Implementation of a compatibility assessment of the engagement system and the employee motivational profile in company human resources management

Abstract

Object: The object of this study is to develop and test a method for assessing the conformity of a system of an employee's engagement in a company and his motivation profile.

Methods: We have applied methods of sociological survey of company staff and subsequently, performed graphical and statistical analysis of the achieved results (an index method). We also used the matrix method for assessing the identified risks of employee dissatisfaction.

Findings: The results of the study confirm the effectiveness of the index method we propose. It allows conducting regular screening among company staff to identify risk factors for the formation of the employee's “dissatisfaction,” which in the future may get him fired or burn out. This shall allow diagnosing the issue of discrepancies between motivation of the subject and measures for engagement used by the employer. In addition to the index, the authors have developed a risk assessment matrix based on a combination of significance of the factor (and its sub-factors) for the employee and probability (possibility) of the employee's influence on this sub-factor.

Conclusions: The application of the proposed two-stage assessment method shall allow the personnel department to timely diagnose the issue of inconsistencies in the motivational profile and the applied engagement measures for each employee and develop proposals for improving it.

Introduction

Both in theory and in practice, the transition from the personnel management to the human resource management paradigm was associated with the transformation of the attitude towards this resource on the part of managers at all levels (Armstrong, 2006; L0pez-Cotarelo 2018).

At present, specific features of the strategic management of human resources are as follows:

  • Its functional dependence on the corporate strategy adopted for the medium or long-term period;
  • Its coordination with general organizational strategies, such as cultural change, organization development, development of labor relations;
  • Its multi-layer HRM structure that fulfills important functions of providing resources, managing labor performance, managing knowledge, and engaging workers (Delery, Roumpi, 2017).

The “Engagement of human resources” subsystem stands out as one of the most important ones since the activities implemented within its framework have a multi-vector impact on other functional strategies.

By engagement, we understand the process of influencing an employee's motivation to work with a set of tools and mechanisms stimulating the compliance of employee behavior and the results of his activities with corporate strategy (Pritvorova, Tasbulatova, 2018). The tools are as follows: ability diagnosis methods, training technologies, assessment and certification, career plan, horizontal and vertical rotation, etc. The mechanisms are as follows: a reward system, a mechanism for participation in management, an adaptation mechanism, etc. All of these are intended to create effective incentives for the employee to show his best results, i.e. provide a match with his intrinsic motivation to work.

A regular feedback is necessary for this complex system to work effectively, that is, information on how the employee evaluates measures taken against him.

Organization of feedback is possible by various methods, many of which are rather laborious and costly as they require involvement of highly paid professional experts or advice agencies, which is especially difficult for medium and small entities.

We have proposed a method for diagnosing issues in the main engagement areas. If used regularly, this method helps to reveal timely the dissonance between the employee's motivational profile and this system. The advantages of the method in question are ease of implementation, cost-effectiveness and methodological compliance with the principles of risk management (ISO-31000).

The method has been tested and recognized as effective in seven companies in Kazakhstan (including 3 national ones).

Literature Review

The founding classics of the theory of strategic human resource management are M. Armstrong (Armstrong, 2006), A. Thompson and A. Strickland (Thompson, Strickland, 2003). K. Gilbert (Gilbert, 2015), N. Kinnie and Swart D. (Kinnie and Swart, 2020) and others continue developing this concept. The key idea of this concept is a long-term cooperation between a productive employee and a company based on the constant engagement of his abilities, efforts, and competencies to achieve his goals.

Researchers Ogbonnaya and Messersmith (Ogbonnaya, Messersmith, 2019) believe that the staff engagement system includes three components: skill, motivation and opportunity enhancement.

Recent studies consider the problem of creating a complex of the best motivation for an employee through the prism of his continuous training (Ozkeser, 2019).

The authors recognize the relevance of the analysis of motivational profiles, the formation of clusters with similar profiles and the development of motivational programs (Zamecnik, 2014).

Our study is based on methodological individualism in HR policy, which is gaining increasing recognition and application as we speak; particularly, in the works of S. Chacko S. and N. Conway (Chacko, Conway, 2019).

The research of the last decade is characterized by the use of the term “burnout” of employees. One of the factors affecting it may be a model of human resource management in a company (Shamis, 2016).

