Transcript Slide 1

Unleash engagement in multicultural organisations:
Inclusivity as the key to sustainable business transformation
Presentation at 29th International OD Congress
Rica Viljoen
•
Doctor in Business Leadership (SBL Unisa)
•
International Organisational Development specialist and practitioner
focusing on optimising individual, group and organisational behaviour
•
Focus on creating Engagement in multi-cultural organisations through
Inclusivity
•
Consulted to and facilitated in various countries e.g. Califoria, Peru,
Australia, Spain, Zambia, Mali, Tanzania, Namibia, Zambia, Ghana
•
Associated with numerous academic institutions as subject matter expert
e.g. da Vinci Institute, SBL – UNISA and Village of Leaders – Stellenbosch
•
Managing Director of Mandala Consulting
Francois De Kock
•
Masters in Commerce (Industrial Psychology), Stellenbosch University
•
PhD Candidate, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Netherlands
•
Lecturer in Strategic Human Resource Management & Psychometrics
•
Industrial Psychologist (HPCSA)
•
Business associate of various organisations in R&D consulting
•
Partnered with Mandala Consulting to do statistical analysis for Benchmark
of Engagement (BeQ) measurement instrument (from 2009)
Layout of presentation
Unleash engagement in multicultural organisations: Inclusivity as the key
to sustainable business transformation
• Introduction
• Theory on Engagement and Inclusivity
• Unleashing tacit potential in systems
• Benefits of Engagement
• Benchmark of Engagement (BeQ)
• Case study: Mine in Africa
• Validation of BeQ
• Next steps of Development of BeQ
• Conclusions
• Questions
Introduction
Unleash engagement in multicultural organisations:
Inclusivity as the key to sustainable business transformation
•
•
•
•
•
•
In today’s competitive, ever changing world, companies strive harder than
ever to implement strategy in a sustainable manner and to stay recent in the
mind of the global consumer.
The people capacity in the system and the interaction between human
entities lead to the “amount of energy” in a system to perform.
This energy can lead to engaged individuals – a situation where the tacit
potential of an individual manifests and is applied to organisational tasks to
the benefit of the individual, the group and the organisation.
Other forms of energy is “apathetic” or “disconnected” with obvious human
losses of human potential.
Engagement leads to organisational benefits such as customer centricity,
productivity, safe behaviour, low turnover and low absenteeism.
Leaders in organisations should understand the art of facilitating employee
engagement.
Theory on Engagement
Employee Engagement is defined (Corporate Leadership
Council, 2004:3) as
the “positive emotional connection to an employee’s work,
thus affective, normative and continuance commitment”
and "a heightened emotional connection that an
employee feels for his or her organisation, that
influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort
to his or her work".
Inclusivity through Engagement – Viljoen (2008)
Sustainability thorough Inclusivity - energy on all dimensions
EQ Journey
Dialoguing
Storytelling
Group
State Engagement
Trait Engagement
Behavioral Engagement
Leadership
Work attributes
Organisation
Organisational Leadership
Trust
Individual
OD
Interventions
Appreciative
Inquiry
World
Cafe
The What
Doing
Context:
Industry
South Africa
Africa
Global
Leadership
How individuals change
Engagement /
Commitment
The
Individual
Apathy
Inclusivity
The
Team
Being
Disconnect
The
OrganisationHow organisations change
How groups
change
The way: How we change
Why we change
New world of
work
Essence of Change
New Sciences
Nature of the world
We change differently
Consciousness
On
Diversity
Mandala
Consulting™
Level of Engagement
National Cultural
Assumptions
About
Me
The
individual
Assumptions
About
The
We
Team
Level of
engagement
The
Organisation
Assumptions
About
They
and Society Context
Benefit of Engagement – Viljoen (2008)
Level of
engagement
Correlates directly to:
+
-
Productivity
Abseetism
Retention
Turnover
Employee Satisfaction
Apathy
Creativity and Innovation
Number of incidents
Safe Behaviour
Number of Accidents
Customer experience
Mistakes
Ability to deal with change
Apathy
Factors critical for engagement
Within the context of the country:
The
individual
The
Team
The
Organisation
Assumptions
About
Me
Self Regard
Resilience,
Efficacy
Personal Responsibility
Corporate Citizenship
Assumptions
About
We
Support,
Leadership,
Work Attributes
Valuing Diversity,
Accountability
Assumptions
About
They
Trust,
Competitiveness,
Adaptability to change,
Inclusivity,
Ethics
BeQ™ - Benchmark of Engagement Quotient
•
The BeQ™-model reflects the interplay between assumptions and
perceptions alive and well in organisations around constructs that
contribute to the unleashing of individual voices, potential and gifts.
