Exploring work engagement of the frontline manufacturing sector: A case study approach

Introduction The topic of work engagement has gained much popularity in recent years, and although there are conflicting definitions of this concept, there is a consensus that engaged workers have high levels of energy and... [ view full abstract ]

Introduction

The topic of work engagement has gained much popularity in recent years, and although there are conflicting definitions of this concept, there is a consensus that engaged workers have high levels of energy and identify strongly with their work (Bakker et al., 2008). Within the levels of management, the dis-engagement of frontline manufacturing workers is much higher than others; they lie bottom of engagement league tables at 76% disengagement (Gallup, 2012). 

Research Aim & Objectives.

The overall aim of this research is to explore the factors that cause a frontline manufacturing operator to either engage or disengage in their work.  It contributes to the literature as there is little research carried out on such operators in terms of their motivations to engage in the workplace (Saks and Gruman, 2014). A single site exploratory case study approach will be employed, and specifically this study will initially assess engagement levels as perceived by the frontline operators in relation to intrinsic work motivation, autonomy, and organisational support. This will be followed by an examination of the impact of leadership style, followership and autonomy in relation to the engagement of the frontline operator. The justification for addressing the impact of these factors on engagement is as follows:

Leadership Style: Leaders who establish and build relationships and take their followers opinions into account can achieve much higher levels of work engagement than strictly focusing on task performance (Carsten and Uhl-Bien, 2012).  This is a shared style of leadership, and Chiniara and Bentein (2016) acknowledge that leaders empower their followers by giving them extra responsibilities, and the freedom to handle situations by themselves.  In these situations the follower is more comfortable in sharing their ideas, knowing that it won’t result in a negative response.  This contrasts with an autocratic or directive style where frontline employees were seen as inferior, and Taylor (1947) believed that this direction and control was required due to “mentally sluggish” followers that need constant supervision.

Followership: The term followership was traditionally associated with an image of hierarchical top-down subordination defined by powerlessness and obedience (Carsten et al., 2010).  The relationship between the frontline worker and leadership remains a complex and relatively unexplored phenomenon in terms of the role of leadership and followership processes that either supress or foster effective employee engagement (Bligh, 2011).  This role may be observed as a proactive follower who speak up and want to have their ideas acted upon in collaboration with their managers, or a more passive approach where they follow instruction and refrain from any further involvement than just completing their mandatory role (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).  On the other hand, their perception could be much more damaging in that their role is perceived as anti-authoritarian and any support given to the organisation is perceived as giving in.  This is not how individuals behave relative to their work, but relative to those with higher status.  For example, “it’s not my job”, or repressing opinions from leaders to show non-compliance (Carsten et al., 2010).

Autonomy: The degree of autonomy or discretion given to employees is one of the main factors for improvements in productivity, performance, job satisfaction and work engagement (Breaugh, 1999).  This autonomy has been mostly researched under the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).  External regulation is control based where the worker is either motivated by an external incentive or a negative consequence, such as being watched by a supervisor. This approach has been associated with the traditional style of supervision, while autonomous motivation is associated with a more humanistic style and intrinsically based where one finds the work enjoyable and interesting (Hardre and Reeve, 2009). In the centre is amotivation relating to a person who is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated and just goes through the motions without any real engagement and poor employee functioning (Gagne and Deci, 2005).

Design / Methodology

The researcher will attempt to address this problem through interpretive exploratory research, combining his own individual experience in an insider single site case study. This case study organisation is Honeywell Aerospace which is a diversified technology and manufacturing company with a global workforce of over 130,000 employees across 95 countries.  Honeywell Aerospace Waterford is a manufacturing operation, producing compressor blades and fanblades used in the assembly of military and commercial aircraft engines. This operation is a highly-controlled process in precision forging, automated machining and specialised metal finishing and final inspection.

Multiple sources of evidence will be collected from frontline workers, supervisors and managers through interviews, focus groups, and observations.  Previous work engagement studies have almost exclusively employed quantitative research methods, and consequently they do not gather the rich underlying data of engagement as a “deeply personal state” (Kahn, 1990: 700).  This case study approach aims to address this gap, and through the use of multiple methods of data gathering, explore what organisations can do to increase engagement in the manufacturing sector.

Findings

At present, the initial engagement survey and a number of exploratory interviews have been completed with the remainder to be completed by March 2018. The findings to date are as follows:

The initial engagement survey was carried out via a questionnaire and secured replies from 32 experienced production operators (with an average age of 50 years) across a range of engagement dimensions. An analysis of these surveys revealed that such operators find their job tasks intrinsically motivating, are engaged in their work but don’t feel they have adequate control in the way their job is carried out, or are adequately supported by the organisation in terms of their personal needs.

The initial exploratory interviews have revealed that supervisor interaction is very much dependent on the relationship with the individual, where some just get on with the job with little need for supervision, while others needed constant supervision and support. The managers and supervisors who were interviewed do feel that there are operators who are willing to take on extra discretionary effort but the environment is not supportive due to work union and generic agreements. This co-worker influence may impede engagement and as such may be preventing those who would like the opportunity to engage more not having the support to do so from their fellow workers.

Research Limitations

Being an inside researcher brings with it a pre-understanding of the way things work around here; this means one is familiar with the current situation but this may not always be positive as it brings with it a historical bias and has the ability to skew the findings (Coghlan et al., 2014).  One needs to be aware that their potential feedback may be interpreted personally, and a danger that the participants themselves may not want to share all relevant information due to both the sensitive nature of it and the researches position in the organisational hierarchy.  However, it is felt that the experienced nature of the operators will mean that they are vocal and not afraid to share their viewpoints on the engagement subject.

Practical and Social Implications

According to Markos and Sridevi (2012) employee engagement is a much stronger predictor of organisational performance than earlier constructs such as satisfaction, commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour.  They point out that any improvements taken by management will not be successful without the engagement of their employees, and they use technology advancements as an example where organisations will require employees with increased professional skills that cannot be managed with old styles of totalitarian management.  It is because of these expectations that employers are shifting towards engagement techniques as a key competitive advantage.

Employees who are engaged in their work, are effective, energetic, have a connection with their workplace and enjoy what they do (Kahn, 1990; Macey and Schneider, 2008). In industrial organisations, management have focused mainly on the technical aspects of work systems (Zacharatos et al., 2007).  This in turn has neglected the human aspects of the job.  Mele (2013) calls this “personal competences”, and points out that moral character is of increasing importance for humanistic management.  He argues that in traditional organisations managers tend to have technical skills and analytical competencies, but their character is not seen as relevant. The resources that come from the organisation in terms of support, conditions, personal resources, and these social skills from leadership can bring about higher levels of engagement (Shantz et al., 2014

Originality / Value

This paper attempts to bind work engagement theory with humanistic styles of leadership to demonstrate that if an organisation adopts this approach, then the frontline workers will move from just complying with the mandatory function of their job to giving extra discretionary work effort, and thus increasing performance.  Although leadership style, followership and autonomy have all been researched individually, the inter-relationship between them has not been explored against the engagement concept.