Human Resource Craze: Human Performance Improvement and Employee Engagement, The

Organization Development Journal, Spring 2008 by Endres, Grace M, Mancheno-Smoak, Lolita

Abstract

Numerous terms mean different things to different people engaged in organization development. This article helps O.D. practitioners recognize the differences regarding two such "faddish" terms, human productivity improvement (HPI) and employee engagement, and encourages researchers to more completely define such terms. By implication, it encourages practitioners to define their terms within their scope of work so that results might be more readily measured, hence more meaningful.

Introduction

Two buzz words, human productivity improvement and employee engagement have become hot topics in the world of human resources. What organization would not want to increase its productivity and thus its competitive advantage? According to Fisher, Schoenfeldt, and Shaw (2006), a number of things are required by organizations to be competitive including physical resources, financial resources, marketing capability, and human resources. The factor most likely to provide potential competitive advantage is human resources and how these resources are managed. Production, technology, financing, and customer connections (marketing) can all be copied. The basics of managing people can also be copied, but die most effective organizations find unique ways to attract, retain, and motivate employees-a strategy that is more difficult to imitate (Fisher et al., 2006).

The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) (2007) suggests using their human productivity improvement (HPI) model to improve productivity. This model uses a business analysis, performance analysis, and cause analysis. The cause, or need for improving human performance, could be due to a lack of knowledge, motives, physical resources, the structure or process, a lack of information, or the wellness of the organization. Once the cause is determined, the model focuses on selecting a solution, implementing the solution, and then evaluating the results. Not only has human performance improvement become a hot topic, but also as mentioned by Saks (2007) employee engagement has become a hot topic among consulting firms and in the popular business press. It is connected with what ASTD's model cites as the wellness of an organization and can improve human productivity. However, employee engagement is a complex subject with many related issues-from employee satisfaction to leadership trust to employee development, to name a few. A further look at the term is warranted.

Employee engagement was coined by the Gallup Research group and has been shown to have a statistical relationship with productivity, profitability, employee retention, safety, and customer satisfaction (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Coffman & GonzalezMolina, 2001). Similar relationships have not been shown for most traditional organizational constructs such as job satisfaction (Fisher & Locke, 1992).

What are engaged employees?

Engaged employees work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward (Gallup, 2004). In contrast to this are the not-engaged employees who are essentially "checked out." They are sleepwalking through their workday, putting time-but not energy or passion-into their work. Actively disengaged employees aren't just unhappy at work, they are busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.

Results of a Gallup (2004) survey estimate that the lower productivity of actively disengaged workers costs the U.S. economy about $300 billion a year. This survey was based on a nationally representative sample of 1,000 employed adults aged 18 and older. Interviews were conducted by telephone October 2000-April 2004 by the Gallup Organization. An example of how employee engagement can increase productivity is DHL, the Deutsche Post (Business Wire, 2007). Employee turnover at DHL decreased 27 percent by their use of rewards and recognition to enhance employee engagement, attract and retain employees, boost overall productivity, and drive successful business results. DHL received the Carrot Culture Award for this achievement.

Definitions of Employee Engagement

However, a problem exists with the term employee engagement. In the books reporting Gallup's research, considerable time is used explaining the meta-analytic techniques used to find the relationships between the items in Gallup's Workplace Audit (GWA) questionnaire and the business unit level outcomes as productivity, profitability, employee retention, and customer service (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Less time is spent defining and validating the constmct of employee engagement. Because of this lack of constmct definition, subsequent users interpret the constmct in different ways.

For example, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) define employee engagement as "the individual's involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work" (p. 269). Lucey, Bateman and Hines (2005) interpret the Gallup Engagement Index as measuring "how each individual employee connects with his or her company and how each individual employee connects with their customers" (p. 12). Development Dimensions International (DDI, 2005) uses the definition "The extent to which people value, enjoy, and believe in what they do" (p.l). DDI also states that its measure is similar to employee satisfaction and loyalty. A leader, according to DDI, must do five things to create a highly engaged workforce. They are: