining
the very people who are probably going to be most attractive in a competitive labour market.

5.14 With regard to retention, Towers Perrin (2003) highlights an important impact related
to the disengaged. Whilst organisations can potentially lose key employees through not
successfully engaging them, there is also a risk to the organisation from the disengaged who
are not actively looking for other employment and continue in their current employment but
are disaffected and unproductive. Towers Perrin (2003) note that retaining the disengaged
can have as serious consequences for performance as losing the highly engaged. The
literature tends to focus on identifying the disengaged and outlining the potential negative
impacts the disengaged can have on other employees and overall organisational performance.
This may represent a significant gap in the literature where further discussion and research
could perhaps be undertaken on how to reach the most disengaged, the extent to which it is
worth trying to reach the most disengaged, and how the costs of these interventions weigh
against any potential benefits of engaging these members of staff.

39
Meaning at work

5.15 Penna (2007) presents the results of research carried out in 2005 on 1,765 British
employees to identify what creates meaning at work for UK employees, the effectiveness of
employers in creating meaning and what an employer who creates meaning can reasonable
expect in return. Although not explicitly referencing ‘engagement’ many of the elements
examined in this research are important components of the definitions of engagement
discussed in Chapter 2. ‘Meaning at work’ as referred to by Penna (2007) (discussed in
section 4.6) is the vehicle through which employers and employees can be brought closer
together to the benefit of both.

5.16 The headline result is that organisations that devote resources towards creating
meaning at work can anticipate increased motivation, loyalty, pride, and productivity. On the
other hand, a proportion of respondents did not experience meaning at work and as a result
15% of employees surveyed would not recommend their organisation as a place to work and
7% would actively discourage others from joining. As the report highlights, pride taken in
working for an employer, and willingness of employees to recommend their employer as a
place to work to friends, are excellent barometers of engagement.

Advocacy of the organisation

5.17 As mentioned in Chapter 2, CIPD (2006c) classifies three types of engagement

(cognitive, emotional and physical) but states that engaged employees may also go one step
further and act as advocates of their organisation. Advocacy can be in terms of
recommending the organisation as a place to work, or in terms of believing in and
recommending the products and services of the organisation. An interesting result that came
out of the CIPD’s annual employee attitudes and engagement survey (CIPD 2006c) is that
public sector workers are more critical of their organisation than their private sector
counterparts. The survey concludes that employees who are more engaged are more likely to
be advocates of the organisation. In the survey 37% of employees could be described as
‘Champions’ who willingly promote the organisation as an employer (potentially reducing
recruitment costs by recommending/introducing key personnel) and its products/services,
which in effect is free marketing and enhances the public image of the organisation.

5.18 Melcrum Publishing (2005) reports similar results and from their survey finds that
only 3% of disengaged employees would advocate the organisation as a place to work,
compared to 67% of engaged employees. Penna (2007) included similar measures in its
‘meaning at work’ research report, and finds that nearly a quarter of those surveyed would
not recommend their organisation as a place to work. The report also notes a small hardcore
of ‘corporate terrorists’ – the most disengaged - would actively discourage friends from
joining their current organisation.

40
Organisational climate

5.19 CIPD (2006a) discusses the impact that engagement has on the sense of community
within an organisation. Whilst managerial actions are important, the results of the CIPD
survey (CIPD 2006c) suggest that relationships among fellow workers are important in
contributing towards job satisfaction. In turn, the impact of the organisational climate and the
extent to which engagement is embedded in the organisation (or the individual team or
department) is critical for employees in their willingness to stay working with their employer
and the extent to which they advocate their organisation. This “affective engagement” is
found to be strongly related to positive discretionary behaviour – or “going the extra mile”.

Cost of engagement

5.20 Much of the literature reviewed does not raise the issue of cost alongside the benefits.
One case study that does however is that of Cambridgeshire County Council, where it is
questioned whether the outcomes achieved are worth the inevitable high cost of such a
dedicated and comprehensive engagement scheme. In this case, Cambridgeshire County
Council reported that the benefits do make the engagement measures worthwhile as there are
time savings that result from a smoother process for implementing change and new policies.
HR benchmarks suggest that the Council has the top quartile performance in terms of
absence, coupled with bottom quartile results for HR delivery costs. A 2004 staff survey
revealed that 85% of employees thought they were doing a worthwhile job, 85% said
managers listened to their ideas, and 71% said they had enough opportunities to raise issues
of importance. All of these results were up on the previous year, some as much as 15%.

Importance of engagement

5.21 Therefore between the impacts that engagement can have upon an organisation (as
shown by the models in Chapter 4 and discussed here in Chapter 5) and the relatively
widespread trends of disengagement found in various employee surveys, it is clear that
engagement has become an important topic in recent years. Table 5.4 highlights the
commitment to employee engagement by a selection of leading players from both the public
and private sectors and the underpinning rationale for their uptake of this new approach.
They have recognised the importance of employee engagement and have acted accordingly to
leverage the organisational benefits such an approach can deliver. The information is
presented via case study extracts.

41
Table 5.4 Importance of Employee Engagement – case study evidence

Case Study Evidence Source

Public Sector
Rotherham Runner up in CIPD People Management Awards – Judges’ Brockett (2006)
Metropolitan assessment:
Borough “The council made big improvements in employee turnover,
Council satisfaction and absence levels following an employee engagement
initiative. Communication between the council officers, the
community, unions and council members was outstanding. A good
example of how to drive through change quickly, in collaboration with
stakeholders.”

Cambridgeshire “We are not a traditional authority. We seem to have more ways to Johnson (2006)
County Council get messages out and actively listen to people.”
“If you don’t start with the workforce, how can you reach the public?
18,000 ambassadors are better than 18,000 assassins.”

Private Sector
BBC “….the BBC has moved very strongly and sincerely towards an Melcrum
engagement culture and is doing a lot to encourage behaviour that Publishing
might, elsewhere, fit under this banner. But instead, we talk more (2005)
about words like ‘involve’, ‘participate’ and ‘respond’ rather than
‘engage’. That means creating shared meaning and understanding in
such a way that our people actively want to participate.”

Royal Bank of RBS is the world’s fifth largest bank and it has the concept of Robinson et al
Scotland employee engagement at the heart of its business strategy. Its model (2004) –
is based on engaging staff to: Appendix 3
• ‘Say’ that the job and company are good
• ‘Stay’ with the company and develop it
• ‘Strive’ to go the extra mile for the company

Microsoft “People need to become engaged with the business so that they McKenzie, A.
become advocates of the business. This means that by your employer HR Gateway
brand you have to employ the right people to begin with. Microsoft
does this well. Not everyone wants to work for Microsoft, but those
that are there love it”.

