Unleash engagement in multicultural organisations: Inclusivity as the key to sustainable business transformation

Presentation at 29th International OD Congress

• 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

Rica Viljoen

• 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)

Francois De Kock

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

Layout of presentation

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.

Introduction

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".

Theory on Engagement

Sustainability thorough Inclusivity - energy on all dimensions

OD Interventions

New world of work

Nature of the world

Why we change Essence of Change

New Sciences

We change differently

ConsciousnessOn

Diversity

The Individual

The

Team

The Organisation

How individuals change

How groups change

The What

Context:Industry

South AfricaAfricaGlobal

Leadership

Doing

Being Disconnect

Apathy

Engagement /Commitment

Inclusivity

Organisation

Group

IndividualEQ Journey

Dialoguing

World Cafe

Storytelling

Appreciative Inquiry

Organisational LeadershipTrust

LeadershipWork attributes

State EngagementTrait Engagement

Behavioral Engagement

How organisations change

The way: How we change

MandalaConsulting™

Inclusivity through Engagement – Viljoen (2008)

The

individual

The Team

The

Organisation

Level of

engagement

Assumptions

AboutWe

Assumptions

About They

Assumptions

About Me

and Society Context

National Cultural

Level of Engagement

           

       

           

       

           

       

           

       

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

Benefit of Engagement – Viljoen (2008)

The

individual

The Team

The

Organisation

Assumptions

About We

Assumptions

About They

Assumptions

About Me

Self RegardResilience,

EfficacyPersonal ResponsibilityCorporate Citizenship

Support, Leadership,

Work AttributesValuing Diversity,

Accountability

Trust, Competitiveness,

Adaptability to change,Inclusivity,

Ethics

Within the context of the country:

Factors critical for engagement

• 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

BeQ™ - Benchmark of Engagement Quotient

Case StudyCase Study

• 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.

• 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.

BeQ™ - Primary Objective

Case Study ResultsCase Study Results

BeQ™ - Conducting of Quantitative Research

BeQ™ Model

The

individual

The Team

The

Organisation

Climate Assumptions

About We

Culture Assumptions

About They

World View Assumptions

About Me

Respect, Regard,

Resilience,Responsibility

Safety OrientationProduction orientation

Wellness capacityTrust,

Inclusivity, Ethics

Within the context of the culture/climate:

Level of Voice

BeQ™ Benchmark of Engagement Quotient

Alignment,Support,

Supervisor CapabilityValuing Diversity,

Accountability

Case Study

Case study

High Alignment

Safety Focus

LanguageDiversity

Low WellbeingCapability

High Risk Taking

Decreased Performance

Pride

Unwillingness to Engage

Have voice

Sense of Urgency

Low Confidence

Evident Enablers Outcome Compromisers Manifested Dynamic

InconsistentPerf management

Supervisor ‘s Motivation and

Leadership

Low Acknowledgement

Commitment

Low Belonging

Paralyzed

Focus of BeQ

Mpira mo ho

Focus of BeQ

The story of Case organisation

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

ReasonsShort scales

Negatively phrased

Prelim results (v1): Reliability (α)

Prelim results (v1, I-factor): Factor structure is acceptable

Prelim results (v1 I-factor): Factors structure is acceptable

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.

Concurrent validity: UWES Benchm

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. 692-724. Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. 2002, ‘Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: 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/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-02192009-090759/unrestricted/00thesis.pdf

Questions

?