The dominant idea of all research in human resources management is its purpose to link the interests of both employee and employer so that the employee's decent work is aimed at implementing the company's strategy and obtaining maximum results (Chulanova, 2020; Abilshaikov, Sartova, Titkov, 2015; Kurmanku- lova, Z. Karbetova, Sh.Karbetova, 2018; Bakirbekova, Kulimanova, 2018).

The main subsystem of the firm, which is directly responsible for the implementation of this idea, is a staff engagement system.

The purpose of the article. To develop a method for assessing the conformity of the engagement system and the motivational profile of an employee to implement it into the firm's human resources management.

Methods

We have applied sociological survey of company staff and subsequently performed a graphical and statistical analysis of the obtained results (an index method), and the matrix method of assessing the identified risks of employee dissatisfaction.

We propose the following sequence of evaluations:

Stage 1. Complete annual examination of all company staff.

Six aggregated factors of staff engagement (disclosed below) are evaluated by two characteristics:

  1. The significance (importance) of the factor for the employee on a scale from 0 to 100 % (a motivation scale);
  2. Employee's own estimate of the factor in reality on a scale from 0 to 100 %.

Stage 2. Calculation of the compliance index for each employee according to formula 1.

I = J∑ (( - R ) (1)

where

I is the compliance index of the engagement system and the motivational profile of employee n;

V is the significance (importance) of the j factor for employee n on a scale from 0 to 100 %;

R is the employee estimate of the j factor in reality on a scale from 0 to 100 %;

j is the number of aggregated factors from 1 to 6.

For each factor and index value, a deviation level is set that each company can preset independently.

If a deviation level of 20 % is considered normal, then negative deviations by a factor on a larger value shall be assessed as uncomfortable and forming dissatisfaction by this factor.

The discrepancy between the values is felt as uncomfortable and a discrepancy with the employee's motivational profile, which creates dissatisfaction in him, but can also contribute to the genesis of the risk of emotional burnout or dismissal.

Index values of 20 or more also indicate an employee's general dissatisfaction with the system.

The index can be calculated by unit and company as a whole, which again shall be the basis for further analysis by now specific factors.

Stage 3. If the employee's responses reveal factors he is not satisfied with, then we propose compilation of a risk matrix on a factor that creates dissatisfaction. When the risk is identified as “significant” or “unacceptable”, measures are to be developed to reduce or neutralize it. We propose the following form of the matrix (see Table 1).

Table 1. The matrix for assessing the risk of employee dissatisfaction genesis by a specific sub-factor of the engagement system

Possibility of impact on the sub-factor (event probability)

High degree of impact

Medium degree of impact

Low degree of impact or impact possibility is non-existent

Sub-factor value for the employee

Significant

0 — No risk*

1 — Minor risk

3 — Unacceptable risk

Moderately significant

0 — No risk

0 — No risk

2 — Major risk

Insignificant

0 — No risk

0 — No risk

0 — No risk

*Risk is a combination of the value (importance for the employee) of the factor and the ability to influence it

Note: Made up by authors

Based on the results of the assessment, a list of measures should be determined for the employee in question on the possible prevention, neutralization or compensation of risks.

We have conducted the study in seven Kazakhstani companies, including three bearing the national status. For the national companies, we have conducted a survey in one of the units (cluster sampling) and a continuous survey in small companies.

Results

We believe the human resources engagement system to consist of three main blocks:

- motivation and reward systems;

- human resource development;

- relationship system in the firm.

Each block includes several factors. Factors are aggregated, i.e. there is a whole group of sub-factors inside each of them. In practice, each of these sub-factors can be considered separately.

Indeed, relationship system in the firm presumes taking into account five or more factors, each of which may include one or more sub-factors. For example, participation in management presumes allocation of at least three levels: at own workplace, at the unit level, and at the company level. Each of them is presented as a subfactor.

Similar to the previous example, the factor “opportunities for developing skills and competencies” may include such sub-factors as availability of further qualification courses, availability of workshops for mastering new technologies at the workplace, possibility of abroad internship, availability of educational programs for self-study, etc.

We propose a method for assessing the conformity of the applied engagement model and employee's motivational profile in the form of an index calculated using a fairly simple formula 1.

This method can be applied both by the company itself and by independent appraisers during an audit (Litvinjuk, 2018).

