Tài liệu Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management 17 doc

Commitment In our case on the North Sea oil industry Box 4.1, our measures of employees’ relationships with their organization focused mainly on commitment, a term that is used to refer

have worked On hearing of the proposed layoff, in a deliberate act of sabotage these apprentices systematically removed all the cabling and equipment they had installed Pfeffer (2005) argued that this response to leadership was becoming more common in the USA

Commitment

In our case on the North Sea oil industry (Box 4.1), our measures

of employees’ relationships with their organization focused mainly on commitment, a term that is used to refer to a number

of different attachments to work, including commitment to work itself, to specific jobs, to a union or workgroup, to a career or pro-fessional calling, or to the employing organization(s) It is the last

of these that has received most attention because it has promised much in measuring, a little like engagement, nearly all important aspects of the employment relationship and desired organi-zational outcomes, such as loyalty, ‘going the extra mile’ (organi-zational citizenship behaviour), low absenteeism and good performance However, for the same reason we criticized engage-ment as a rather blunt instruengage-ment, commitengage-ment (at least some versions of it) also falls into that category (Reade, 2001) This is the reason we prefer to use the additional measures of psycho-logical contracts, identification, internalization and ownership Organizational commitment is sometimes thought to have three components, which are set out in Box 4.5 An individual’s commitment can be made up of one or more of these types of commitment, and usually a composite measure of all three is provided in general surveys

144 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management

Box 4.5 Three types of organizational commitment

■ Affective (or attitudinal) commitment, which is based on a willing acceptance of the organization’s goals and an identification or emo-tional attachment with the organization and its values Measures include items like ‘I really feel as if this organization’s problems are

my problems.’

There are several problems, however, with the notion of organ-izational commitment that render it a less useful concept in describing the strength of the relationship between individuals and their organization, especially in contemporary contexts (Swailes, 2002) First, it is used as both an explanation and an outcome of individual–organizational linkages Since it aggre-gates a number of different ideas, it is not easy to develop a sound explanation of what may cause commitment (Reade, 2001) As

an illustration, what may cause people to remain with an organ-ization (continuance commitment) may be different from what causes people to identify with it or be loyal to it, e.g lack of opportunities elsewhere Second, the notion that employees may be committed to only one organization, especially in the light of recent changes towards networking in organizations and

in the light of boundaryless careers discussed earlier, may be becoming outmoded Third, the goals and values of a large organization are likely to vary from one part to another, such as

in those organizations that have strong lines of business brands, and rejection of one specific value (or line of business brand) may coexist with the acceptance of other values (or other lines of business) This could be the case, for example, with organiza-tions that have ethically dubious products such as cigarettes as part of their portfolio

Perhaps more than anything, however, the reason to be a little wary of the concept of commitment is its promised relationship with desirable organizational outcomes Although high levels of continuance commitment have been shown to be related to

employees are bound to the organization in terms of their intention

to remain or leave This may result from a weighing up of the costs and benefits of staying or leaving, such as perceptions of alternative jobs, or the financial hardship associated with leaving Measures

include items like ‘I would continue to work for this organization even though I received a better offer from another employer.’

■ Normative commitment, which refers to an individual’s perceptions

of obligation or loyalty to the organization Measures include items

like ‘This organization deserves my loyalty.’

Source: Based on Meyer and Allen, 1991

146 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management

lower labour turnover and absence, and affective commitment has been shown to be associated with job performance, the links between organizational commitment as a whole and perform-ance are really quite weak (Sparrow and Cooper, 2003) Also given the changes in the nature of employment discussed in the previous paragraph and throughout this course, even this weak relationship may diminish over time So, we prefer to define and use commitment as the reasons underlying people’s wish to

remain with an organization (Pierce et al., 2001).

