Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
E
mployee engagement. Without question, a corpo- alone costs organizations $11 billion annually and can
rate buzz word. But, what does engaging employ- be significantly lessened with an engaged and committed
ees mean? How can you do it? Does it matter to employee environment.
your bottom line? Why does it matter if you have Disengaged employees, on the other hand, often do
engaged employees on your team? only as they are told, miss more work, and are more
Nursing leaders play an integral role in employee sat- likely to leave an organization.5 Those who are actively
isfaction, patient satisfaction, and employee productivity. disengaged are physically present but emotionally absent;
Satisfied and engaged nurses provide safer and higher they are unhappy and vocal in their unhappiness, speak
quality patient care. Engaged nurses strive for higher pa- poorly of their organization, and actually quit but physi-
tient satisfaction. Engaged employees have more motiva- cally stay in the environment causing significant morale
tion and interest in participating in department activities issues for the others within the environment. These dis-
and in improving patient safety and patient care initia- engaged employees are extremely detrimental to the or-
tives. Employee engagement often starts with a nursing ganization; yet these employees make up a majority of
leader. Nursing leaders have significant impact on the the corporate workforce. Carnegie1 notes that 71% of all
way an employee feels about their career, their patients, employees are not fully engaged.
and their organization. Why is employee engagement important? Carnegie1
Carnegie1 describes employee engagement as an emo- notes that engaged employees are up to 202% more pro-
tional and functional commitment to the employees organ- ductive than unengaged employees. Higher employee
ization. Leiter and Maslach2 note that engagement requires engagement can lead to higher quality of individual and
energy, involvement, and efficacy. Kahn3 adds 3 conditions team work, which then can lead to higher growth, pro-
of work associated with employee engagement: meaning- ductivity, and revenue for an organization.4,6 Organiza-
fulness, safety, and availability. Engaged employees are tions with highly engaged employees have a 26% higher
committed to their organization. They are high perform- revenue per employee and these organizations are more
ers who are enthusiastic, empowered, inspired, and confi- likely to exceed the industry average for 1 year revenue
dent.1 Engaged employees are emotionally and cognitively growth. Finally, organizations with highly engaged em-
immersed in their job allowing a sense of meaningfulness ployees and team members have safer organizations and
and value in the work leading to higher sensitivity to the have a 49% safer environment.6
organizations mission and to organizational change.4
Engaged employees care about the future of their or- FOUNDATIONS OF EMPLOYEE
ganization, have a strong emotional bond to their organi- ENGAGEMENT
zation, are vested to ensure the success of their organiza- Organizational commitment is allegiance to ones organi-
tion, and have both their hearts and heads engaged in zation2 and is different than employee engagement and
their work.5 This commitment and bond with their or- job satisfaction. Engagement refers, instead, to the em-
ganization leads to higher productivity, increased profits, ployees relationship with the work itself while job sat-
improved safety, and lower absenteeism.5 In addition, or- isfaction is the degree to which the job itself is fulfilling.
ganizations that have higher employee engagement have Engaged employees have organizational commitment
significantly less turnover. Carnegie1 notes that turnover and this commitment contributes to both the morale of
the organization and to the loyalty the employee feels to
their organization.
Author Affiliation: All Childrens Hospital Johns Hopkins Medicine, St.
Petersburg, Florida.
The Social Exchange Theory (SET) is one of the foun-
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
dational theories for workplace behaviors.7 Review of the
Correspondence: Karen Macauley, DHA, MEd, BSN, RN, CEN, All
SET gives a theoretical foundation to understanding em-
Childrens Hospital, 501 Sixth Ave S, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (karen. ployee engagement. The SET states that relationships of
macauley@jhmi.edu). trust develop over time and that these relationships are
DOI: 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000161 based on trust, loyalty, and mutual commitment.7 There
298 WWW.JOURNALOFTRAUMANURSING.COM Volume 22 | Number 6 | November-December 2015
Copyright 2015 Society of Trauma Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Copyright 2015 Society of Trauma Nurses. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.