The advantages of the method are as follows:

A small number of assessed factors that form employee's positive attitude towards high results of his work;

Obtaining individual conformity assessments that allow to see engagement problems associated with the psychological mismatch of the employee's activity stimulation system and his personal motivational profile;

Calculation of group assessments, which allow to identify and characterize the engagement system at the unit level and highlight the problems typical for all the unit staff.

Relative simplicity of the scales used for the employee and the simplicity of index calculation.

According to the modern methodology of human resource management and taking into account the results of our empirical research among the aggregated factors included in those engaging, we have identified the following ones:

1) fair assessment of labor contribution / adequate remuneration;

2) career opportunities;

  1. opportunities for the development of skills and competencies, i.e. professional growth;
  2. stable employment or safety motive as minimization of the risk of job loss;
  3. participation in the management of the process and results at the workplace (degree of freedom in resolving issues of own workplace), in a unit, in a company;
  4. relationship system in the firm.

In fact, the heads of human resources management departments can take even larger number of factors to assess compliance, but each of them must be clearly positioned so that the employee could distinguish them. Excessive detail at this stage is ineffective, because the task of this stage is to identify major issues, and if necessary, further clarify the picture by sub-factors.

Engaging factors are recognized by the employee as they affect his behavior at the workplace. A number of factors are of great importance to him, and he may not notice a number of factors at all. In any case, subjectively, the employee can determine the result of each of the six factors listed above both as psychologically comfortable or uncomfortable.

If we use a relative scale in points or other units to measure the importance (or significance) of each of the six aggregated factors for an employee, he is able to determine the real deviation from the “importance” of the factor in one direction or another easily enough.

This means that if the importance (significance) of the remuneration system for the employee is 100 %, and the real assessment of the current system is estimated as fair by 80 %, then the deviation is 20 % percentage points.

We propose using the principle applied in statistical calculations of standard deviation for the assessment of the conformity of the employee's engagement system and his motivation.

As is commonly known, the standard deviation is defined as the square root of the variance of a random variable. At the same time, the deviation of the true value of a random variable and its estimation using a certain estimation method is also referred to as the standard deviation 18 (Ivchenko, Medvedev, 2010). In a general sense, standard deviation allows to characterize the deviation of the indicators in the sample from the average value. In our case, it is the average deviation of the ideal and actual values for this particular individual. A similar conclusion can be made for the unit or the firm as a whole.

We shall use the deviation of the employee's actual estimates of the factors included in the engagement system from their optimal values determined subjectively by each employee. The ideal system of engaging workers gives a value of zero in calculations, but it is obvious that in practice this hardly ever happens.

The results of the study are presented on the materials of two cases: JSC “National Company Kazakh- stanTemirZholy” (hereinafter referred to as JSC “NC KTZ”) and in SF “Zamandas 21”.

The results for the first object of study (a subdivision of JSC “NC KTZ”) are shown in tables 2 (stage 1: initial data collection) and 3 (stage 2: estimated data on the compliance index).

We have adopted a scale of percent so that the index values are convenient for use, i.e. obtained by integers in the range from 0 to 40.

We take the minimum value of the index equal to 0, but if there is a deviation in at least one of the factors by 10 %, then the index value shall be 4.

In the range from 0 to 20, index values shall be considered normal, and the engagement system effective.

A value of 20 is obtained when, for all factors, the deviation is 20 percentage points. In fact, the maximum value can be set expertly, and if the system is to improved further, the value can be set at a different level.

For the majority of the company unit staff, the engagement system is psychologically comfortable, i.e. they perceive deviations for individual factors as permissible.

An index value of more than 20 has been recorded for four subjects in the sample.

In subject No. 4, deviations significant for him can be seen in the factors “Fair remuneration” and “Safety from dismissal.” Based on these factors, it is possible to carry out in-depth clarification of the sub-factor content of each of the factors. For example, the remuneration factor implies at least financial and non-financial remuneration, and each of these sub-factors is decomposed into several more positions.

