Assessing the Impacts of Leadership, Engagement and Wellbeing on Organisational Performance.

?

Authors

Harry Nartey

Christopher Babayemi

Kok Chun Choong

Justice Okeoma

?

?

?

Title

Assessing the Impacts of Leadership, Engagement and Wellbeing on Organisational Performance.

?

?

?

?

INTRODUCTION

?

New Oxford Dictionary (2022) defines leadership as the conscious act of leading a group of people or an organisation. This means that leadership is effectively the state or position of being a leader. Sandling (2015) defined leadership as the process of inspiring and maximising the efforts of people to attain a common goal. This definition is more suitable, in my opinion, since it is a more contemporary perception of leadership. In essence, every leader is required to have people (followers) who he or she is capable of influencing and inspiring to achieve set goals or targets. Engagement is primarily a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation and its values. Rothbard (2001) defined engagement as a two-dimensional motivational construct that includes attention (the cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role) and absorption (the intensity of one’s focus on a role). Engage for Success (2014) defines engagement as a workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are committed to their organisation’s goals and values, motivated to contribute to organisational success, and also inspired to enhance their own sense of wellbeing. An engaged employee is one who does whatever it takes to ensure the prosperity of the organisation. In practicality, employee engagement is the commitment of workers to an organisation’s goals/targets. Another important aspect of an organisation’s growth is the well-being of its employees. Wellbeing was defined by Waddel and Burton (2006) as the subjective state of being healthy, happy, contented, comfortable and satisfied with one’s quality of life. It includes physical, material, social and emotional contentment. According to WHO (2013), wellbeing refers to a state in which every individual realises his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community. Wellbeing has been a major issue in the U.K. According to HSE (2021), 1.7 million?working people were reported to be suffering from a work-related illness, of which 822,000?workers suffered work-related stress, depression or anxiety; 470,000?workers suffered from a work-related musculoskeletal disorder; 93,000?workers suffered from COVID-19 which they believe may have been from exposure to coronavirus at work; 2,544?mesothelioma deaths due to past asbestos exposures (2020); and 123?workers killed at work (2021/22). These statistics show that there exists room for improvement. This shows that there is the need to put in place measures that protect employees’ health, assure their safety, and in extension, safeguard their wellbeing. In recent years, there has been significant interest in employee engagement and wellbeing in the U.K. and in other developed economies (Engage for Success, 2014). Many people are beginning to understand the impacts that employee engagement and wellbeing have on an organisation. The relationship between leadership, engagement and wellbeing should be accurately established. However, there are considerable variations pertaining to the way an organisation is supposed to approach these topics. Leadership has a crucial role to play in ensuring employee engagement and wellbeing. This article addresses three main foci, this includes; why every organisation needs leadership; the key domains of wellbeing; and the benefits/drawbacks of employee engagement and wellbeing. ????

??Every organisation needs leadership in order for it to thrive. There are several leadership styles/theories, this includes; transactional, transformational, situational, behavioural, contingency leadership, authentic leadership, leader-member exchange theory and so on. The absence of leadership results in confusion and chaos. Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) proposed that leadership, communication and work-life balance (as shown in figure 1, below) are the key elements that influence employee engagement. This consequently leads to better organisational performance. According to Gibbons (2006), there are other drivers of employee engagement such as: trust and integrity (Reichheld, 2001); nature of the job (Bates, 2004); team members (Gubman, 2004); employee development; employee-manager relationship; and so on. Meanwhile, it is imperative that we understand the aspects of leadership which influence employee engagement. The figure below is a diagram which details the relationship between leadership and employee engagement.

This model clearly understates the importance of leadership in ensuring employee engagement. It further illustrates the linear relationship that exists between employee engagement, employee performance and organisational performance. Imandin et al. (2014) found that effective leadership influences the commitment levels of employees. Consequently, the following leadership behaviours show positive influence on employee engagement:

·????????Being honest and having effective communication with employees,

·????????Cherishing valuable relationship with workers,

·????????Improving employee work-life balance, and

·????????Aligning the interests of the employee with that of the organization.