•
As the organisational, the country climate and worldview also influence
these perceptions, they are also explored.
•
Specific focus on methodology
–
Align Qualitative and Quantitative data
–
World Cafe
–
Story Telling
–
Appreciative Inquiry
–
OD
Case Study
BeQ™ - Primary Objective
•
Understand the underlying mental models of the Case Organisation’s
staff and those withing the departments
•
Explore the relations between perceptions that influence organisational
commitment and the unleashing of individual voices
•
Understand the underlying assumptions as they pertain to the individual,
the various departments and contractor groups, the mine (organisation)
and the greater organisation
•
Determine the level of engagement within the organisation, that will
manifest in optimal productivity and safe behaviour.
Case Study Results
BeQ™ - Conducting of Quantitative Research
BeQ™ Model
Within the context of the
culture/climate:
Level of
Voice
The
individual
The
Team
The
Organisation
World View
Assumptions
About
Me
Respect,
Regard,
Resilience,
Responsibility
Climate
Assumptions
About
We
Alignment,
Support,
Supervisor Capability
Valuing Diversity,
Accountability
Culture
Assumptions
About
They
Safety Orientation
Production orientation
Wellness capacity
Trust,
Inclusivity, Ethics
BeQ™
Benchmark of Engagement Quotient
Case Study
Year on Year growth of engagement per construct
BeQ
Safety Orientation
Wellbeing capacity
Trust
Regard
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Resilience
Respect
Responsibility
Year 1
Accountability
Year 2
Target
Production Orientation
Diversity
Inclusion
Supervision
Ethics
Support
Alignment
Case study
Comparative slide - year 2 versus year 1
Year 1
73
77
76 78
75
67
76
Year 2
82
80
74
69
64 63
62
69
66
81
75
74
71
68
65
63
60
54
66
68
67
63
58
73
68
The story of Case organisation
Sense of Urgency
High Alignment
Focus of BeQ
Supervisor ‘s
Motivation and
Leadership
High Risk Taking
Safety Focus
Low
Acknowledgement
Mpira mo ho
Inconsistent
Perf management
Pride
Low
Belonging
Paralyzed
Low Confidence
Commitment
Have voice
Language
Diversity
Focus of BeQ
Evident Enablers
Low Wellbeing
Capability
Outcome Compromisers
Decreased
Performance
Unwillingness to
Engage
Manifested Dynamic
Predicting individual engagement at the case organisation
I_ENGAGEMENT =
.16*SUPERVISOR_CAPABILITY + .123*TRUST+ .1055EXPAT_LOCAL
• Individual engagement could be predicted from perceptions of
supervisor capability, trust and expat-local relationships.
• The drivers of engagement were analysed for every department;
they were different for each environment.
Drivers of engagement in Case Organisation
Mind the gap!!!!
Analysis, conclusions and reports
•
Once research is complete our research consultants undertake full data
verification and oversee collation and input.
•
Data analysis follows, as well as cross-referencing, interpreting and
presenting of the findings and conclusions into a full report, including
recommendations for alterations and improvements for the future.
•
Our consultants can also be called upon to undertake presentations to key
audiences if required.
•
Translation to all that have partaken in the study.
•
Joint action planning to determine corrective actions.
•
Organisational design report to improve climate is presented.
Validation process
•
What are the goals we have in mind with the measures?
•
What is the broad research approach?
•
What is the standard procedure we follow with data analysis?
•
What are our preliminary results?
•
What are the lessons we have learned?
•
What are our next steps?
Statistical goals
•
We want to trust the meaning of our test scores (i.e., validity in all its forms)
•
Reliable measurement (internal consistency of α = .80, Nunnally, 1978)
•
Simple structure in terms of dimensionality
•
Measure must predict important outcomes
•
Long enough for above, but short enough to be comfortable for client
respondent
Broad research approach
• Internal
properties?
• Core items
• Benchmarking
BEQ v1
BEQ v2
• Internal
properties?
• Benchmarking
• Related to
important
outcomes?
• Model fit?
