Tài liệu Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management 17 doc

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 instrument, commitment (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.’ Chapter 4 The quality of individual employment relationships 145 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 ■ Continuance commitment, which refers to the extent to which 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 Table 4.5 The differences between commitment, identification and psychological ownership. Criteria for Organizational Organizational Internalization Psychological distinctiveness commitment identification ownership 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 values area of work Questions answered Should I remain? Who am I? What do I believe? What is mine? for individuals Motivational bases Security Attraction Need to distinguish Control Belongingness Affiliation between right and wrong Self-identity Beliefs and values Self-esteem Moral and ethical Need for place 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 Affiliation Affiliation and goals organization 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 findings Intention to leave or Intention to remain remain change remain Frustration/stress Engagement behaviours Frustration, alienation and Attendance and Alienation sabotage absenteeism Lack of integration into Integration of employees organizational with work values/culture Organizational 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 engagement 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 Chapter 4 The quality of individual employment relationships 149 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 Chapter 4 The quality of individual employment relationships 151 Table 4.6 Items used to measure engagement and different approaches. Items used to measure engagement Gallup Hewitt IES Emotions and feelings Closely identify with values of organization [x] Trust senior leaders to balance employee interests [x] with those of company Proud to tell others I am part of company [x] [x] 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] Have a best friend at work [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 Colleagues committed to quality [x] Know what is expected of me [x] [x] Have right materials/information to do job [x] [x] Given opportunity to do my best at work everyday [x] Organization known as good employer [x] Organization has a good reputation [x] Understand organization’s goals [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] Have received recent appraisal [x] Would recommend organization’s products and services [x] Speak highly of organization to friends [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/ department performance [x] Always do more than is required [x] Try to help others in organization [x] Try to keep abreast of current developments in my area [x] Volunteer to do things outside of job requirements to contribute to organization [x] 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 organization as a good employer Works actively to improve I frequently make suggestions things to improve the work of my team/department/service Chapter 4 The quality of individual employment relationships 153 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 beyond contract required 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 field my area 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 . loyalty.’ Source: Based on Meyer and Allen, 1991 146 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management lower labour turnover and absence, and affective commitment has. less of a focus on behaviours and more on emotions, feelings and understanding. 150 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Chapter 4 The quality