Work engagement can be viewed as an independent, distinct concept that is sometimes negatively linked to burnout. One of the major drawbacks of employee engagement is the prevalence of burnout.?Schaufeli et al. (2002) stated that there are three types of people working at an organisation; this includes those that are actively disengaged, those that are engaged, and employees who are not engaged. The actively disengaged were unhappy and busy acting out their unhappiness. They work only for the pay check hence they are unmotivated to do their job; they dislike their job; waste time; always absent; and they tend to negatively influence their colleagues. The engaged employee is motivated, energised, efficient and reliable. Lastly, the not engaged employee is one who puts in minimum effort. They basically go through the motions.

According to CIPD (2022), the key domains of employee wellbeing include; good physical health, decent work, value or principle, collective or social health, personal growth, good lifestyle choices, and financial wellbeing. This alludes to the fact that employee wellbeing is capable of nurturing heightened levels of engagement which in turn lead to better organisational performance. Gallup undertook research on the state of engagement and wellbeing (Engage for Success, 2014; Gallop, 2013). This was conducted by systematically studying workplaces in 140 countries (2011-2012). The findings were published in 2013. In their document, The State of the Global Workplace, there are regional and country-level analyses and insights regarding the impact of engagement on individual and organisational performance. A significant section of Gallup’s report covers the link between wellbeing and engagement. Gallup’s methodology was to use meta-analysis of 263 research studies in 34 countries, and covering nearly 1.4 million employees. Their overall findings were as alarming as in their previous study based on 2009/2010 data. They found that; actively disengaged workers continue to outnumber engaged workers by nearly 2-to-1. This implied that at the global level, work is more often a source of frustration than one of joy and fulfillment. It also means countless workplaces worldwide are experiencing low levels of safety and productivity. ONS (2014) data which aimed at establishing the ‘personal wellbeing’ measure (2012/13) found that 77.0% of employees reported overall satisfaction with their lives in comparison with 75.9% in 2011/12. There were a number of indicators reported in the ONS survey that relate to work, such as overall job satisfaction, and the impact of commuting. In furtherance of this, there were significant factors, such as family and social life, which are not directly related to work. This research indicates that job satisfaction, which is promoted by positive leadership, is an important catalyst in ensuring employee wellbeing. This data is not very conclusive since it does not apportion the exact percentage of influence that leadership has on wellbeing. Family and social life may as well have a bigger impact on employee wellbeing. Many schools of thought agree with this assertion. Over time, it would become possible to extract national data which directly links wellbeing to employee engagement.

Cooper (2014) illustrated how wellbeing and employee engagement influence employee performance. This was based on their own client data covering nearly 1,000 workers across 12 organisations and a range of sectors. It was found that wellbeing significantly strengthened the relationship between employee engagement and performance. Their research article challenged conversional conceptions of employee engagement and introduced the idea of ‘full engagement’; which includes employee wellbeing. In recent times, organisations tend to move away from tracking days lost to sick leave and asking about job satisfaction; instead, they try to focus on finding ways that would help their employees to thrive, lead fulfilling and balanced lives, be more creative, cope with change and be the best ambassadors for their business (Cooper, 2014). Bevan (2010) noted that a growing number of employers, particularly large organisations, were institutionalising measures to promote and support health and wellbeing amongst their workforces. This was done in order to improve productivity, commitment and attendance. Harvard Business Review (2013) compiled a report pertaining to a survey of more than 550 executives. It was established that 71% of respondents ranked employee engagement as very important to achieving organisational success. Although less than 50% of respondents said that their organisations are effectively measuring employee engagement against business performance metrics such as customer satisfaction and increased market share. This statistic illustrates that most organisations are not aware of the exact percentage that employee engagement contributes to organisational performance. Soane et al. (2013) analysed data from 625 people working in the U.K. The evidence showed that meaningful work leads to lower levels of absenteeism and presenteeism. Leadership is the driving factor which enables employees to identify the meaningfulness of their jobs. Once employees find their jobs meaningful, they would be highly engaged. It could be inferred that the relationship between leadership and engagement is strengthened by wellbeing.

?

?