“The people who get in have a communications vehicle, systems and

processes that reflect what they want in terms of the employer brand
and what it stands for. Of course, when you have the right people you
have the trouble of creating ways of letting them know what is going
on in the business and where they fit in – in regard to business goals
and objectives”.

West Bromwich “… it has a powerful people engagement strategy that consistently IRS Employment
Building demonstrates the link between leadership, culture and business Review
Society competitiveness. Most recently the society won the UK Business (24 March 2006)
Excellence award for Employee Satisfaction, which recognises
‘outstanding performance in the area of staff development and
involvement.”

Royal Bank of “At RBC we decided to reinvent our employee communication so that Melcrum
Canada it would not only inform employees, but do a better job of engaging Publishing
and aligning their performance with our vision and business goals.” (Oct/Nov 2006)

42
5.22 CIPD (2007a) suggests that employers want employees who will ‘go the extra mile’,
whilst employees want worthwhile jobs. Where these objectives meet there is a ‘win-win’
situation where organisations can meet their needs and the needs of their employees.
According to the CIPD (2007a), what organisations are looking for to bridge these goals in
practice is an engaged workforce. The models outlined in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 demonstrated
the way in which this process can work and the role that engagement plays in organisational
outcomes.

5.23 As discussed, the impact of disengagement can have measurable effects upon
performance, not only in quantitative terms of reduced productivity, reduced profitability,
loss of customer satisfaction and/or employee turnover, but also upon the general climate of
the organisation and other employees. With regards to the public sector, it is illustrated in
Chapter 4 through a model based on Canadian research (Heintzman and Marson, 2006) that
engagement can have a bearing on the performance of public institutions and the public’s
perceptions and levels of trust in those organisations. Thus the importance of engagement
can be demonstrated in terms of the effect it is found to have upon improving the welfare of
the individual, other employees and ultimately on organisational performance, however it
may be measured. Increasing recognition of these very real effects has brought the subject to
the fore for many organisations.

Summary and key findings

5.24 This chapter set out to review the evidence regarding the impact of employee
engagement. It began by looking at the general sentiment throughout the literature and
concluded that there is an overriding belief in the literature that employee engagement has
measurable and significant effects on the organisation’s success. The review of the evidence
then looked at number of areas and found that:

• The survey evidence tells us that the majority of the workforce in leading western
economies is not engaged;

• Engaged employees perform 20% better (CLC 2004);

• Organisations with disengaged employees underperform against organisations with

engaged employees (Meere 2005), with the costs of disengagement through lost
productivity costing US businesses up to $343bn annually (Gallup results discussed
in Melcrum Publishing 2005);

• 70% of engaged employees have a good understanding of how to meet customer

needs as opposed to only 17% of disengaged employees (Right Management 2006);

• Organisations not only lose key personnel by failing to engage them but they can
also be harbouring a large body of unproductive disengaged staff who have no
intention of leaving;

• Employers who achieve meaning at work for their employees can expect increased
motivation, pride and productivity;

43
 • Engaged employees are more likely to advocate the organisation as a place to work
and actively promote its products and services;

• There is an identifiable gap in the literature through the exclusion of the costs of
engagement alongside the discussions of the benefits. The case study of
Cambridgeshire County Council did raise the issue that intensive engagement
programmes incur costs, however in that case they felt the cost was justified.
Nevertheless, the benefits discussed here do need to be read in the context of an
absence of counterbalancing arguments and evidence surrounding the costs of
running engagement schemes; and

• Further, the literature does not discuss in detail how organisations should treat the
most disengaged and because costs or cost-benefit analyses are not discussed, there
is no discussion of how far organisations should go to try to engender engagement
among the disengaged, or what level of engagement is optimal for different
organisations.

5.25 The increasing interest and importance attached to employee engagement by

organisations is evident through:

• The potential business benefits in terms of staff attraction, retention and

performance; improved communication and service delivery to customers; and the
bottom-line benefits these impacts confer in terms of sales and profits; and

• The extent to which major employers are taking notice of the potential impacts
that engagement and disengagement can have on the ability of the organisation to
achieve its objectives. Several major players such as Microsoft, the Royal Bank
of Scotland and the BBC are actively addressing engagement within their
organisations.

44
CHAPTER 6 MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING OF
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

6.1 The research findings discussed in Chapter 5 imply that levels of engagement within
an organisation can have substantial and measurable impacts upon the outputs of the
organisation, whether that output is profit, productivity, customer/public satisfaction,
achievement of strategies and objectives, or successful implementation of reform. As
highlighted by Robinson et al (2004) it makes sense for organisations to monitor the
engagement levels of employees and to take action to increase these if necessary. CIPD
(2007a) also highlights the importance of monitoring levels of employee engagement as a key
element in managing the organisation’s human capital.

6.2 This chapter explores methods the literature suggests are good practice regarding how
employee engagement can be measured. The chapter is structured under the following
sections:

• Measurement at the recruitment stage

• Measurement among existing employees

• Monitoring engagement.

Measurement at the recruitment stage

6.3 The Schmidt (2004) model presented in Figure 4.3 on the organisational dynamics of
the public sector noted that the foundation of the model on which workplace well-being,
employee engagement and ultimately organisational performance and the furtherance of the
public good was based, was recruiting and retaining the right workforce. Penna (2007)
recommends that employers don’t just hire for competence but hire for attitude and alignment
with the organisation’s values. On this basis, McGee (2006) discusses research by
Development Dimensions International (DDI) which involved over 4,000 employees in a
variety of industries and revealed six characteristics that predict the likelihood of individuals
becoming engaged employees:

• Adaptability;
• Passion for work;
• Emotional maturity;
• Positive disposition;
• Self-efficacy; and
• Achievement orientation.

45
6.4 According to the research, it is these factors that can help to predict which candidates
will perform effectively, derive satisfaction from what they do and become engaged. McGee
(2006) purports that taking time to screen applicants for ‘engagement readiness’ will yield a
far greater return in the medium term than hiring solely for skills and knowledge. It is worth
noting the Schmidt (2004) model (figure 4.3) highlighted that recruiting the ‘right’ workforce
is a requisite foundation to achieving outcomes further up in the model. However, the
literature and future research could perhaps be more focused on exploring the links between
aspects of the recruitment process and levels of engagement in organisations.

Measurement among existing employees

6.5 Clearly there is an onus on the organisation to retain key staff once they are recruited.
Chapter 4 discussed the role of the organisation in effecting improvements in levels of
engagement and discussed the type of actions organisations can take to encourage
engagement. Ellis and Sorenson (2007) highlight that the first step in improving employee
engagement is to adopt a definition and assess current levels of employee engagement. In
order to help identify whether the organisation has an engagement problem, they suggest a
diagnostic checklist in which a positive answer to any of the following example statements
indicates that engagement levels could be improved upon in the organisation:

• People often come to meetings and nod in agreement but limited to no progress is
made.

• Superior performance is often undefined, unrecognised and/or unrewarded.

• There is a lack of information sharing across business units, and a lack of

collaboration toward common goals and results.

• Employees feel far removed from the results of the business and have little
understanding of how they can contribute towards the strategy.

• People feel disconnected from the organisation’s customers.

6.6 Once it is identified that an engagement problem exists, the next step is to quantify the
extent of engagement in the organisation and the amount and types of action required. It is
important to identify how engagement levels among the existing staff body can be measured.
In the literature, this usually takes the form of some sort of qualitative assessment across a
range of factors, usually in the form of a staff survey. This section discusses several survey
designs as found in the literature and makes an assessment of the key areas which form the
basis for benchmarking and measuring employee engagement.

Employee Surveys

6.7 CIPD (2007a) notes that the first step towards building an engaged workforce is to get
a measure of employee attitudes, and that most large employers in the private and public
sector conduct regular employee attitude surveys. These can then be used to identify areas in
need of improvement.

46
6.8 Robinson et al (2004) notes that trying to get a measure of engagement is
‘challenging’, given the range of complex factors being assessed. The report notes the use of
the attitude survey as a useful tool for collecting, measuring and analysing employee
opinions. The report also notes the ‘bluntness’ of the survey tool, given the range and
nuances of opinions. However, in assessing engagement levels within the NHS, Robinson et
al (2004) developed a survey comprising of 12 ‘engagement statements’:

• I speak highly of this organisation to my friends

• I would be happy for my friends and family to use this organisation’s

products/services

• This organisation is known as a good employer

• This organisation has a good reputation generally

• I am proud to tell others I am part of this organisation

• This organisation really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance

• I find that my values and the organisation’s are very similar

• I always do more than is actually required

• I try to help others in this organisation whenever I can

• I try to keep abreast of current developments in my area

• I volunteer to do things outside my job that contribute to the organisation’s

objectives

• I frequently make suggestions to improve the work of my team/department/service

6.9 Robinson et al (2004) then tested the extent to which it would be valid to combine all
12 statements into a single engagement measure, with statistically encouraging results, which
enabled Robinson et al to analyse engagement levels using an indicator that comprised all 12
statements. Robinson et al (2004) highlights that while this type of survey is useful in
identifying levels of engagement across an organisation, its real value lies in comparing one
group within the organisation to another, and measuring trends across time.

6.10 The case study discussed below demonstrates another important use of an engagement
survey – identifying the strengths on which the organisation can build, as well as the sources
of friction within an organisation, which can then be addressed.

47
B&Q – Good practice case study7
Profile: Europe’s largest home improvement retailer. UK employment growth doubled from 17,500 in 2000 to
35,000 by 2003.

Approach: Since 2000, B&Q has used a 12-question survey developed by Gallup, on seven occasions to
measure employee engagement – defined by the degree to which workers are emotionally committed to their
jobs. Employees respond to each of the 12 questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on
a range of topics related to employee needs in the workplace such as friendships, pay, benefits, progress reports,
and job related growth opportunities. High scores reflect engaged employees whose needs are being met and
who are fully engaged in improving workplace productivity. Middle of the range scores reflect workers who are
not engaged, whilst low scores imply active disengagement – those employees whose needs are not being met
and who can actually discourage productivity.

However, the survey does not merely gauge prevailing workplace sentiment, rather it is designed to be a tool for
action and strategy development. The survey asks about aspects of engagement that can be influenced by
supervisors, such as recognition and communication. Thus depending on the outcome, managers can either plan
how to exploit their strengths and/or address the weaknesses.

Further, the survey is designed to translate the ‘softer’ aspects of workplace emotions and behaviours into a hard
measure of engagement, which in turn can be linked to organisational outcomes.

Impact: The use of the Gallup survey at B&Q over 7 separate occasions has allowed the company to build up a
wealth of knowledge about what drives engagement within the company and how engagement levels link to
greater productivity, better customer engagement and higher profits. The results of surveys have been taken
forward into actions to improve scores. Earlier surveys revealed that company-wide, scores were fairly low,
prompting management and employees alike to change their attitudes in order to improve engagement. For
example, one store scored particularly low on the question ‘At work do my opinions seem to count?’ Managers
changed the agenda of meetings to ask staff if they had issues to raise, and required managers to feed back
subsequently on how the issue was being addressed.

Thus the use of the survey here highlights how an issue can be identified, and how actions can be taken to
create the environment to enable the issue to be resolved.

B&Q customer surveys reveal that stores that score highly in the engagement survey also score higher on
customer satisfaction. Translating this into organisational outcomes, the stores in the top half of customer
loyalty generated £3.4m more in sales each year than stores in the bottom half.

6.11 Towers Perrin (2003) presents a range of engagement statements, many of which have
elements common to the Robinson et al framework, including pride in being part of the
organisation, advocacy about the products and services of the organisation, being inspired
by the organisation to produce one’s best work, and willingness to put in effort above and
beyond normal expectations. The full list of the Towers Perrin engagement statements is
provided below:

• I really care about the future of my company

• I am proud to work for my company

• I have a sense of personal accomplishment from my job

• I would say my company is a good place to work

7
Tritch (2003) B&Q Boosts Employee Engagement – and Profits

48
 • The company inspires me to do my best work

• I understand how my unit/department contributes to company success

• I understand how my role relates to company goals and objectives

• I am personally motivated to help my company succeed

• I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected

6.12 Based on use of these statements, Towers Perrin (2003) found that just 17% of
respondents are ‘highly engaged’ whilst 19% were found to be ‘disengaged. The remaining
middle are considered to be the ‘moderately engaged’.

Measuring different types of engagement

6.13 In their employee attitude and engagement survey, CIPD (2006c) measured overall
engagement but also outline that their research suggests that engagement has three
components:

• Cognitive engagement – focusing very hard on work, thinking about very little else
during the working day;

• Emotional engagement – being involved emotionally with your work; and

• Physical engagement – being willing to ‘go the extra mile’ for your employer and
work over and beyond contract.