BEQ vBase
BEQ language
Versions
• Equivalence
• Norm database
Prelim results (v1): Reliability (α)
Reasons
Short scales
Negatively phrased
Highest
(+- .79)
Lowest
(+- .34)
Target
.80
Prelim results (v1, I-factor): Factor structure is
acceptable
Prelim results (v1 I-factor): Factors structure is
acceptable
Concurrent validity: UWES Benchm
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short
questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Preliminary results
Descriptive statistics: factors
Factor intercorrelations
Predictors of engagement
Predictors of engagement
Drivers Org #1
Drivers Org #2
Next steps in development
•
Analyse psychometric properties (v2) in pilot administration
•
Administer v2 to client organisation
•
Last refinements to produce Base version
•
Write test manual and administration guide
•
Assess relation of scores to outcome-measures
•
Cross-validation of model
•
Develop other language versions
•
Assess construct equivalence
•
Develop norm-database
Lessons we have learned
•
Drivers of engagement are sample specific, but supervisor capability plays
dominant role
•
Marry quantitative and qualitative approaches
•
Instruments are stable in African context
•
Analyse psychometric properties as evidence of your quality of
measurement
References
Agarwala, T. 2003, ‘Innovative human resource practices and organisational
commitment: An empirical investigation’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 175-197.
Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. 1990, ‘The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organisation’, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. 1986, ‘Dual commitment and labour- management
relationship climates‘, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 31-50.
Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. 1983, ‘Organisational commitment: Individual and
organisational influences‘, Work and Occupations, vol. 10, no.2, pp. 123-146.
Baruch, Y. & Winkelmann-Gleed, A. 2002, ‘Multiple commitments: A conceptual
framework and empirical investigation on a Community Health Service Trust‘,
British Journal of Management, vol. 13, pp. 337-357.
Benson, J. 1998, ‘Dual commitment: Contract workers in Australian manufacturing
enterprises’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 355-375.
Bishop, J.W. Dow Scott, K. & Burroughs, S.M. 2000, ‘Support, commitment, and
employee outcomes in a team environment’, Journal of Management, vol. 26, no.
6, pp. 1113-1132.
Blau, P.M. 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, New York.
References
Chang, K. & Chelladurai, P. 2003, ‘Comparison of Part-time workers and Full-time
workers: Commitment and citizenship behaviours in Korean sport organisations’,
Journal of Sport Management, vol. 17, pp. 394-416.
Crabtree, S. 2005, ‘Engagement keeps the doctor away‘, Gallup Management
Journal, January 13, pp. 1-4.
Deery, S.J. & Iverson, R.D. 1998, ‘Antecedents and consequences of dual and
unilateral commitment: A longitudinal study‘, The University of Melbourne,
Department of Management working paper number 1, January 1998.
Echols, M.E. 2005, ‘Engaging employees to impact performance‘ Chief Learning
Officer, February, pp. 44-48.
Eisenberger, R. Fasolo, P & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990, ‘Perceived organisational
support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation‘, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 51-59.
Eisenberger, R. Huntington. R. Hutchinson, S. & Sowa, D. 1986, ‘Perceived
organisational support‘, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 500-507.
Gouldner, A.W. 1960, ‘The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, vol.
25, no. 2, pp. 165-178.
Greenfield. W.M. 2004, ‘Decision making and employee engagement‘, Employee
Relations Today‘, Summer, pp. 13-24.
Gubman, E. 2004, ‘From engagement to passion for work: The search for the
missing person‘, Human Research Planning, pp. 42-46.
References
Harter, J.K. Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. 2002, ‘Business- unit- level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta analysis‘, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268-279.
Kahn, W.A. 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work‘, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692724.
Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. 2002, ‘Employee engagement and manager selfefficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development‘, Journal of
Management Development, vol. 21, 5, pp. 376-387.
May, D.R. Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. 2004, ‘The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, PP. 11-37.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. 2008. ‘The meaning of employee engagement’ ,
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, vol, 1, pp 3-30.
McDade, S. & McKenzie, A. 2002, ‘Knowledge workers in the engagement
equation’, Strategic HR Review, vol. 1, 4, pp. 34-37.
Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. 1991, ‘A three component conceptualisation of
organisational commitment’, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 1, pp.
61-89.
References
Mowday, R.T. Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. 1979, ‘The measurement of
organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 14, pp. 224-247.
Mueller, C.W. Wallace, J.E. & Price, J.L. 1992, ‘Employee commitment: Resolving
some issues‘, Work and Occupations, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 211-236.
Porter, L.W. Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, P.V. 1974, ‘Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 603-609.
Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. 1986, Handbook of organizational measurement,
Pitman Publishing, INC, Massachusetts.
Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. 1981, ‘A causal model of turnover for nurses‘, Academy
of Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 543-565.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. 2004, ‘The drivers of employee
engagement‘, Institute of Employment Studies, Report 405.
Viljoen, R.C. 2008, ‘Sustainable organisational transformation through
inclusivity’, DBL dissertation. Available online www://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETDdb/theses/available/etd-02192009-090759/unrestricted/00thesis.pdf
Questions
?