Two similar investigations conducted by the CIPD (CIPD, 2011) over a period
of six consecutive months into the reasons for individuals deciding to change
their job have produced contrasting results. Whilst the previous quarter
investigation had revealed that the main cause for individuals deciding to leave
their employer was essentially related with the lack of intangible benefits
provided by their job, and hence with job satisfaction, the following study showed
that job satisfaction, as the main reason for employees making the decision to leave
their employer, had been replaced with the need to receive a higher pay and more
generous, valuable benefits (CIPD, 2011). This change in individual
predilections apparently marked a shift from individual preference for intangible
to tangible rewards.
Despite, as claimed by Hemsley (2011), the findings of these
investigations suggest that individuals are ready to sacrifice job satisfaction
for more generous pay and benefits, this does not necessarily entails that
employers can successfully keep their staff “engaged with benefits.” As pointed
out by the CIPD (2011), these results rather provide evidence that the key
driver and motivator for individuals deciding to leave their current employer
is to receive a more significant reward package, rather than to enhance their satisfaction
at work, which has at worst nothing and at best little to do with motivation in
general.
The findings of the CIPD investigation are indeed coherent and
consistent with the results produced by a similar survey conducted by the
National Training Awards (2010). Something like 76 percent of the respondents to
this survey actually admitted that when looking for a new job their major aim is that to
receive a more valuable financial
reward package. The investigation also revealed that just a relatively meagre 32 percent of the participants
maintained to be motivated by money to perform well in their job. This study hence clearly stresses and effectively highlights the difference
existing between the two separate aspects: motivation to change a job and
motivation in the workplace.
In order to consistently and properly investigate the subject it is
absolutely important to avert any possible type of mix-up. To this extent a
clear definition of and distinction between the terms engagement, motivation
and commitment can definitely reveal to be useful.
Motivation
As suggested by Armstrong (2009), motivation can be defined as an
objective-directed behaviour. A motive basically represents a reason, or
rather, the reason for an individual doing something (formulation which at
large essentially corresponds with the definition of “motive” provided by both
the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries).
Either it is the case of self-motivation or of motivating other people,
individuals tend to feel genuinely motivated only when what is required from
them is likely to enable them to attain an objective and something they value, that
is to say a reward at large (Armstrong, 2009). In order to fulfil their purpose,
individuals will be invariably ready or motivated to exercise and engage in
discretionary behaviour.
Engagement
The term engagement, with specific reference to the business world and
more in particular as regards employee engagement, has actually been defined in
many ways over time. All of the formulations provided so far can be
nevertheless grouped into two main types of definitions: one which associates
engagement with the organization, the other which directly links engagement to the
activities performed by an employee.
The former definition basically associates engagement with the
individual sense of belonging. Amongst the advocates of this type of
formulation can be mentioned the US Conference Board, which defines engagement
as the “heightened connection” which individuals feel for their employer (US
Conference Board, 2006) and the British Institute for Employment Studies’ (IES),
which describes an engaged individual as someone who believes in and identifies
with his/her organization (Robinson et al, 2004).
According to the majority of the definitions hitherto formulated, notwithstanding,
the concept of employee engagement is much more concerned with the job and
concepts like performance and discretionary behaviour, rather than with the
organization. Individuals can be indeed engaged with their job, but not
committed to their organization, whereas committed employees are not
necessarily engaged (Armstrong, 2009). As claimed by Armstrong (2009), the employees’
sense of belonging and feeling of identification with their organization should
be more aptly linked to the term commitment.
Murlis and Watson (2001) refer to engagement in
the self-explanatory sense of “engaged performance”, where organizational
success is achieved by means of employee enthusiasm, stimulation and positive
behaviour. Towers Watson (2007) suggests that staff engagement emerges and
depends on the extent individuals “put discretionary effort in their work,
beyond the minimum to get the job done.”