Bringing them altogether

Pierce et al have compared and contrasted the four concepts of

commitment, identification, internalization and ownership, the outcomes of which are highly relevant to managers who hope to manage psychological contracts and individuals’ attachment to their organizations We have adapted their table to highlight the most important practical implications (see Table 4.5)

Engagement and supportive

behaviours

As Table 4.5 shows, identification, internalization, ownership and commitment are really causes of what employers are usu-ally looking for, which are competent and relevant behaviours that translate these emotions, attitudes and understandings

into action, e.g satisfying customers, sharing knowledge and

increased effort Over the past few years, HR professionals and consultants have begun to use the concept of employee engagement as a way of adapting these well-known psycho-logical concepts to the practical concerns of aligning HR with the business agenda Like any other immature idea that prom-ises a lot to managers, engagement has caused some contro-versy over what it means and, as we have shown in our discussion of commitment, fuses a number of different ideas together, not always successfully Until recently, there has been very little academic research on this largely consultancy-driven

Criteria for Organizational Organizational Internalization Psychological

Core proposition or Desire to remain with Use of organization’s Oneness with the Possession of the

concept organization identity to define oneself organization’s goals and ‘organization’, job or

for individuals

How it develops Decision to remain with Incorporating organizational Integration of Active imposition/

organization Self values into self organization’s values investment of self on

Emulating organizational characteristics Main consequences Organizational citizenship Support for organizational Organizational citizenship Development of employee

for practitioners behaviour (‘going the values and participation in behaviour rights and responsibilities

from research extra mile’) its activities Intention to leave or Promotion of/resistance to

citizenship behaviours

Source: Adapted from Pierce et al., 2001, p 306

concept, perhaps because it overlaps with other, more estab-lished ideas in the psychological and management literature, such as the ones we have already discussed and others like organizational climate and citizenship Given that it has caught the imagination of practitioners, however, it is worth examin-ing to see what it can offer us in terms of a more complete picture of the identity–image relationship and its links to repu-tations, brands and performance outcomes

To make our position clear on this issue, our view is that engagement, or certain versions of it, is helpful because it offers

an insight beyond emotions and attitudes such as those typically measured by conventional surveys There are two reasons for this judgement, both identified by Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) in their UK-based Institute of Employment Studies report First, it invokes the idea of specific behaviours associated with identification, internalization and commitment that demonstrate business awareness and a willingness to pro-mote the interests of the business Second, like psychological contracts, it invokes the idea of a two-way employment relation-ship; engagement does not occur in a managerial vacuum, employers have to work at engaging employees just as employees have to work at being engaged

Like most of the models we’ve discussed in the previous two chapters, the justification for engagement lies in one version or another of the people–performance link, or even directly in the service–profit chain A close examination of the various consult-ing tools and the ideas that underpin them reveals some simple but powerful messages that are increasingly supported by their own research or by those independent academics who have been given access to their data Towers Perrin, one of the major

HR consultancy organizations, is a good example, with its link-age framework showing how englink-agement relates to business per-formance (see Figure 4.3)

Gallup Consulting, another major player in promoting engage-ment, has developed the Gallup Path, tracing a causal link bet-ween: (1) the identification of employee strengths; (2) the right fit between the person and the job; (3) great managers; (4) engaged employees; (5) engaged customers; (6) sustainable growth; (7) real profit increase; and (8) stock increases Based

on many years of survey research undertaken for companies

148 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management

throughout the world, they have shown a plausible connection between improvements in the first five of these and improve-ments in the last three This connection has been supported by

US academic researchers using the Gallup data; they found that aspects of well-being at work, including job satisfaction but especially ‘engaged employees, on average, do a better job of keeping employees, satisfying customers, and being financially

productive and profitable’ (Harter et al., 2002, p 16) It should

be noted, however, that these researchers were a little more circumspect about the lines and direction of causality and the role that might play in this relationship

Defining engagement

Various consultancy companies and writers on this subject define engagement in different ways, as the preceding

discus-sion has implied For example, Harter et al.’s (2002) more

aca-demic approach sees engagement as an element of a broader category of ideas known as well-being at work, which embraces emotional and cognitive (knowledge acquisition) elements They view engagement as a driver of intermediate outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, fulfilment, caring and posi-tive behaviours However, most consultants stress behavioural-related dimensions to work as well as the cognitive dimensions For instance, Towers Perrin (2003) see engagement as invoking emotional and rational factors relating to work and the overall

People programmes

and services

Examples

Employee behaviour

Examples Engagement Customer service Productivity Turnover

Customer behaviour

Examples Loyalty Repeat purchases Company advocacy Wallet share

Business performance

Examples Revenue growth Earnings before tax Stock performance

Rewards

HR service

delivery

Workforce

deployment

Figure 4.3

The Towers Perrin Linkage Framework (reprinted by permission from Towers Perrin)

experience of work: emotional factors are linked with ‘staff satis-faction, a sense of inspiration and the affirmation they get from their work and from being part of an organization’ Rational fac-tors relate to people’s understanding of their job, the unit for which they work and how their performance relates to business performance