Although CIPD (2006c) does not place emphasis or importance on any one component of
engagement, the breakdown provides us with an interesting analysis and classification of the
types of behaviours that feed into engagement and how these impact on the overall
engagement levels, as discussed below.

6.14 In measuring cognitive engagement the following four statements were put to
surveyed employees, who were asked to either agree or disagree with the statements:

• Time passes quickly when I perform my job

• I often think about other things when performing my job

• I am rarely distracted when performing my job

• Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else

6.15 In the CIPD (2006c) survey, only 31% of respondents were found to be cognitively
engaged, and 22% disengaged, implying that this is an area that requires the most work by
organisations to achieve engagement.

49
6.16 Regarding emotional engagement, the following statements were put to employees:

• My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job

• I really put my heart into my job

• I get excited when I perform well in my job

• I often feel emotionally detached from the job

6.17 CIPD (2006c) found that levels of emotional engagement are higher than for the other
two forms of engagement, with 58% of people reportedly emotionally engaged with their
work and only 6% are emotionally disengaged. CIPD (2006c) highlights that effective
individual and organisational management of the relationships and processes that increase
positive emotions can also raise levels of overall engagement and performance.

6.18 As regards physical engagement, the CIPD (2006c) asked:

• I stay until the job is done

• I exert a lot of energy performing my job

• I take work home to do

• I avoid working overtime whenever possible

• I avoid working too hard.

6.19 According to the CIPD (2006c) results, 38% of employees are physically engaged
with their work, whilst 11% are physically disengaged. It is clear that some of these elements
of the survey of each type of engagement capture the ‘going the extra mile’ element of
engagement, and some of these may not be viewed as positives (i.e. taking work home,
working overtime).

6.20 As mentioned above, the real value of surveys lies in the extent to which the results
are taken forward and actioned. The case study below of how Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)
uses its ‘human capital information’ is put forward as an example of good practice in this
regard.

50
RBS – How a major corporation uses its employee data – Good practice case study8

Profile: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) has over 140,000 employees in 30 countries.

Approach: RBS has recognised that in an organisation of its size, understanding the effectiveness of its people
strategy and ‘employee proposition’ is a strategic imperative. From 2003, RBS developed a human capital
strategy that provides its leaders with a detailed understanding of how effective the group is at attracting,
engaging and retaining the best people.

RBS has adopted a human capital ‘toolkit’ which includes diagnostic tools, benchmarking resources and
employee research and measurement tools.

RBS employs the use of comprehensive surveys which benchmark performance and report on a variety of topics
such as absence, turnover and diversity. However, the key to the human capital strategy is its annual survey of
employee attitudes delivered to all 140,000 staff. The results are communicated around the organisation and
managers are provided with an action plan so that at a local level, tangible actions are agreed and targeted.
“This is a sophisticated, business-focused strategy within which employee attitude surveys play a key role”
(Aitken 2006 cited in CIPD (2006a))

Impact: RBS publishes its human capital measures in its annual accounts and in its corporate responsibility
report. As Aitken highlights “By reporting how our people strategy drives business performance, we
differentiate RBS Group as a great company to work for, invest with and bank with. Sharing our approach to
developing a highly rewarding and productive workplace is a key part of this approach”.

Implications for managers: Employee attitude surveys are a fundamental component of sophisticated
strategies for managing human capital. Findings on employee engagement can be used to monitor performance,
communication, diversity, leadership and work-life balance. Combining attitudinal data with other indicators in
the organisation can provide managers with a greater understanding of the relationship between HR policies and
practices and organisational performance.

Monitoring engagement

6.21 Much of the literature emphasises the use of surveys (as discussed previously) on an
ongoing basis as a method to monitor engagement over time. However there are several
other tools for monitoring engagement that are highlighted in the literature, for example focus
groups (Cambridge County Council – see case study), a ‘human capital toolkit’ (Royal Bank
of Scotland – see case study), panels and employee suggestions (Rotherham MBC – see case
study) and monitoring online feedback (Moorcroft (2006) on Royal Bank of Canada).

6.22 However, what is missing from the literature is a discussion of an explicit monitoring
framework detailing how changes in engagement can be measured, and how progression
along a spectrum of engagement might be quantified. Although some of the literature places
employees into categories of ‘engaged’ or ‘disengaged,’ or ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ engaged,
there is a lack of detail in the literature about monitoring progress in the literature and
quantifying the steps between disengagement and engagement, for example.

8
Aitken.(2006) as cited in CIPD (2006a)

51
Summary and key findings

6.23 Our discussions earlier highlighted the importance of employee engagement, in terms
of organisational performance, as well as on the outcomes for customers (of organisations in
either the private or public sector), employee turnover, departmental climate and external
advocacy of the organisation. Getting a measure of the extent of engagement and
disengagement in an organisation is therefore of utmost importance in gauging the underlying
causes of sub-optimal organisational performance.

6.24 It was discussed how the propensity for engagement during employment can be
identified at the recruitment stage and several articles noted the importance of recruiting not
only for ability, but for attitude and alignment with the organisation’s values.

6.25 It was also noted that the literature presents a diagnostic checklist (see paragraph 6.5)
and the areas to be aware of in identifying whether an organisation or a department has an
engagement problem. Such warning signs include good performance going unrecognised
and/or unrewarded, meetings that do not result in actions, and staff feeling distanced from the
organisation and its objectives.

6.26 It is identified throughout the literature that employee surveys are a key starting point
for measuring engagement levels. A range of different factors are included in each of the
surveys found in the literature, but some common themes include:

• The level of pride in the organisation;

• Advocacy about the organisation as a place to work as well as about its products and
services;

• The extent to which the organisation inspires the best work from employees; and

• The extent to which employees are motivated to put in effort above and beyond the
call of duty.

6.27 It was also highlighted how organisations can identify different types of engagement –
for example through the CIPD classification of cognitive, emotional and physical
engagement.

6.28 Several case studies were identified to illustrate that the true value of engagement
surveys lies in how they are used by senior management to identify strengths and
weaknesses, which are subsequently addressed.

6.29 However, the literature was weak on how specific monitoring frameworks could be
designed and used.

52
CHAPTER 7 CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LITERATURE ON
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

7.1 This chapter critically examines the literature surveyed in Chapters 2 – 6. It goes beyond
a simple summary of the findings which has been provided at the conclusion of each Chapter.
Rather, it attempts to dig deeper and to provide an objective assessment of the evidence.

7.2 To provide such an objective overview is difficult in a field such as employee

engagement. The vast majority of the authors in this field are either researching
organisational experience and/or are responsible for the implementation of management
consultancy solutions for organisations, and therefore cannot be considered as strictly
independent. The focus of some of the literature is on convincing employers about adopting
practices, which encourage employee engagement rather than providing an independent
assessment.

7.3 Even those authors not directly involved in the delivery of such management
consultancy tend to come from a field which emphasises strongly the worth and importance
of happy employees to their employers, for example being involved in the Human Resources
field. This indicates that potentially there are some underlying assumptions, for example
about the relative importance of human capital to company success, which might influence
the findings of the studies.

7.4 In addition, research in the field has not focused on identifying factors that have a direct
causal effect on employee engagement. This limits the extent to which these findings can
objectively demonstrate the value of employee engagement. In addition, there tends to be
limited consideration of the costs of driving up employee engagement, although considerable
attention has been devoted to quantifying the benefits.

Key Findings in the literature

7.5 The key findings of the literature review should be considered within this context.
However, there are still a number of strong messages that emerge clearly. These are noted
below with a critical assessment of the reliability of these findings concluding this chapter.
The key findings, as noted in the literature, are:

• Employee engagement matters as it impacts on companies’ bottom lines, both

through HR related impacts (such as recruitment and retention) and through wider
impacts on productivity, profit and achieving the aims and objectives of the
organisation;

• The evidence from large-scale quantitative surveys suggests that the majority of
employees are neither engaged nor disengaged, with only around 10 to 30 per cent
of employees fully engaged with their work;

53
• There is no evidence in the literature of significant differences between how the
concept of employee engagement can be applied to private and public sector
organisations. Rather, there are significant differences between organisations within
each sector;

• The models of employee engagement that have been developed can be applied
equally to the public and private sectors;

• A range of themes emerge as factors that influence employee engagement. These

include factors that have a direct influence on employees working conditions (such
as the number of hours worked and the work life balance) and also wider influences
linked to the organisation (such as the importance and value of what the organisation
does). A common theme emerging from all studies is the importance of leadership
and two-way communication, and the need for management to drive forward
employee engagement;

• There are differences in how developed these factors are in the public and private
sector. While the private sector tends to perform less well on the direct influences on
employees (with public sector workers found to be happier with job security, being
paid fairly, and training and development for example) the public sector seems to
have more difficulties around effective leadership;

• In terms of impact, studies tend to emphasise the positive impact of employee

engagement but few quantify this impact reliably. Where an attempt at
quantification is made, the magnitude of the positive impact tends to be very
significant (e.g. 20% increases in productivity);

• Notwithstanding these measurement issues, there has been widespread recognition

and endorsement of employee engagement by some of the ‘big names’ in the public
and private sectors. Clearly, if the likes of the Royal Bank of Scotland and
Microsoft are committing significant resources to employee engagement, then they
are being motivated by the drive to secure hard business benefits;

• It is clear that ‘employee engagement’ has moved beyond HR discussion papers and
concepts into the mainstream strategic and operational management. It is not a fad -
it is reality for many organisations who view it as having benefits and are using it as
a tool to further the organisation’s objectives. The next challenge is to quantify
robustly the cost-effectiveness of organisational commitment to employee
engagement. In this area the literature has less to say and the jury is still out; and

• There is general agreement that staff surveys can be designed to effectively measure
employee engagement and there are a number of good practice examples which can
be drawn on to design such surveys.

54
Gaps and shortcomings of the literature

7.6 In light of the comments made in the introduction to this chapter, there are a number of
shortcomings associated with the literature, as well as gaps not currently covered. These are
charted below:

• There is an inherent positive bias in the literature as noted above;

• The literature tends to emphasise that improvements to employee engagement is

always positive. There is no consideration that a certain level of employee
engagement might be optimal which might differ between different organisations;

• Related to this, further work is required to determine where the focus of the
intervention should be. The literature seems to steer us towards addressing the
disenfranchised majority, but says little relating to the minority of seriously
‘disaffected’. Arguably, if there are significant parts of the workforce disengaged,
this will have negative impacts, meaning that employers will need to think carefully
about how they identify this portion of the workforce and address the problem (i.e.
through further engagement measures or letting this section of the workforce go);

• There is also the related issue of how organisations go about recruiting staff that are
likely to have a higher engagement propensity. Several articles were identified
which discuss this issue, but it is suggested that this area would benefit from more
bespoke research related to employee engagement;

• The importance of the different factors underpinning employee engagement have not
really been tested. For example, pay and conditions are not emphasised but a
number of empirical studies outwith this study field show that pay and conditions
are critical in job satisfaction for particular individuals and organisational types.
More detailed disaggregation of employee surveys by organisational and employee
type as drivers of engagement would be really useful to assess whether employee
engagement is dependent on the factors stipulated in the literature;

• The degree to which effective implementation of any new initiative depends on the
readiness of staff to engage with the change. This is especially critical within the
public sector as surveys show more resistance to change;

• There is no real consideration of the cost of achieving higher levels of employee

engagement;

• The small number of studies attempting to quantify impact rely on identifying

relationships between factors (e.g. current employee engagement and future
profitability). This correlation data cannot determine cause and effect issues (e.g. the
extent to which employment engagement can directly influence future profitability);
and

55
 • There is no evidence which shows that the models for employee engagement are
equally applicable across all types of work. Arguably, jobs which are very
unpleasant or jobs which are very monetary focused (e.g. stock market dealing) are
more easily incentivised by monetary rewards. In addition, it is likely that different
individuals will be more or less motivated by different factors, which is not reflected
in the current models for employee engagement.

Overall conclusions

7.7 In light of these shortcomings and gaps, can conclusions reliably be drawn from the
literature? This is not necessarily an easy question to answer. The absence of more critical
appraisals of the concept and impact of employee engagement must be highlighted in the
interpretation of the literature reviewed.

7.8 However, there are sufficient indications in the literature to draw some broad
conclusions even if these are not necessarily strongly underpinned by objective evidence. The
key conclusions drawn from the literature are as follows:

• Employee engagement matters, but the extent to which it can lead to a step-change
in organisational performance is uncertain. In particular, even where there is a clear
vision and understanding of what needs to be done, there can be significant barriers
to effecting ‘change on the ground’, for example if staff are generally opposed to
change or if the capacity to implement change is limited by resource constraints;

• Some of the approaches aimed at improving employee engagement can significantly

increase employee engagement (as measured by staff surveys) and, in turn, this can
have a measurable impact on HR variables such as retention and staff sickness. The
links to wider impacts in areas such as client service, satisfaction levels and for
private sector business – turnover and profitability - tend to be more tenuous; and

• Increasing employee engagement is highly dependent on leadership and establishing

two-way communication where people’s work and views are valued and respected.
There are thus ways in which any organisation can work towards better employee
engagement without incurring high costs as long as there is the organisational
determination to focus on this issue. Even in the absence of robust impact data, the
principle of employee engagement is to be endorsed in terms of good practice in
people management and the softer benefits this confers to organisations.