Table 2. Initial results of the assessment (audit) of the compliance of the individual motivational profile and the staff engagement model used in the firm

Subjects

Significance (importance) of the factor for the subject

Subject's assessment of the factor in reality

Factors

Factors

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

100

90

60

80

70

100

90

80

80

70

60

90

2

100

80

70

90

80

90

80

70

60

80

50

80

3

80

70

50

70

90

80

70

60

60

80

70

70

4

100

80

90

90

60

70

60

60

80

60

60

70

5

100

90

70

100

80

60

70

50

90

90

70

60

6

90

60

80

100

30

80

80

100

70

90

30

70

7

100

70

90

80

90

90

90

60

80

80

60

80

8

100

80

100

60

60

80

70

90

100

50

50

80

9

100

90

90

70

70

100

80

80

80

60

60

90

10

100

60

100

90

80

90

90

50

90

80

90

80

11

90

90

60

100

90

80

70

80

50

90

80

80

12

100

80

70

90

60

70

80

60

60

80

50

70

13

100

70

50

100

80

80

80

60

60

90

80

60

14

100

80

90

60

90

60

90

70

80

60

90

50

15

100

90

70

80

80

40

90

80

60

70

80

40

16

90

60

80

60

90

60

70

50

80

60

80

50

17

100

70

90

70

100

80

90

60

70

50

50

70

18

100

80

100

60

100

90

90

70

90

80

60

80

19

100

90

90

80

80

70

80

80

90

70

50

60

20

100

60

100

90

70

90

70

70

100

50

50

90

Total

1950

1540

1600

1620

1550

1560

1590

1380

1530

1440

1270

1420

Average

97.5

77

80

81

77.5

78

79.5

69

76.5

72

63.5

71

Note: Made up by authors based on the results of the study conducted within a JSC “NC KTZ” unit

Table 3. The index of compliance of the employee's engagement system and his motivation

Subjects

Deviation of a factor's real assessment from its level of significance for a subject

The index of compliance of the employee's engagement system and his motivation

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

-10

-10

20

-10

-10

-10

12

2

-20

-10

-10

-10

-30

-10

17

3

-10

-10

10

10

-20

-10

12

4

-40

-20

-10

-30

0

0

22

5

-30

-40

20

-10

-10

0

23

6

-10

40

-10

-10

0

-10

18

7

-10

-10

-10

0

-30

-10

15

8

-30

10

0

-10

-10

0

14

9

-20

-10

-10

-10

-10

-10

12

10

-10

-10

-10

-10

10

-10

10

11

-20

-10

-10

-10

-10

0

12

12

-20

-20

-10

-10

-10

0

14

13

-20

-10

10

-10

0

-20

14

14

-10

-10

-10

0

0

-10

8

15

-10

-10

-10

-10

0

0

8

16

-20

-10

0

0

-10

-10

11

17

-10

-10

-20

-20

-50

-10

24

18

-10

-10

-10

20

-40

-10

20

19

-20

-10

0

-10

-30

-10

16

20

-30

10

0

-40

-20

0

22

Total

-360

-160

-70

-180

-280

-140

-

Average deviation

-18

-8

-3.5

-9

-14

-7

11

Note: Made up by authors based on the calculation results

93

For the subject No. 5, the zone of psychological tension is formed by the factors of “fair remuneration” and “career growth opportunities.” Now, with the second factor discomfort is even more pronounced than with the first one. Since HR managers often use career opportunities as a non-financial component of fair remuneration, it is probably better to consider the issue more closely on the second factor and, if possible, ease the tension if the employee has the corresponding potential and value for the company. In addition, the low importance of professional growth and advanced training is noted for the subject.

This, most likely, suggests that at this stage he gained the necessary skill, because he appreciates the real opportunities to increase it in this firm; they exceed the significance of this factor for him at this stage. The psychological profile of the subject suggests that, based on the skill he has gained, he expects a career advancement, but does not see an opportunity for him in this firm. In addition, he is not satisfied with the reward system. Apparently, the subject's inconsistency between the employee's engagement system and his motivational profile is growing, which may lead to his dismissal. We have been identifying such cases in the course of a case analysis in JSC “NC KTZ,” which currently is restricted on increasing financial remuneration of its staff. As a result, HR experts are ready to justify the appointment of an employee to the position of manager for the sake of increasing his salary as a key expert may leave the company. At the same time, the employee does not always associate career promotion with a managerial position, especially if he does not lean to this type of activity. In this case, the staff officer should look for non-standard solutions for career growth.

For the subject No. 17, the problem is the factor “participation in the management of processes and results at own workplace.” This may have something to do with the fact that the employee has hard functionality and, due to the requirements of technology and the business process, objectively has an insignificant degree of freedom in matters relating to the selection of actions when making decisions at his workplace. This may be related to equipment, technology, work and rest schedules and other objective work parameters. But it may have something to do with excessive control over his activities, which can be weakened to increase employee's satisfaction with the results of his work.

