The influence of time on employee engagement in the SA business environment

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to investigate the influence of time on the results of the dimensions of employee engagement; and second, to determine whether there are any significant differences between the levels of engagement of the different demographic groups, so as to determine specific future interventions to improve employee engagement. Design/methodology/approach-This study adopted a quantitative approach employing a survey which used a questionnaire to collect data from the same convenience sample, over a three-year period. The differences were tested by measuring change through an analysis of variance. Findings-Three dimensions, namely, team commitment, team orientation and organisational strategy and implementation were significantly higher in the third than first period. Africans and respondents on lower job grades reported significantly lower levels of engagement than white respondents and top management. Research limitations/implications-The limitation of the study is the low participation rate of some groups. Practical implications-Top management can foster engagement in addition to introducing effective interventions, based on sound measurement, to improve employees' engagement levels. Social implications-Engaged employees are happy/healthy, which can be expected to spill over to their lives outside of the workplace and thus favourably influence society. Originality/value-Limited longitudinal research in connection with employee engagement is published. This study provides evidence of a valid barometer for a multicultural, developing economy, against which employee engagement can be measured.

Exploratory study

“…Among the main reasons cited for the strategy implementation breakdown are the lack of resources, specifically, the “unavailability” of people to implement strategy (Alexander, 1985; Cocks, 2010; Köseoglu et al , 2018; Nienaber, 2017a, b) and ineffective communication with organisational members (Pretorius, 2016; Van der Merwe and Nienaber, 2015). “Unavailability of people” refers to lack of competence (Bhanugopan et al , 2017) including both interpersonal (Hogan et al , 2013) and leadership skills (EY, 2018), as well as disengaged employees (CIPD, 2018; Gallup, 2017; Martins and Nienaber, 2018). The lack of employee competence is exacerbated by the fact that many employees are underemployed, meaning they are overqualified for the jobs in which they have been appointed (CIPD, 2018; Gallup, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, leadership plays an important role in strategy implementation (Cocks, 2010; Martin, 2017), and the lack of leadership skills compounds the strategy implementation breakdown. These observations are concerning, as people fulfil a critical role in strategy implementation by impacting action plans in their daily activities (Brkic and Tomic, 2016; Grant, 2018; Hogan et al , 2013; Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009; Jarzabkowski et al , 2016; Martins and Nienaber, 2018; Nienaber and Martins, 2015), which cannot happen without effective interaction.…”

“…Employee engagement is a kind of engagement that is considered to be broader than work engagement (Anthony-McMann et al , 2017; Martins and Nienaber, 2018; Saks, 2006, 2017; Schaufeli et al , 2002; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2011). Employee engagement refers to “an employee's choice to willingly and fully invest their authentic selves physically, cognitively and emotionally in their work roles that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence and active, full role performances’ (Kahn, 1992, p. 700), due to a conducive work environment.…”

“…Employee engagement refers to “an employee's choice to willingly and fully invest their authentic selves physically, cognitively and emotionally in their work roles that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence and active, full role performances’ (Kahn, 1992, p. 700), due to a conducive work environment. It stands to reason that many variables, ranging from identity to leadership style, and trust to job design, strategy and competitive advantage, impact employees' choices to devote themselves to their jobs, all of which fall in the sphere of leadership influence and in turn affect employees' willingness to give more or less of themselves to their job (roles) (Kahn, 1990, 1992; Martins and Nienaber, 2018; Pfeffer, 2015). Thus, scholars have suggested that the broader concept of engagement might be a better way of studying engagement because it is a holistic way of accounting for managing the workforce in pursuit of organisational goals and ultimately, organisational effectiveness (Martins and Nienaber, 2018; Nienaber, 2019; Purcell, 2014).…”

“…Consequently, “employee engagement” has been put forward as a likely mechanism to enhance strategy implementation and ultimately, organisational effectiveness (Barrick et al , 2015; Martins and Nienaber, 2018; Nienaber, 2019, 2017a, b; Nienaber and Martins, 2015; Reijseger et al , 2017). However, the latest employee engagement survey shows that as little as 24 per cent of the global workforce is engaged (Hewitt, 2017), while only 33 per cent of the US workforce is engaged (Gallup, 2017), which raises the question whether employee engagement might live up to its promise of accomplishing successful strategy implementation to secure organisational effectiveness.…”