Who commits? Who engages?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2016-0033 |
| Date | 02 January 2018 |
| Pages | 23-42 |
| Published date | 02 January 2018 |
| Author | John Sutherland |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Who commits? Who engages?
John Sutherland
Scottish Centre for Employment Research,
Department of Human Resource Management, Strathclyde Business School,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to address two questions: who commits? And who engages? For
example, does an individual’s likelihood of committing/engaging vary with his/her age; or with the level of
his/her qualifications; or with his/her occupation? Of what consequences are the characteristics of the
workplace at which the individual is employed?
Design/methodology/approach –The investigation uses the Skills and Employment Surveys Series Data
set to construct the indicators of commitment and engagement. Using an ordered-logit model and an
OLS model, these indicators are analysed to identify their covariates.
Findings –Who commitsand who engages dependsupon the indicator usedto measure the attitude/behaviour
in question.Changing these indicatorssometimes meansthat an individual no longercommits/engages. Further,
even for the same indicatorof commitment/engagement, who commits/engages varies acrossindividuals.
Research limitations/implications –The indicators of commitment and engagement examined are
derived from the responses in a pre-existing data set which has its origins in survey instruments which had
quite comprehensive terms of reference. Owning to the cross-sectional nature of this data set and the
statistical methodology applied, the statistical results are correlations between some possible indicators of
commitment and engagement and some variables which denote the personal characteristics of individuals
and the characteristics of the organisations with which they are employed. Causation cannot be inferred from
these correlations.
Originality/value –Commitment and engagement are central to many models of the managementof human
resources. However, the likelihood that an individual commits and/or engages differs across the workforce
has rarely been examined. This paper addresses this research lacuna using a data set which is rich in detail
about an individual’s personal characteristics.
Keywords Commitment, Engagement, Models of human resource management,
The Skills and Employment Surveys Series Data set
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Commitment and engagement are central constructs in many prescriptive models of the
management of human resources that detail policies by which management may both
enhance worker well-being and improve organisational performance. For example,
following the insider econometrics studies of high performance work systems (HPWS) in the
USA, commitment was introduced as one possible transmission mechanism to explain why
the implementation of such policies resulted in improved outcomes. More recently, if more
especially in the UK, engagement has become an important focus for policy makers,
subsequent to the publication of a series of case studies demonstrating how the introduction
of enablers (or drivers) of engagement resulted in improvements in organisational
performance. However, the possibility that the likelihood of committing or engaging may
differ across individuals in the workforce, for example according to their personal
characteristics and the characteristics of the organisation with which they are employed,
has rarely been examined. This paper addresses this research lacuna.
The research investigation uses data extracted from the Skills and Employment
Surveys Series Data set to construct the indicators of commitment and engagement.
It applies an ordered logit model and an OLS model to identify the covariates of these
indicators. The data set has its origins in a series of surveys designed to examine the
employed workforce in Great Britain. Consequently, Great Britain is the focus of
the empirical component of the paper.
Employee Relations
Vol. 40 No. 1, 2018
pp. 23-42
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-02-2016-0033
Received 6 February 2016
Revised 13 October 2016
7 December 2016
22 June 2017
Accepted 22 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
23
Who commits?
Who engages?
2. A context from some literature of relevance to the empirical study
There are many diverse models of the management of human resources that detail
the policies and practices by which management may fully realise labour’s capacity to
produce, and thereby simultaneously improve the performance of the organisation and
enhance the well-being of the worker. Employee commitment to and employee engagement
with organisations are central constructs in many of these models. The specific roles played
by these constructs in these models are many, varied and frequently contested. The aim of
this section of the paper is to provide an informative context to the empirical investigation
which follows. Therefore, it seeks neither to survey nor to evaluate the many issues in
question. Often, it cites seminal references in preference to more contemporary ones. It is
presented in two sections, one dealing with commitment, the other with engagement.
Commitment
Commitment in the early literature was conceptualised as a psychological contract between
employee and employer, characterised by the former’s identification with the values and
goals of the latter (Selznick, 1957; Kalleberg and Berg, 1987; Meyer and Allen, 1997).
The construct was to become central to those models of the management of human
resources that were influenced by writers associated with the neo-human relations school
(e.g. Maslow, 1943; McGregor, 1960; Hertzberg, 1966) where it was viewed as a potentially
important policy instrument. These models prescribed what Green (2006, p. 7) identifies as a
“new ideology of control”, replacing traditional control structures reflected in, for example,
compliance, hierarchy and bureaucracy (Legge, 2005). Articulated well in Storey’s (1989)
frequently cited “soft version”of human resource management, these models advocated
investments over the long term in human resources and the design and implementation of
policies and practices that sought to motivate employees, gain their trust and thereby their
commitment. The presumption was that “committed”employees were more likely to
improve organisational performance.
Consequently, much within the relevant literature was about seeking to understand the
conditions under which human resources became strategic assets capable of generating
distinctive capabilities –and/or complementing other factors, notably technology to produce
this outcome –and then devising and implementing the appropriate strategies. In principle,
the exercise was one of building and developing a bundle of human and related technical
resources, the latter manifest most especially in terms of work organisation, designed to
enhance organisatio nal performance (Bo xall and Purcell, 200 8). An unashamedly
managerialist agenda dominated the mainstream literature that focussed upon
identifying then prescribing “best practice”(Delbridge and Keenoy, 2010). As the high
performance paradigm literature both in the USA and the UK was to illustrate, however,
there was no definitive list or bundle of policies and practices appropriate to this task
(e.g. Becker and Gerhard, 1996; Ichniowski et al., 1996; Wood, 1999; Procter, 2008).
The emergence of models reflecting the high performance paradigm was associated with
empirical research published in the USA (e.g. Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Huselid, 1995;
MacDuffie, 1995). The principal focus of these studies was the attempt to establish a causal
relationship between work practices –reflected in various sets of human resource (hereafter HR)
policies and practices and various forms of work organisation –and organisational
performance. Always fraught with problems pertaining to theory, methodology and data, this
research sometimes did succeed in establishing positive statistical associations between HR
policy and practice and organisational outcomes. Nonetheless, it was less successful in
explaining how this relationship came about (Boselie et al., 2005).
Latterly, the research agenda was to change to one which sought to identify and examine
the nature of the “transmission mechanisms”(Procter, 2008) –or “linkages”(Ramsay et al.,
2000) –by which this relationship did come about. The conventional wisdom was that this
24
ER
40,1
To continue reading
Request your trial