There also may happen such a thing as “emotional burnout,” that is when the employee takes this workplace for a long time and does not see ways to increase satisfaction from his work anymore. In this case, a personnel department officer may consider a number of options ranging from the rotation of the workplace (a possible switch to work in another city or district) to the transition of the employee to the role of a mentor for young or less experienced colleagues. Given that this subject evaluates the importance of participation in the management of the unit and the organization as a whole lower than what participation in management at his own workplace means for him, then, apparently, his involvement in management at other levels does not compensate for his lack of degree freedom at his workplace.

For subject No. 20, the problem is the state of anxiety and the fear of losing his job. This requires an interview on this particular factor and, possibly, as a result of simple management communication, this factor may be weakened. At the same time, it is possible that this feeling is justified and that the employee himself is required to take some measures to strengthen his position in the company. This employee also has an opinion that almost nothing depends on him in the business process that he carries out. The reward system, on which there is also a deviation at the comfortable/uncomfortable border, may convince the employee that he is threatened with an early dismissal.

A graphical representation of the conformity assessment is presented in Figure 1.

Серия «Экономика». № 1(97)/2020

For subjects whose index values were close to the boundary value, i.e. 20, factors can also be studied for which a deviation of more than 20 is noted to introduce possible changes to their engagement system.

When developing such changes for each person, his individual psychogram data should be taken into account, since the problem of a particular person can often be solved by offering him a job in another unit, considering individual characteristics of internal motivation. Accordingly, for subject No. 18 with a borderline index value of 20 and tension over a degree of freedom in the workplace, it is probably better to reduce the degree of control by lengthening the time frame for KPI. That is, to control not by the results of the day or week, but by the results of the month, quarter or six months.

The value of this approach is that it provides an individual diagnosis quickly enough. It is a kind of screening of problems and identifying those workers for whom the engagement system is inadequate, meaning that it does not work as the human resources management service suggests.

Using this method, we can also obtain a general assessment of compliance by department and organization as a whole.

As for the generalized or “average” subject; for him the value of the compliance index calculated by formula 1 is 11, which is a completely correct value. Based on this calculation, we can conclude that the engagement system is generally adequate for this company unit (see Table 4).

At the same time, this gives reason to single out more and less stressful factors within the system. The least stressful factor is No. 3, “Opportunities for the development of skills and competencies, i.e. professional growth”. The average deviation for this factor is -3.5. Apparently, in this firm advanced training is systematical, and most of the staff are completely satisfied with how their professional training is being improved, and they can find accessible forms in this system.

Table 4. The index of compliance of the employee's engagement system and his motivation

Subjects

Deviation of a factor's real assessment from its level of significance for a subject

The index of compliance of the employee's engagement system and his motivation

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 ^

0

10

-20

0

0

10

10

2

20

0

-20

20

10

20

17

3

10

0

-10

0

-10

20

11

4

10

30

0

-40

10

-10

22

5

-10

30

-20

-10

0

-10

16

6

0

30

-10

-10

20

-10

16

7

10

10

-10

20

10

-20

14

8

20

20

0

-20

-10

-30

19

9

0

10

-10

-20

-10

-20

14

10

20

-10

-30

0

-30

-20

21

11

10

20

0

20

-20

0

15

12

0

40

20

0

10

10

19

13

0

30

0

20

-10

20

17

14

10

20

0

-30

0

20

17

15

10

10

0

10

0

30

14

16

10

10

0

-20

0

30

16

17

-10

20

20

-10

-20

20

20

Total

110

280

-80

-70

-50

60

 

Average deviation

6

16

-5

-4

-3

4

8

Note: Made up by author based on the results of the study within SF “Zamandas 21 ”

The tensest one is factor No. 1, “Fair assessment of the labor contribution / adequate remuneration,” the deviation for which is –18, although it is still within the normal range. But compared to other factors, tension on this one is the highest. This requires additional consultations on its improvement in contact with company staff.

The results of the study on PF “Zamandas 21” are presented in table 4.

According to the values in table 4, system does not correspond to the motivational profiles of employees No. 4 and No. 10. Assessment is also borderline for employee No. 17.

For employee No. 4, the problem is in his employment instability, which can be both subjective and objective, and requires aτ HR expert to continue to participate in solving the issue.