56
ANNEX A BIBLIOGRAPHY

British Psychological Society. Emotional bond key to success.

Available online at http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/division-of-
occupational-psychology/bond.cfm [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Brockett, James (2006) The exchange factor (change management at Rotherham Borough
Council), IN People Management, Vol 12 No 22 9 Nov 2006, pp34-35

Buchanan, Leigh (2004) The Things They Do for Love, IN Harvard Business Review, Vol 82
No 12, Dec 2004, p. 19(2)

Cabinet Office/Trade Union Congress. Drive for Change website.

Available online at http://www.driveforchange.org.uk/ [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Cabinet Office. Total reward framework. Available online at

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/workforcematters/pay_and_rewards/total_rewards/framewor
k/ [6 March 2007]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2005)Reward Management

surveys. Available online at
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/pay/_rewrdmansurv.htm?IsSrchRes=1 [retrieved on 6 March
2007]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2006a) Reflections on employee

engagement: Change agenda. London: CIPD. Available at
http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (November 2006b) Annual survey
2006: How engaged are British employees. Available online at
http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E6871F47-558A-466E-9A74-
4DFB1E71304C/0/howengbritempssr.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2006c) Working Life: Employee
attitudes and engagement 2006 Research Report.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2007a) Employee engagement.

Available online at
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/empengmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1 [retrieved on
6 March 2007]

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2007b) The Psychological

Contract. Available online at
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm?IsSrchRes=1 [retrieved on
6 March 2007]

Clifton, James K. Engaging your employees – six keys to understanding the new workplace.
Virginia: Society for Human Resource Management. Available online at
http://www.shrm.org/foundation/engaging.asp#six [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

57
Common Assessment Framework (CAF): Improving an organisation through self-
assessment. October 2002. 2nd Quality Conference for Public Administration in the EU.
European Institute of Public Administration. Available online at
http://www.eipa.nl/CAF/Brochure/CAF2002_Eng.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (May 2006) Working Together: Embedding Good
Employment in Public Services. Available online at
http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/workingtogether0706.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Corporate Leadership Council (2004) Driving performance and retention through employee
engagement (summary, website extract).

Ellis, Christian M. and Sorensen, A. (2007) Assessing employee engagement: the key to
improving productivity. Perspectives Vol 15 no 1 January 2007. Available at
http://www.sibson.com/publications/perspectives/Volume_15_Issue_1/ROW.cfm

Funk, Lothar (8 March 2004) Few employee engaged in their jobs, poll finds. EIRO Online.
Available online at
http://eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2004/03/inbrief/de0403102n.html [retrieved on 6 March
2007]

Garrick, Lesley (Hay Group) (2007) Cracking the code: the challenge of optimising
efficiency across the Scottish public sector. Public Service Management People, Glasgow
SECC 30/31 January 2007. Stockport: PSP Events

Harrad, Kate (2006) Employee engagement: An interview with David Sharpley. Nelson
Consulting. Available online at www.nelsonconsulting.co.uk/Articles/engagement. [retrieved
on 5 March 2007]

Heintzman, Ralph and Marson, Brian (June/July 2006) People, service and trust: links in the
public sector service value chain. Canadian Government Executive.
Available online at http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/veo-bve/publications/atricle_e.asp [6 March
2007]

Investors in People (IiP) Engaging with people – key points. Available online at
http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/Standard/Businessimprovementtopics/Engagingwithpeop
le/Pages/Keypoints.aspx [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Ipsos – MORI (13 October 2006) Change Management And Leadership: The Challenges For
The Public Sector. London: Ipsos – MORI.
Available online at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/mis/change-management-and-
leadership.shtml [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Ipsos – MORI and Work Foundation (2007) The Workers Index 2005/2006 – series of
papers. London: Ipsos – MORI Available online at
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/employee/workersindex.shtml [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

IRS (2006) Getting engaged: employee satisfaction at West Brom IRS Employment Review
843, 24 March 2006.

58
Johnson, Rebecca (2006) Singular focus (employee engagement), IN People Management,
Vol 12 No 18 14 Sep 2006, pp36,38

McGee, Lucy (2006) How to interview for engagement, IN People Management, 27 Jul
2006, pp 40-41

McKenzie, Alasdair (2003) Reason, purpose and value IN Interviews on Communications

and HR pp16-17. HR Gateway

Meere, Michael (December 2005 ) High cost of disengaged employees Victoria: Swinburne
University of Technology. Available online at
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/industrysolutions/ee/reports/Employee%20Engagem
ent%20Industry%20Briefing%20Paper%20Dec%202005%20.pdf [retrieved on 6 March
2007]

Melcrum Publishing (2005) Employee Engagement: How to build a high-performance

workforce. An independent Melcrum Research Report Executive Summary.

Michelman, Paul (2004) Methodology – how great managers manage people. Harvard
Management Update. 1 August 2004 Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing

Moorcroft, D Realising RBC’s new vision for employee communications, IN

Strategic Communication Management Volume 10, Issue 6, October/November 2006.
Available online at http://www.melcrum.com/articles/vision_at_RBC.shtml [retrieved on 6
March 2007]

Office of the Auditor General. Building a strong work environment in British Columbia’s
public services through employee engagement. 2002. Available online at
http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2002-03/report1/workenviron.pdf [retrieved on 6 March
2007]

Office of Public Services Reform. (2004) Trade union and employee involvement in public
service reform. London: Cabinet Office. Available online at
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/opsr/workforce_reform/involving_managers/trade_union.a
sp [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Penna (2006). Meaning at Work Research Report. Available online from http://www.e-
penna.com/newsopinion/research.aspx [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Rafferty, A.N et al (2005) What makes a good employer? Geneva: International Council of
Nurses. Available online at http://www.icn.ch/global/Issue3employer.pdf [retrieved on 6
March 2007]

Right Management (2006) Measuring True Employee Engagement. Philadelphia: Right

Management.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004) The drivers of employee engagement.
Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

