Abstract: A focus on how a lack of employee engagement correlates to the organizational problem The primary organizational problem of employee engagement highlights a specific focus on how evaluating the theory of self-efficacy though academic literature shows a clear empirical correlation in how employee engagement is tied intimately together with job satisfaction.
Mulki, Lassk & Jaramillo (2008) give a good perspective in how self-efficacy theory is explored within an organization and how this organizational theory would serve both the employee and the company well with implication that within a salesperson’s job the theory can be applied to solve the problem. It was noted in the article how the theory of self-efficacy can serve as a fundamental organizational theory to enhance job satisfaction and solve the issue of job satisfaction.
“There are individual factors that may explain the way salespeople perceive and welcome the challenge how they respond to their job roles and workloads. This research note and suggests that one such factor is self-efficacy. For instance, two salespeople might receive an identical request from engagement: “complete ten sales calls in a week.” Although the request (objective workload) is identical, a salesperson with low self-efficacy may find the task unbearable and highly stressful, whereas a self-efficacious salesperson may perceive it as reasonable and not stressful, and he or she may even welcome the challenge” (Mulki, Lassk & Jaramillo,
2008, p. 226).
Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to produce designated levels of performance. Mulki, Lassk & Jaramillo (2008) further research how Self-efficacy is also a measure of an employee’s confidence in his or her abilities to produce personal resources and deploy an appropriate response strategy to address job situations within their locus of control. If a salesperson is given the same job as their co-worker, why does one feel as though they can accomplish the job without any problem, while the other is struggling and having difficulties? The theory of self-efficacy can solve the problem, however an organization through their structure, training and ultimately their leadership help an employee reach designated levels of performance. An organization which does not realize the importance of self-efficacy will not totally engage the employee since they have not allowed the employee to reach their full potential, therefore not engaging the employee and leading to less job satisfaction. This theory complimented with the other three in relation are the best source of clearly identifying the organizational problem and are appropriate for exploration since it gets to the heart of the problem. Without a clear discovery of the problem and organizational solution cannot be found. These theories help address adequately and define the organizational problem.
Focusing on motivational theories alone may not address the organizational problem
The researcher has observed when a company demonstrates a lack of commitment, however even though the company pay their employees above average there is more than just pay for commitment, and even if an employer engages in the theory of self-efficacy it may not address the challenge of having an engaged and satisfied workforce. “However, researchers sometimes encounter difficulties when attempting to distinguish among different forms of commitment. For example, some forms (e.g., affective and normative commitment) share similar relationships with criteria, while the dimensionality of others (e.g., continuance commitment) is debated” (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010). Self-efficacy may not address the problem since if an employee is not committed to an organization there is nothing else which can be done within the theory of self-efficacy, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need and the Motivation-hygiene factor. These are limited, although they may break open the problem, they are not sufficient alone to address the organizational problem.
As mentioned a strong correlation between the theories of motivation and an organizational development may have a combinational effect which would get to the heart of the organizational problem. The biggest challenge is the leadership and their obstante force on the negative focus on the one-percent. This mindset has to be addressed at the top level. If the CEO is blinded by the depth of the organizational problem and he cannot see clearly there is a problem everyone else too will be in denial. This is where the theories and the proposed OD intervention will not address the organizational problem. Without a paradigm shift in leadership’s perception as well as attitude and focus on the negative one-percent, the organizational problem will never be addressed and it proves the theories presented as null and void as a solution and a shift focus on positive employee engagement.
Employee engagement is not a panacea to job satisfaction
The researchers of , Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T., & Fine, S. (2008), Both, J., & Mann, S. (2005), Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. (2010), reach a consensus of leadership in an organization does have an impact on the characteristics of job satisfaction and employee engagement. Those employees that are engaged compared to those who are not reveal a direct correlation to their job performance. The correlation between unengaged and engaged workers has a direct impact on an organization. Employee engagement is not a panacea to job satisfaction. They also conclude there are other factors which are out of an organizations control which is seen as a hindrance in promoting job satisfaction. An employee’s emotional state or lack of engagement resulting in a poor attitude regarding any job is out of an organizations control and therefore employee engagement is not a panacea to job satisfaction.
All rights reserved (2010) and my not be duplicated or referenced without written permission of author: John Errigo, M.S., by corporate authorization, HODT, Inc. (email@example.com)