For employee No. 10, the problem is in career growth and participation in management at his workplace. Addressing such a situation requires either expanding the responsibility area with increasing freedom, or moving to a higher position in the firm. In this case, it is necessary to seek out a career development option in which the expansion of the degree of freedom at the workplace will be combined with some changes in the career that the employee can assess as positive.

The borderline assessment of employee No. 17 requires the expansion of his participation in managing issues related to freedom at his workplace.

In this organization, the staff engagement system as a whole has a high index value of 8, and the motivational profile of only two employees does not comply with the management methods applied to them. At the whole organization level, the most vulnerable factor is professional development and development of professional skills, but the absolute deviation of this coefficient of by 5 percentage points is very far from the border of 20 %.

If problematic areas are detected in the engagement system that arise for a particular employee, the 3rd stage of the assessment begins which should identify the risk factors for the formation of employee's “dissatisfaction.” It is these factors that can subsequently become the cause for his professional burnout or dismissal.

In addition to the method of index estimation already described, we propose a method for assessing problematic areas that arise for the employee using the example of aggregated factor No. 5, “Participation in the management of the process and results at own workplace (degree of freedom in solving issues related to the workplace), in divisions, and in the company.”

As a result of the employee's inability to participate in the management of activities at his workplace, i.e. his lack of opportunities to influence any issues regarding the content, organization and schedule, and other labor issues, there is a risk of the formation of “dissatisfaction”.

The assessment is proposed on the basis of two tools, one of which is auxiliary, and the other is in fact a questionnaire that the employee fills in.

The auxiliary tool is a scale for assessing a factor based on its two characteristics: “significance” and “influence possibility.”

Table 5 shows a method for determining the risks of dissatisfaction formation by the factor “participation in management or the possibility of influencing own work, work of a unit, or whole company.”

Table 5. Assessment of the factor “The degree of freedom at the workplace or the possibility of influencing the job description”

Characteristic

The value (importance) of the factor for the employee

Can you influence the performance? (degree of influence)

R i s ɪ

Significant

Moderately significant

Insignificant

High

Medium

Low or does not exist

A possibility to diversify work tasks, change the sequence of actions

Y

     

Y

 

1

A possibility to set a work break schedule

 

Y

   

Y

 

0

A possibility not to rush and work at preferred pace

Y

       

Y

3

A possibility to reduce the intensity of forced contacts

   

Y

   

Y

0

A possibility to think outside the box, use non-standard approach to work

Y

     

Y

 

1

A possibility to get full job description and operating situation

 

Y

     

Y

2

A possibility to determine preferred labor methods

 

Y

   

Y

 

0

A possibility to speak of the acquisition of new technical devices for own workplace

 

Y

   

Y

 

0

Other characteristics (respondent is allowed to indicate himself)

             

Note: Made up by authors

Several combinations of “significance” and “influence possibility” pose zero risk for the formation of dissatisfaction, because the job description itself is insignificant for the employee, or he is satisfied with how he can influence this characteristic.

For assessment, we propose the following characteristics of the labor content at the workplace to be assessed by the employee.

Similar tables should be made up for participation in management at the level of a unit, department, or company as a whole, taking into account the specifics of its activities.

According to the results (see Table 5), the greatest risk (a value of 3) for this employee is associated with the fact that he is not able to work at his own pace. The rush forms “dissatisfaction” with his labor own activity.

Another risk is associated with a lack of information (a value of 2).

Two risks (a value of 1) are associated with insufficient opportunities to diversify own work, to be creative.

Based on the results of the assessment, one should determine a list of measures to possibly neutralize or prevent risks. We propose doing so in the form presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Measures to prevent, neutralize or compensate for risks by the factor “The degree of freedom at the workplace or the possibility of influencing the job description”

 

Characteristic

Risk

Measures

Designated responsible individual

1

A possibility not to rush and work at preferred pace

3

   
   
   

ɪ

A possibility to get full job description and operating situation

2

   

3

A possibility to diversify work tasks, change the sequence of actions

1

   

4

A possibility to think outside the box, use non-standard approach to work

1

   

Note: Made up by author

Measures can be developed as either directly eliminating or reducing the risk, or compensating for it by providing opportunities at a different level. For example, if an employee's workplace is strictly regulated and there are no opportunities for him/her to be creative, then providing him with such an opportunity at the level of a brigade, workshop, or unit would be ideal.

Discussion

The results of our research in the context of the strategic objectives of the company are in the mainstream of modern research in staff engagement. They are based on the recognition of the employee's motivational profile importance, as it is in the work of R. Zamecnik (Zamecnik, 2014). At the same time, this author proposes a cluster analysis which is methodologically correct, but for medium and small entities with a small number of staff it is somewhat excessive, and an individual approach to assessing and overcoming risks is ultimately more effective.

In a certain sense, they are debating the results achieved by B. Ozkeser (Ozkeser, 2019). Our approach to the motivation issue is multifactorial while confirming the fact that training is not always universal and effective motivation tool. In case of a specific person, this may not correspond to his current situation, and engaging this employee may require other tools.

Our results more likely confirm the conclusions of Ogbonnaya and Messersmith (Ogbonnaya, Messer- smith, 2019) stating that the real consequences of the HR practice for different people may differ. We also believe that the approach to the selection of HR tools in the context of modern technologies for creating and managing databases should be personified.

We also agree with the results achieved by S. Chacko and N. Conway (Chacko, Conway, 2019), who have confirmed that the HR engagement system has daily consequences mediated by individual expectations.

Conclusion

Summarizing the above results of our study, we would like to note the following points we feel the most significant.

The staff engagement system is quite complex and multi-level. Most often, it is formed from a set of best practices tested in modern management and recognized as effective in most available sources. Therefore, entities are focused primarily on these tools. And therefore, as a rule, the proportion of original solutions developed by managers in their firms is small.

At the same time, in many of the organizations we have examined, the role of human resources departments in implementing an individual approach to each employee is insignificant. The center of gravity and responsibility in decision-making for each employee has been transferred to line managers, e.g. functional experts. Line managers are required to know their immediate professional duties, but they may not be skilled in human resources management. They cannot be required high awareness and quality of decisions for each individual employee. They may find it difficult to assess the suitability of the staff engagement system and their motivational profile. Often, an independent evaluator view is required to identify system issues.

Therefore, we propose introduction of a regular assessment procedure (possibly in the form of an audit) for the engagement system and staff motivational profile for psychological comfort/discomfort. Any employee, even of the lowest qualification, can easily identify the importance of one or another element of the system for himself or the value of this element for himself on a percentage scale with a maximum of 100 percent. We propose 6 main factors. And for the same factors, he or she can determine in percentage the level of compliance of the actual situation in the organization with the desired one. Equality means full compliance with the significance and actual situation. A positive deviation means that in reality, there are more opportunities to satisfy than the real needs in this factor the employee has. For example, in the organization he or she can get any retraining or advanced training (100 %), but at this stage the employee needs less in this matter (80 %). A negative rating is of greater interest for diagnosis, because it means that the importance of this factor for the subject is higher than the actual assessment of the factor by the subject. For example, the importance of continuing education is 100 %, while the real opportunities are 60 %.

We have tested the assessment methodology based on 6 aggregated factors. Each of these can be considered in more detail when a problem is detected. The methodology operates on the principle of screening and identifies employees who are in a state of discomfort by one or more aggregated factors. We use the correspondence index of the engagement system and the employee's motivational profile, the mathematical basis of which is the principle of calculating the standard deviation. Workers whose index value is equal to or higher than a given barrier (in our case, a 20 % deviation for all factors, which gives an index value of 20), require a deeper analysis of their motivational profile. An analysis of the motivational profile shows by what factor there is a deviation in excess of the permissible value, therefore, it is necessary to develop and apply corrective measures for the situation involving the employee.

Further actions to concretize the risks of the forming the employee's “dissatisfaction” by individual subfactors within the aggregated one should reveal the subjective amount of risk by each individual factor or its sub-factors. The sub-factors are the characteristics of work activities. These are assessed by the risk level (a combination of the significance of the characteristics and the possibility for the employee to influence it). Subfactors shall be sorted by values: unacceptable risk, major risk, minor risk. For each of the risks, measures should be developed to reduce its value or fully compensate for it.

The proposed methods shall improve the efficiency of human resources management services. They make it possible to establish a systematic assessment of the compatibility of the engagement system and the motivational profile of each employee according to the screening principle. This makes it possible, without additional costs and loss of time, to respond in a timely manner to risk situations when employee dissatisfaction builds up.

 

References

  1. Abilshaikov, N.B., Sartova, R.B., & Titkov, A.A. (2015). Transformacija paradigmy upravlenija personalom i sovremen- nye podhody k formirovaniju organizacionnyh struktur HR-menedzhmenta [Transformation of management paradigm by a personnel and modern going near forming of organizational structures of HR-management]. Vestnik Karagan- dinskogo universiteta. Serija Ekonomika — Bulletin of the Karaganda University. Economy Series, 1(77), 104–112. Retrieved from https://economy-vestnik.ksu.kz/srch/2015_Economy_1_77_2015.pdf [in Russian].
  2. Armstrong, М. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice (10th ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.
  3. Bakirbekova, A.M., Kulimanova, K.A. (2018). Primenenie peredovogo zarubezhnogo opyta upravlenija chelovecheskimi resursami v mezhdunarodnyh kompanijah Kazahstana [Application of advanced foreign experience in human resources management in international companies of Kazakhstan]. Vestnik Karagandinskogo Universiteta. Serija Ekonomika — Bulletin of the Karaganda University. Economy Series, 1(89), 217–224. Retrieved from https://econ- omy-vestnik.ksu.kz/srch/2018_Economy_1_89_2018.pdf [in Russian].
  4. Chacko, S., & Conway, N. (2019). Employee experiences of HRM through daily affective events and their effects on perceived event-signalled HRM system strength, expectancy perceptions, and daily work engagement. Human Resource Management Journal29(3), 433–450.
  5. Chulanova, O.L. (2018). Sovremennye tehnologii kadrovogo menedzhmenta: aktualizacija v rossijskoj praktike, vozmozhnosti, riski [Modern personnel management technologies: actualization in Russian practice, opportunities, risks]. Moscow: INFRA-M. [in Russian].
  6. Delery, John E., & Roumpi, D. (2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: is the field going in circles? Human Resource Management Journal27(1), 1–21.
  7. Gilbert, C. (2015). Strong HRM processes and line managers' effective HRM implementation: a balanced view. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 600-616. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12088
  8. Ivchenko, G. I., Medvedev, Ju. I. (2010). Vvedenie v matematicheskuju statistiku [Introduction to mathematical statistics]. Moscow: Publisher LKI [in Russian].
  9. Kinnie, N., & Swart, J. (2020). Cross-boundary working: Implications for HRM theory, methods, and practice. Human Resource Management Journal30(1), 86-99.
  10. Kurmankulova, N.Zh., Karbetova, Z.R., Karbetova, Sh.R. (2018). Razrabotka prioritetnyh napravlenij strategii razvitija personala na primere AO “NK “Kazahstan temir zholy” [The development of priority directions of personnel development strategy on the example of JSC “NC “Kazakhstan Temir Zholy”]. Vestnik Karagandinskogo Universiteta. Serija Ekonomika — Bulletin of the Karaganda University. Economy Series, 1(89), 207-216. Retrieved from https://economy-vestnik.ksu.kz/srch/2018_Economy_1_89_2018.pdf [in Russian].
  11. Litvinjuk, A.A. (2018). Kontrolling i audit personala [Staff control and audit]. Moscow: Publisher KNORUS [in Russian].
  12. L0pez-Cotarelo, J. (2018). Line managers and HRM: A managerial discretion perspective. Human Resource Management Journal28(2), 255-271. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12176
  13. Ogbonnaya, C., & Messersmith, J. (2019). Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes? Human Resource Management Journal29(3), 509-526.
  14. Ozkeser, B. (2019). Impact of training on employee motivation in human resources management. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 802-810.
  15. Pritvorova, T., & Tasbulatova, B., & Petrenko, E. (2018). Possibilities of blitz — psychograms as a tool for human resource management in the supporting system of hardiness of company. The International Journal Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 6(2), 840-853.
  16. Shamis, V.A. (2016). Osobennosti emocionalnogo vygoranija personala organizacii [Features of emotional burnout of the organization's staff]. Liderstvo i Menedzhment — Leadership and Management, 2(3), 101-112. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.18334/lim.3.2.35376 [in Russian].
  17. Thompson, A., & Strickland, A. (2003). Strategic management: Concept and cases (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Zamecnik, R. (2014). The measurement of employee motivation by using multi-factor statistical analysis. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 851-857.
Year: 2020
City: Karaganda
Category: Economy