59
Schmidt, F of Schmidt & Carbol Consulting Group, Inc. Identifying the drivers of staff
satisfaction and commitment in the public sector – updated version 2004 for the Public
Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. Ottawa: PSHRMA. Available
online at http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/hr-rh/wlbps-eeoppfps/documents/EngagementPaper-
UpdatedVersion.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Schmidt, F (2004) Workplace well-being in the public sector – a review of the literature and
the road ahead for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
Ottawa: PSHRMA. Available online at http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/hr-rh/wlbps-
eeoppfps/documents/WorkplaceWell-Being.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Segal Sibson (2006) Rewards of Work Study The Segal Group Inc. Available online at
http://www.segalsibson.com/publications/surveysandstudies/2006ROWno1.pdf
[retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Szwarc, David Putting Our B.E.S.T. Foot Forward: Improving Service Through Employee
Engagement NetworkedGovernment (Canada). Available online
http://www.networkedgovernment.ca/BESTPracticesSzwarc [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Tamkin, Penny (2005) The Contribution of Skills to Business Performance. Brighton:

Institute for Employment Studies
Available at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW39.pdf [retrieved on 6
March 2007]

Towers Perrin (2003) Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement.
Towers Perrin. Available online at
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2003/200309/Talent_200
3.pdf [retrieved on 6 March 2007]

Tritch, Teresa B&Q boosts employee engagement - and profits, IN Gallup Management
Journal. 8 May 2003 Available online at
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/1036/BQ-Boosts-Employee-Engagement----and-Profits.aspx
[retrieved on 6 March 2007]

60
List of organisation related resources checked

Government/public bodies

Audit Commission
Local government information unit - LGIU
Local government Association - LGA
Local Government Employers - LGE
Improvement and Development Agency - IDeA
Office for Public Management
Office of Government Commerce
Public Services Forum
Cabinet Office
Department of Work and Pensions
Drive for Change – Cabinet office/TUC
COSLA
Unison
Welsh Assembly
European industrial relations observatory - EIRO
International Labour Organisation - ILO
OECD
The European Monitoring Centre on Change - EMCC

Professional and trade organisations

The Work Foundation

Investors in People
Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers - Solace
Public sector people managers’ association – PPMA and Public Service Management
conference proceedings
Institute for Welsh Affairs
Institute for Management Development
Chartered Institute of Personal Development – CIPD
European Association for Personnel Management - EAPM
European Employers Councils
European Institute of Public Administration
The Human Capital Institute
European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP)
European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and Enterprises of General
Economic Interest - CEEP
Institute for Citizen Centered Advice - ICCS
Corporate Leadership Council - CLC

Management journals/bodies

IRS Employment Studies

Personal Today
Peoplemanagement.com website and journal
McKinsey Quarterly

61
Harvard Business Review
Management Today
Gallup Management Journal

Academic departments/organisations

London School of Economics

University of Bath School of Management
Institute of Employment Studies
British Academy of Management
Warwick Business School Industrial Relations Unit
Warwick Institute for Employment Research
Manchester Business School
School of Management and Organisational Psychology, Birkbeck
Robert Gordon University
Said Business School, Oxford
Swinburne Institute of Technology Australia
Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield University

Business

Manpower
Roffey Park Consultancy
Melcrum – research and training business
ERIN Research Inc
Penna
Towers Perrin
IPSOS - Mori
Public services.co.uk
Public Service Partnership Ltd – Public service events

Other
European Case Clearing House
Demos - think tank
Catalyst – think tank
Daniel Goleman – personal website

Databases for articles

Policy library – database of think tank resources
Ingenta
Emerald
IDOX
Blackwell Synergy

62
ANNEX B DETAILS OF LITERATURE SEARCH AND
SCREENING

Literature search methodology

At the outset of the search process a series of the key search parameters and terminology was
established. These were:

• Geography – the main geographical coverage was to focus on the UK, but to
include any relevant international literature

• Timing - there was no date restriction on the literature although we anticipated

more recent (last 10 years) literature to be located.

• Sector - the emphasis of the literature search was on the public sector. However,
texts discussing employee engagement in the private sector where there is
evidence of a generic application to the public sector were considered.

• Search terms - the key themes and free text search combinations are set out in
Table 1.1. On websites where keyword searches were not possible, any
publication lists or documents were scanned using the parameter criteria.

Table 1.1 Illustrative keyword terms used in the literature search process

Key theme Sector Process Examples Measuring

Outcomes
Employee Public sector Model Case study Output
engagement Local, regional and Toolkit Best/good practice Outcome
central/national Blueprint Success story Evidence
Employee government System Exemplars/ Review
performance Government Application example Assessment
with department(s) and Policy Lessons /lessons Monitoring
engagement bodies Practice learnt Evaluation
Trade union(s) Effective Measurement/
Engaged Public service Combined with measuring
employee Private sector (if Change Management [engagement]
required to
Combined supplement material
with: specific on public
sector)

The main focus on the search was a comprehensive trawl of a wide range of resources. The
resources essentially fell within the following main areas:

• Academia covering centres of excellence and academic home pages

• Think tanks and policy

• Local government and public sector organisations

• Government offices and agencies

63
 • Professional HR related organisations

The findings were a combination of abstracts, full text reports and articles, conference
proceedings and web based resources such as the TUC Drive for Change website. All the
literature was collated for the screening process between 13th February 2007 and 27th
February 2007.

Screening Process & Analysis

Over 150 documents comprised the ‘long list’. Senior members of the study team examined
these and, if deemed relevant in principle, they went forward for detailed assessment against
a bespoke screening framework – see Annex C.

The screening framework contains fields of information relevant to the focus of the research
and the documents were assessed against these fields: context and definition, public sector
focus, models, case studies, impact, measurement and monitoring and international focus.
Based on the range and quality of information, each document was then assessed as follows:

• ‘Yes’ – a definite for inclusion in the literature review (44 documents)

• ‘Possible’ – a possible for inclusion in the literature review (21 documents)

• ‘No’ – rejected from the literature review (33 documents)

From over 150 documents, 50+ were rejected outright as being non-relevant, with 98 going
forward for detailed screening. Given the richness of the literature base on employee
engagement it was agreed with OCR that the research would focus on the 44 ‘high relevance’
documents. A full list of all the sources examined is provided in Annex A.

The analysis of the literature was facilitated by the structuring of the screening framework
against the main Chapters in the report structure.

64
ANNEX C SCREENING FRAMEWORK

Document Screening Criteria Assessment

Employee
Docum Engagement Context & Public Case Measurement & Yes
No. Source Title ent Focus Definition Sector Models Studies Impact Monitoring International No Seminal
Institute for The Drivers of Employee
1 Employment Studies Engagement Report 100% √ √ √ √ ? √ Χ Y Y
People Management
6 140906 Singular Focus Paper 100% Χ √ √ √ √ Χ Χ Y
People Management
7 091106 The Exchange Factor Paper Partial Χ √ √ √ √ Χ Χ Y
Employee Engagement:
How to build a high- Report
8 Melcrum Publishing performance workforce extract 100% √ Mixed √ √ √ √ √ Y Y
People Management …interview for
9 270706 engagement Paper 100% Χ Χ √ Χ Χ Χ Χ Y
Progra
CBI Conference mme
14 270207 Employee Engagement only 100% √ √ √ √ √ √ Χ Y
Measuring True Report
19 Right Management Employee Engagement extract 100% √ Χ √ Χ √ √ √ Y Y
Interviews on
Communications & HR
20 HR Gateway (pages 16 - 17) Papers Partial Χ Χ Partial √ Χ Χ Χ Y

22 Penna plc Meaning at Work Report 100% Χ Χ √ Χ √ Χ Χ Y Y

Driving Performance
and Retention thorugh
Employee Engagement
Corporate Leadership and Engaging the Paper
25 Council Workforce extract 100% √ Χ √ Χ √ Χ √ Y
Harvard Business The Things They Do for
26 Review Dec 2004 Love Paper 100% Χ Χ √ ? √ Χ √ Y
Chartered Institute of
Personnel
29 Development Reward Management Report 100% √ Mixed √ Χ √ Χ Χ Y
Assessing Employee
Engagement: The Key
36 Segal; Sibson to Improving Productivity Paper 100% √ Χ √ Χ √ √ √ Y Y

66
 Document Screening Criteria Assessment
Employee
Docum Engagement Context & Public Case Measurement & Yes
No. Source Title ent Focus Definition Sector Models Studies Impact Monitoring International No Seminal
2006 Rewards of Work
37 Segal; Sibson Study Paper Partial √ √ Χ √ √ √ Y Y
Fact
39 CIPD Employee Engagement Sheet 100% √ Mixed √ √ √ √ Χ Y Y
Reflections on
40 CIPD Employee Engagement Report 100% Χ Mixed √ √ √ √ Χ Y Y
How engaged are British
41 CIPD Employees? (2006) Report 100% √ Mixed √ Χ √ √ Χ Y Y
The Psychological Fact
42 CIPD Contract Sheet 100% √ Mixed √ Χ √ Χ Χ Y
Engaging with People -
44 IiP UK Key Points Paper 100% √ Mixed √ Χ √ √ Χ Y
Ipsos MORI and The The Workers Index –
45 Work Foundation May 2006 Report 100% √ √ Χ Χ Χ √ Χ Y
Change Management
And Leadership: The
Challenges For The
48 Ipsos MORI Public Sector Article Partial Χ √ Χ Χ √ √ Χ Y
2nd Quality
Conference for Public The Common
Administration in the Assessment Framework
54 EU (CAF) Report Partial Χ √ √ Χ Χ √ √ Y
British Psychological Emotional bond key to
56 Society success Article 100% √ √ √ Χ √ √ Χ Y
The Contribution of
Institute for Skills to Business
57 Employment Studies Performance Report Partial √ Χ √ Χ √ √ √ Y
Trade union and
employee involvement in
60 Cabinet Office public service reform Report Partial Χ √ Partial √ √ √ Χ Y
Total Reward
61 Cabinet Office Framework Toolkit Partial Χ √ √ Χ √ √ Χ Y
62 Cabinet Office / TUC Drive for Change Toolkit 100% √ √ √ √ √ √ Χ Y Y
63 CBI Working Together Report 100% Χ Mixed √ √ √ √ Χ Y
International Council What makes a good
64 of Nurses employer? Report Partial √ √ √ Χ √ √ √ Y
Identifying the drivers of
staff satisfaction and
commitment in the
Schmidt & carbol public sector – updated
67 consulting group, inc. version, 2004 Report 100% √ √ √ √ Χ Χ √ Y

67
 Document Screening Criteria Assessment
Employee
Docum Engagement Context & Public Case Measurement & Yes
No. Source Title ent Focus Definition Sector Models Studies Impact Monitoring International No Seminal
Workplace well-being in
the public sector – a
Schmidt & carbol review of the literature
68 consulting group, inc. and the road ahead Report 100% √ √ Partial Χ Χ Χ √ Y
People, Service and
Canadian Trust: Links in a Public
Government Sector Service Value
69 Executive Chain Article 100% √ √ √ Χ √ √ √ Y
Putting Our B.E.S.T.
Foot Forward: Improving
NetworkedGovernme Service Through
70 nt.ca Employee Engagement Article 100% √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Y
Building a Strong Work
Environment in British
Columbia’s Public
Office of the Auditor Service: A Key to
General of British Delivering Quality
71 Columbia Service Report Partial √ √ √ √ √ Χ √ Y
Working Today:
Understanding What
Drives Employee
77 Towers Perrin Engagement Report 100% √ Χ √ Χ √ √ √ Y
Society for Human
Resource Gallup - 6 Keys to the
80 Management New Workplace Paper Partial Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ √ √ Y
Realising RBC's new
vision for employee
81 Melcrum Publishing communications Paper 100% Χ Χ √ √ √ √ √ Y Y
Swinburne Univ. of The High Cost of Lit
83 Technology Disengaged Employees Review 100% √ Χ √ √ √ √ √ Y
B&Q Boosts Employee
Gallup Management Engagement - and
85 Journal Profits Paper 100% Χ Χ Χ √ √ √ √ Y
Few employees
engaged in their jobs,
86 eironline poll finds Paper 100% Χ Χ Χ Χ √ √ √ Y
Harvard Business How Great Managers
90 School Publishing Manage People Paper Partial Χ Χ √ Χ Χ Χ Χ Y
Getting engaged:
IRS Employment employee satisfaction at
93 Review West Brom Paper 100% Χ Χ √ √ √ √ Χ Y

68
 Document Screening Criteria Assessment
Employee
Docum Engagement Context & Public Case Measurement & Yes
No. Source Title ent Focus Definition Sector Models Studies Impact Monitoring International No Seminal
Cracking the Code' - the
challenge of optimising
efficiency across the Presen
97 Hay Group Scottish Public Sector tation 100% Χ Χ √ Χ Χ Χ Χ Y
Working Life: Employee
Attitudes and
98 CIPD Engagement 2006 Report 100% √ Mixed √ Χ Χ √ Χ Y

69
 Employee Engagement
in the Public Sector

A review of literature

ISSN 0950 2254

ISBN 978 0 7559 6614 1
Office of Chief Researcher
web only publication
www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

RR DONNELLEY B51563 4/07