CONCLUSION

This article makes a compelling argument that sustainable organisational performance is not possible without positive levels of employee engagement and wellbeing. In effect, there is clear evidence which supports the notion that improving wellbeing increases engagement and organisational performance. The integrated model of engagement shows that leadership is the facilitator of worker engagement. The link between leadership, engagement and wellbeing has been shown. Researchers and business executives agree that there is a significant increase in organisational performance when employee wellbeing is ensured. This is due to the fact that employees tend to give their very best and show higher levels of commitment when their wellbeing is promoted. The only notable drawback of employee engagement could be seen in instances where employees tend to be over-engaged. This is likely to lead to burnout. Hence the right level of engagement is encouraged. Most organisations have noticed that an engaged workforce leads to an increase in productivity. Employees who are engaged are highly motivated to ensure that their organisation prospers. As stated earlier, researches have grouped employees into three; engaged, actively disengaged and not engaged. The actively disengaged were unhappy and work only for the pay check hence they are unmotivated to do their job. They tend to negatively influence their colleagues. The engaged employee is motivated, energised, efficient and reliable, while the not engaged employee is one who puts in minimum effort. They basically go through the motions. It is imperative for every organisation to take all practicable steps to ensure that majority of their workforce is engaged. It is the mandate of employers to help safeguard the wellbeing of their workforce. Most organisations do not actually measure engagement against performance metrics. As a result, it is difficult to know the actual quantum of impact that employee engagement has on performance. It should however be noted that other factors could affect employee wellbeing, factors beyond the organisation’s control. Academic research highlights the need for corporations to provide a better working environment which fosters employee wellbeing. Measures that protect the safety and wellbeing of workers should be put in place to increase employee engagement in order to improve organisational performance.

?

?

?

?

?

?

REFERENCES

Bates, S. (2004). ‘Getting Engaged’, HR Magazine, 49(2), pp. 44-51.

?

Bedarkar, M. & Pandita, D. (2014). ‘A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting Employee Performance’,?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, pp. 106-115.

?

Bevan, S. (2010). The business case for employees’ health and wellbeing: a report prepared for Investors in People UK. London: The Work Foundation.

?

CIPD. (2022). Wellbeing at work: Factsheets. [Online]. Available: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/culture/well-being/factsheet#gref. [Accessed 18 November 20222].

?

Cooper, R. (2014). Good day at work - Annual Report 2014/15. [Online]. Available: https://robertsoncoopermanchester.com. [Accessed 18 November 2022].

?

Gallup. (2013). The State of the Global Workplace – Employee engagement insights for business leaders worldwide. Gallup, Washington DC.

?

Gibbons, J. (2006). ‘Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications', Conference Board, pp. 5-6. ?

Gubman, E. (2004). ‘From Engagement to Passion for Work: The Search for the Missing Person’, Human Resource Planning, pp. 56-55.

?

Harvard Business Review. (2013). “The impact of employee engagement on performance”. Report by HBR Analytics Services. Harvard Business School Publishing: Cambridge, MA.

?

Health and Safety Executive. (2021). HSE Statistics in the U.K., 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.hse.gov.uk [Accessed 19 November 2022].

?

Imandin, L., et al. (2014). ‘A model to measure employee engagement’, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(4-2), pp. 520-532.

?

MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N.?(2014). Engage for Success. Wellbeing and engagement 2014. [Online]. Available: https://engageforsuccess.com [Accessed 21 November 2022].

?

ONS. (2014). Measuring national wellbeing: life in the UK, March 2014. [Online]. Available: https://onslondon.com. [Accessed 19 November 2022].

?

Oxford Dictionary. (2022). Oxford Dictionary 2022 Revised Edition. [Online]. Available: https://oxforddictionary.com ?[Accessed 11 November 2022].

?

Reichheld, F. (2001). The loyalty-based cycle of growth, Harvard Business School Press, pp. 35-36.

?

Rothbard, N. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp. 675-684.

?

Sandling, J. (2015). Leading with style: The comprehensive guide to leadership styles. First edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 18th April 2015, pp. 10-15.

?

Schaufeli, W.B., et al. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.

Soane, E., et al.?(2013). The association on of meaningfulness, wellbeing, and engagement with absenteeism: a moderated mediation model. Human Resource Management, 52(3), pp. 441–456.

?

Waddel, G., & Burton, A.K., (2006). Is Work Good for Your Health and Well-being? [Online]. Available:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214326/hwwb-is-work-good-for-you.pdf [Accessed 18 November 2022].

?

World Health Organisation. (2013). Mental health: a state of wellbeing. [Online]. Available: https://worldhealthorganisation.com [Accessed 18 November 2022].