It can be agreed with Armstrong that, albeit the concept of engagement is incline to be interpreted in several ways, more strictly associating it with the idea of organizational commitment may actually leave room for doubt about its real and widely recognized meaning. The idea nowadays most broadly associated with engagement is typically job-related. Engagement seen from the employer perspective should hence be considered as the bundle of activities and initiatives planned and implemented by this in order to:
- Encourage the individuals’ positive approach to their job;
- Induce employees’ discretionary behaviour and efforts;
- Prepare individuals to go the extra mile.
Since it is also widely recognised that individual
behaviour is of paramount importance for an organization to achieve its intended
objectives and ultimately attain competitive edge, the activities which employers
co-ordinate to boost employee engagement should also strive, in alignment with
the overall business strategy, to foster the behaviour they desire to be
exhibited by individuals.
Commitment
The idea of commitment, which should build up during the development of
a HRM philosophy, is most appropriately associated with the meaning of organizational
citizenship (Armstrong, 2009). Commitment is what essentially accounts for an
individual be proud to work for a particular organization and develop in turn a
strong sense of belonging. Porter et al (1974) suggest that commitment relates
to the extent of an individual identification with, and involvement in, a particular
business.
The notion of commitment outlined so far is generally referred to as
“attitudinal commitment”, whereas the type of conduct mostly associated with
staying with an organization and continue to contribute to the pursuance of its
aim is more commonly referred to as “behavioural commitment” (Torrington et al,
2008).
The concept of commitment is indeed the object
of diverging and contrasting opinions; especially as for what concerns the
actual existence of a direct link between commitment and performance. Whilst a
number of Authors do recognise the existence of this link (Walton, 1985; Iles,
Mabey and Robertson, 1990; Guest, 1998; Marchington and Zagelmeyer, 2005) in
fact others (Meyer and Allen, 1997) emphasize the lack of evidence in support
of this alleged direct cause-effect relationship. Cooper and Hartley (1991)
suggest that commitment, reducing flexibility and inhibiting creative problem
solving, could indeed jeopardize organizational performance.
Can benefits and
reward help?
Having investigated the meaning of engagement, commitment and motivation,
it can be now tried the exercise aiming at exploring whether the benefits
included by employers in their value proposition can actually help these to
engage, motivate and commit to the business their employees.
Benefits, reward and
motivation
The findings of the CIPD and National Training Award investigations mentioned
above can actually help to answer the question. Both studies suggest that
individuals place great emphasis on financial reward when looking for a new job
so that in the event an individual should receive more than one job offer it is
very likely that this will opt for the one associated with the most generous reward
package. Financial reward would clearly be in this case the “motive” for an
individual accepting a particular job offer or the motive for deciding amongst
a number of offers which one to accept. But can actually benefits and reward be
considered effective motivators in the workplace?
Taking heed of the definition of motivation it clearly emerges that
individuals behave and act in a particular way to achieve a result, that is to
say an objective. In this instance, discretionary behaviour is not a means in
itself but a means to an end, namely a reward. Considered as such tangible rewards
and benefits may be regarded as motivators, individuals are likely to make
extra efforts and perform better in order to attain the intended result: a
bonus, a valued benefit, a pay increase or a cash supplement at large. Financial
rewards can thus be considered as effective motivators in the short-term, to
wit: for the period of time necessary for an individual to achieve his/her
immediate end. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that employers could effectually motivate
employees in the mid and long run by just relying on the effects yielded by financial
rewards. This being the case, in a bid to pursue their intended objective, these
should constantly resort to the carrot and stick approach, which would not be a
big issue on its own but for the fact that this method would very shortly
reveal to be extremely expensive and, as such, unsustainable over time.
Financial rewards are hence ultimately likely to
enable businesses to attain some positive results, but only in the short run.
Perhaps, this method could be occasionally used, for instance, in those cases
in which employers have to confer particularly sensitive and delicate assignments
to their best employees. Some of them could feel motivated by the fact of having
been deemed as the most suitable employees for the assignment and by the circumstance
that the employer is confident that these will yield the expected results; this
is indeed the case of intangible rewards. By contrast, some other individuals
may feel mostly motivated by tangible rewards. Under these circumstances, a mix
of the two approaches should indeed reveal to be the most effectual method to
produce the best results.
