EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP

The employee engagement concept is a personal decision according to Vosloban (2013). Organizations cannot force an employee to be engaged (Vosloban, 2013). Although an agreed upon definition has not been provided in the existing literature, it is believed that three basic concepts belong to employee engagement. The first concept is emotional (Vosloban, 2013). The emotional aspect of employee engagement may also tie back to the spiritual aspect of workplace spirituality (Giacalone, 2010). The second concept is behavioral (Vosloban, 2013). The third concept is cognitive engagement (Vosloban, 2013). Vosloban (2013) also wrote that the same factors which engage an employee can also disengage an employee (Vosloban, 2013). Environmental factors and personal factors such as emotions, family, and personality all have potential to positively or negatively impact employee engagement (Vosloban, 2013). Organizational spirituality is seen to have similar vantage points to that of employee engagement. From the company perspective, organizational spirituality includes increased employee commitment, increased employee productivity, increased employee creativity, increased performance, and increased employee retention (Giacalone, 2010). Additional benefits of workplace spirituality according to Giacalone (2010) include enhanced teamwork, increased job involvement, increased sales and profits, decreased employee turnover, decreased absenteeism, and having an effect directly on the bottom line. With so many positive effects for the organization, this phenomenon is gaining wide attention from company owners, business executives, and leaders across the globe. From the employee standpoint, spirituality in the workplace has produced higher levels of job satisfaction, enhanced perception of intuitive abilities and competence, increased innovation, and a feeling of affiliation (Giacalone, 2010). Organizational spirituality is closely related to one having purpose in life. Having purpose is a fundamental need according to Abraham Maslow (Marques, 2010). The self-actualization level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicate that people need to have morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, a lack of prejudice, and an acceptance of facts (Marques, 2010). Servant leadership is thought to be an instrumental concept in increasing employee engagement. The term servant leadership was first coined by Robert Greenleaf in 1977 (Berger, 2014). Servant leadership is still an emerging concept and scholars have not agreed on a servant leadership theory; however, much effort has been made towards the construction of the theory. According to Berger (2014), the servant leadership community is in need of constructing a strong theory and evaluation for servant leadership. Berger (2014) wrote that servant leadership is a leadership style that reengages employees by focusing on people. Servant leadership; therefore, is emerging as a theory with the potential to create a positive organizational culture, produce socially responsible organizations, and cultivate engaged employees (Berger, 2014).

Robert Greenleaf argued that the purpose of servant leadership is to serve first instead of lead (Berger, 2014). Greenleaf believed that followers of servant leaders would grow as a person and become more autonomous, freer, healthier, and wiser as a result of being served (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders listen receptively, display empathy, heal the self and others, and are aware of their self, their strengths, and their surroundings (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders are persuasive (Berger, 2014). They can conceptualize by looking beyond the day-to-day issues (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders have foresight to learn from the past, understand the present, and forecast the future (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders are also stewards that play a role in holding their organization to a high standard for ethics (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders grow people and are personally committed to developing others (Berger, 2014). Servant leaders also build community and look for ways to improve the areas in which they work (Berger, 2014). Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) examined the following seven constructs of servant leadership: agapao love, altruism, empowerment, humility, serving, trust, and vision. Agapao love is the act of the servant leader to be forgiving, be teachable, display calmness, do what is right, have integrity, and show concern (Dennis, 2005). Altruism is displayed by the servant leaders as one with moral obligation and selfless acts; whereas, the leader puts the needs of the followers before their own needs (Dennis, 2005). Empowerment is displayed by the servant leader whom allows for self-direction and encourages personal growth (Dennis, 2005). Humility is displayed by the servant leader as they focus on others and not on the self, builds others up, refuses to accept credit for others efforts, and exudes a humble demeanor (Dennis, 2005). Serving is a primary characteristic of the servant leader (Dennis, 2005). Trust is the confidence the servant leader displays in others as they exude characteristics of fairness, ethicality, and predictability (Dennis, 2005). Vision is displayed by the servant leader as one that uses collaborative efforts in creating a shared vision for the employees and organization.

Employee engagement is an emerging concept that can aide an organization with absenteeism, attrition, business productivity, customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, individual performance, profitability, and resilience (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Since 1990, employee engagement has received attention; however, an accepted definition has yet to be attained. Bhuvanaiah (2014) provided an extensive list of definitions from empirical research. The phrase employee engagement was first defined by William Kahn in 1990 (Vosloban, 2013). Kahn’s definition of employee engagement is “the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Other researchers defined employee engagement with words or phrases such as someone who is absorbed in their work, adaptive, aware of business context, committed, dedicated, empowered, energized, and engaged (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Further definitions included phrases such as enthused for work, experiencing belief in what they do, experiencing collaboration, experiencing meaningful connections, and experiencing positive emotions (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Bhuvanaiah and Raya (2014) shared additional definitions that included words and phrases such as experiencing trust, exuding effort, finding smart ways to add value, focused, and fulfilling a purpose. More definitions in the Bhuvanaiah and Raya (2014) research included words and phrases such as involved, motivated, passionate for work, persistently working towards organizational goals, satisfied with work, vigorous, willingly contributing intellectual effort, and working with colleagues to improve performance.

May, et al (2004) furthered the work of Kahn (1990) to reveal the following three psychological conditions related to employee engagement: availability, meaningfulness, and safety. May, et al (2004) noted that low engagement levels of community, control, fairness, reward, values, and workload could result in burnout. Maslach, et al (2001) noted that employees with low levels of employee engagement are more likely to experience cynicism and exhaustion. There are various levels of employee engagement, according to the Blessing White Organization (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The engaged are followers that are highly productive (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The almost engaged are followers that are reasonably productive and content with their job (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The honeymooners and hamsters are highly satisfied with their job title and their employer; however, they have low contribution levels (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The crash-burners are followers that are highly productive and contribute the maximum level; however, they are not happy with their own success (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The disengaged are discontent followers with a negative outlook for the organization (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Gallup (2013) also identified various levels of engagement to include simply: (1) engaged, (2) not engaged, and (3) disengaged (Bhuvanaiah, 2014).

To improve employee engagement, Bhuvanaiah (2014) documented several strategies for leaders to manage in their organizations. The first strategy is to manage stress through prioritizing tasks, controlling work load burdens, empowering employees to manage their work, and recognizing the quality of the followers involved in the team (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The second strategy is to promote employee well-being. Every human being has physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual needs. When those needs are met, employees feel a sense of safety, trust, and well-being (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). Improving employee well-being at work promotes high levels of employee engagement (Bhuvanaiah, 2014). The third strategy is to facilitate self-management. Selfmanagement is possible when followers understand the meaningfulness of their task, have clarity of their purpose, are provided with clear objectives, are able to achieve their task, and can seek opportunities for improvement (Bhuvanaiah, 2014).

Wiley (2013) wrote that common components of employee engagement include a willingness to exert discretionary effort, commitment, employee alignment with organizational goals, enthusiasm for work, and organizational pride. To measure employee engagement, Wiley (2013) examined four elements: advocacy, commitment, pride, and satisfaction. Wiley (2013) explained that the reason to examine these four elements of employee engagement is simple. A follower with high levels of employee engagement is proud and satisfied with their firm as an employer (Wiley, 2013). The engaged follower advocates for their firm (Wiley, 2013). The engaged follower is also content with their workplace and intends to remain employed by the organization (Wiley, 2013). Wiley (2013) noted that the top ways to improve employee engagement are displaying confidence in the firm’s future, displaying organizational support for work/life balance, ensuring leadership communicates a motivating vision, ensuring that safety is a priority, having a promising future for self, having excitement about one’s work, having opportunity for growth and development, making quality and improvement top priorities, and prioritizing organizational corporate responsibility efforts to increase overall satisfaction. Wiley (2013) wrote that the list of ways to improve employee engagement can be reduced to four pillars of employee engagement. The first pillar, according to Wiley (2013) is that leaders inspire confidence in the future. The second pillar is that managers recognize employees and emphasize quality and improvement as top priorities (Wiley, 2013). The third pillar is that work is exciting and there are opportunities to grow and develop (Wiley, 2013). The fourth pillar for employee engagement is that firms demonstrate a sincere responsibility to their employees and the communities where they operate.

A leader with vision has the ability to foresee the future. An organization will expect a visionary leader to see the mission and purpose for the business. Patterson (2003) refers to vision as the role of the follower instead of the leader. The leader; instead, understands the goals and interest of the follower and modifies the organization’s procedures to best fit the follower. Additionally, the leader sees the follower as a worthy and valuable person, which the leader is willing to serve.

Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that servant leadership be considered as an instrument to improve employee engagement. The Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI) can provide organizations with a method to assess their leadership and encourage training designed to improve the leader’s tendencies to display agapao love, altruism, empowering, humility, serving, trust, and visionary in their interactions with their followers. The Wiley (2013) employee engagement assessment is also useful to gauge the level of engagement in an organization. Servant leadership and employee engagement are both emerging areas of research and further research is recommended on both topics independently and together. Recommendations for future research include adding industry to the survey demographics to investigate the level of servant leaders and employee engagement in different industries. Further areas to consider would also include examining servant leadership and employee engagement from a cultural perspective. It will be interesting to know if certain cultures are more engaged than others naturally and if certain cultures have a tendency to employ servant leaders than others.

REFERENCES:

Berger, T. A. (2014). Servant Leadership 2.0: A Call for Strong Theory. Sociological Viewpoints, 30(1), 146-167.

Bhuvanaiah, T., & Raya, R. P. (2014). Employee Engagement: Key to Organizational Success. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 11(4), 61-71.

Correlation Coefficient using z-transformation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2015, from https://www.cct.cuhk.edu.hk/stat/other/correlation.htm

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(8), 600-615.

Gallup (2013). How Employee Engagement Drives Growth. Retrieved from https://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/163130/employee-engagement-drivesgrowth.aspx

Gallup (2014). Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now. Retrieved from https://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/166667/five-ways-improve-employeeengagement.aspx

Giacalone, R. & Jurkiewicz, C. (2010). Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Armond, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Marques, J. (2010). Spiritual Considerations for Managers: What Matters Most to Workforce Members in Challenging Times. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 381-390. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0514-1

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 570. (Publication No. 3082719)

Vosloban, R. I. (2013). Employee Engagement Concept - A Theoretical and Practical Approach. Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), 759-765.

Wiley, J. W. (2013). Using Employee Opinions about Organizational Performance to Enhance Employee Engagement Surveys: Model Building and Validation. People & Strategy, 36(4), 38-49.

Williams, F., & Monge, P. R. (2001). Reasoning with statistics: How to read quantitative research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers

Winston, B. (2002). Be a leader for God’s sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University School of Leadership Studies.

Written by: Junaid Jabbar