Similarly, the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) in the

UK, in probably the best review of the topic to date, reflect these emotional, cognitive and behaviourally related dimensions in

their definition and approach to engagement (Robinson et al.,

2004) Rather unhelpfully, however, they have defined engage-ment as a ‘positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its values …’ (p 9) More usefully, they also define an engaged employee as one who has an understanding

of the business context in his or her organization and works with colleagues to behave in a performance-enhancing manner for the benefit of the organization In return, the organization has to work with employees to engage them in more than a transactional relationship

Measuring engagement

Given the range of definitions, not surprisingly there are dif-ferent items used to measure engagement Table 4.6 below sets examples from three sources – Gallup Consulting, Hewitt Associates and the IES – in a little more detail, analysing them into items most closely related to (a) emotions and feelings connected with identification, commitment and ownership, (b) understanding and beliefs about their organizational roles and its image, and (c) behaviours and behavioural intentions Each approach has items in all three categories; probably the main difference between them is that Gallup is more inclined

to include behaviours that stress the obligations of employers

to employees in fulfilling psychological contracts, whilst the IES lays more stress on employees demonstrating organiza-tional citizenship-type behaviours Hewitt Associates have less

of a focus on behaviours and more on emotions, feelings and understanding

150 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management

Table 4.6

Items used to measure engagement and different approaches

Items used to measure engagement Gallup Hewitt IES

Emotions and feelings

Trust senior leaders to balance employee interests [x]

with those of company

My opinions at work count

The purpose/mission of organization makes me value [x] [x]

my job

Feel confident about future success of organization [x] [x]

Feel confident that organization is making appropriate [x]

changes for future

Feel products/services provide real value/benefits to [x]

customers

Understanding and beliefs

Have right materials/information to do job [x] [x]

Given opportunity to do my best at work everyday [x]

Behaviours

Regularly receive recognition and praise for doing [x]

good work

Supervisor or mentor takes care of me as a person [x]

Receive encouragement to develop myself [x]

Have received recent opportunities to develop [x]

Would recommend organization’s products and services [x]

(continued)

Like most work on engagement, all three approaches show impressive degrees of correlation with performance measures,

as illustrated by our earlier discussion of the Gallup approach and the validation work by the US academics The IES study shows why this might be the case in mapping their engagement measures with what they present as the characteristics of an engaged employee (see Table 4.7)

152 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management

Table 4.6

(Continued)

Items used to measure engagement Gallup Hewitt IES

Frequently make suggestions to improve team/

Try to keep abreast of current developments in my area [x]

Volunteer to do things outside of job requirements to

Table 4.7

Mapping of employee engagement with the characteristics of an engaged employee

Characteristics Statement

The Engaged Looks for and is given The organization really

Employee opportunities to improve inspires the very best in me

organizational performance in the way of job performance

Is positive about the job I speak highly of this and organization organization to my friends

The organization has a good reputation

I would be happy for my family and friends to use the organization’s products and services

Believes in the This organization is known

Works actively to improve I frequently make suggestions

team/department/service

Characteristics Statement

Treats others with respect I try to help others in this and helps colleagues to organization whenever I can perform better

Can be relied on, and goes I always do more than is

Sees the bigger picture, I volunteer to do things even at personal cost outside my job that

con-tribute to the organization’s objectives

Identifies with organization I find my values and the

organization’s are very similar

I am proud to tell others that I am part of the organization Keeps up-to-date with I try to keep abreast of developments in their current developments in

Let’s look at another case we researched for the book that used a measure of employee engagement in its attempt to re-brand itself Before we conclude this chapter, you may wish

to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their approach in the light of our discussions in this and previous chapters

Box 4.6 Linking branding and HR at Standard Life

Investments

Standard Life Investments, which is headquartered in Edinburgh, Scotland, was launched in 1997 as an autonomous organization within the Standard Life group of companies with the aim of becoming a major international investment house Since then it has achieved impressive results and has major offices in London, Montreal, Boston, Hong Kong and Dublin and representative offices in Beijing and Seoul, and currently employs around 650 staff Part of the company’s success has been based

on establishing a strong corporate brand in the investment market, which has been fully supported by the HR team in Edinburgh in their combined

Source: Adapted from Robinson et al., 2004, p 15