As a general rule, completely underestimating the effect and significance
of financial reward would represent a massive blunder; not only during periods
characterised by predominantly grim financial and economic conditions.
Financial reward never is completely irrelevant; as suggested by the
Hertzberg’s two-factor theory (1957), it is not a motivator on its own, but an
inadequate and insufficient financial reward package is extremely likely to produce
demotivating effects.
Benefits, reward and
engagement
Considering the concept of engagement as directly linked to the job, rather
than to the organization the most significant reward an individual can obtain
from performing his/her day-to-day activities is clearly mainly related to the
intangible aspect of reward, the type of reward which is essentially inwardly
generated by an individual. Employees find their job and the activities they
perform compelling, significant and fulfilling and this accounts for them
feeling engaged. Discretionary behaviour does not represent a means to an end,
that is to say a financial reward, but the end itself. The reward is
represented by the satisfaction individuals obtain from the job these perform
and the result these yield by their actions. More than a matter of reward it is
hence a matter of self-fulfilment.
In order this to occur, nonetheless, managers have to play their role
and do whatever they can to enable employees to find fulfilment in their job.
Managers can exert engagement on their direct reports by means of job design,
job enrichment, employee involvement and employee empowerment initiatives,
delegating decision making and in general by means of all of the activities
favouring individual personal and professional growth, to wit: offering these learning,
training and development opportunities.
Benefits, reward and
commitment
The benefits package offered by an employer may hence reveal to be useful
to retain its employees, but it sorely depends on the different circumstances
so that the effectiveness of benefits packages as a certain means to retain
staff remains questionable. In contrast, as confirmed by the CIPD and the National
Training Awards investigations, benefits packages can reveal to be useful for
businesses which want to attract new talents from the exogenous environment. Claiming
that reward packages may reveal to be useful to attract new staff, but can produce
limited effects, if any, to retain existing staff may actually sound
contradictory. The different role which benefits packages can play depends
indeed on the overall reward package offered by an employer. Whether, for
instance, an individual should receive in addition to pay only a daily luncheon
voucher, the offer of a similar financial reward package enriched by a company
car, a housing allowance and a complementary pension scheme could make a world
of difference.One of the most, arguably the most, important element and characteristic at the basis of employee commitment is invariably represented by consistency and integrity. Individuals are very sensitive to any discrepancy eventually emerging between what employers communicate and foster on paper and what they actually do in practice. Employers have hence to invariably talk the talk and walk the walk.
The influence of the exogenous environment
The grim financial
exogenous context can clearly make a negative impact on the employees’ mood and
sometimes, albeit inadvertently, these could bring with them to work their
personal problems and feelings. This occurrence may clearly affect their level
of performance; the employer’s support can hence definitely help. Since
employees are prone to forget in the long-term what an employer has done for
them and to keep, by contrast, long-term memory of any even tiny accident, such
a help should absolutely be considered within the array of the initiatives
producing short-term effects. Yet, during downturn and slowdown periods it is
unlikely that employers may afford extra-budget expenses, but this clearly
depends on the different circumstances.
Still
considering the findings of the CIPD study, it must be pointed out that despite
“increase salary/benefits” has been indicated, with 54 percent of preferences,
as the main motivation for individuals wanting to change their job, “increase
job satisfaction”, with 42 percent, “opportunities to learn new things”, with
30 percent and “opportunities for promotion”, with 24 percent, all added
together definitely achieved a remarkable score in favour of the intangible and
non-financial-related reasons for individuals making the decision to leave
their employer (the respondents to the CIPD survey had the latitude to tick more
than one option). The change at the top of the table hence does just represent
the tip of the iceberg and does not really represent the overall result of the
investigation, which still recognises a remarkable and prevailing importance to
the intangible side of reward.
Motivated, engaged and committed employees would clearly perform much
better than individuals who are just motivated or just engaged or just
committed. The combination of the three states would actually yield an ideal synergic,
multiplicative effect, typical of the bundle approach, which is indeed very
tricky to produce in practice.
For an extended version of this article and much, much more click here
