HOW DO WE USE ENGAGEMENT TO MAXIMUM EFFECT? HOW IS ENGAGEMENT CREATED? THE JOB DEMAND RESOURCES MODEL WORK-RELATED RESOURCES AUTONOMY - FEEDBACK - SOCIAL SUPPORT - COACHING WORK PRESSURE EMOTIONAL JOB REQUIREMENTS MENTAL JOB REQUIREMENTS PYSICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS PERSONAL RESOURCES OPTIMISM - SELF-ESTEEM - SELF-EFFICACY STRESS RESISTANCE RESOURCES JOB DEMANDS IN-ROL PERFORMANCE EXTRA-ROL PERFORMANCE CREATIVITY FINANCIAL TURNOVER_ VITALITY DEDICATION ABSORPTION HELPING TO ACHIEVE GOALS PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT & GROWTH Motivation Energy Welfare Stress PERFORMANCE WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF RESOURCES & JOB DEMANDS? AUTONOMY ONLY MAKES SENSE IF THERE ARE CHALLENGES RESULTS (AT ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL)? CHALLENGE EMPLOYEES TO USE RESOURCES TO OPTIMUM EFFECT JOB EDMANDS HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT BUT RESOURCES HAVE AN EVEN GREATER IMPACT WHEN JOB DEMANDS ARE PRESENT AT A GOOD LEVEL RESOURCES JOB DEMANDS ASPECTS OF THE WORK THAT HELP ACHIEVE WORK-RELATED GOALS AND STIMULATE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT & GROWTH ASPECTS OF THE WORK THAT REQUIRE PHYSICAL/ PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFORT! MAIN CHALLENGE = FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE RESOURCES JOB DEMANDS GET THE MOST FROM ENGAGED EMPLOYEES HOW DO WE STIMULATE ENGAGEMENT? STIMULATE EMPLOYEES SUFFICIENTLY TO DEVELOP THEIR POTENTIAL CREATE AN OPTIMAL WORKING ENVIRONMENT BY OFFERINGWORK-RELATED RESOURCES WORK RELATEDRESOURCES PERSONALRESOURCES MEASURE AND STIMULATE PERSONAL RESOURCES AUTONOMY FEEDBACK SOCIAL SUPPORT COACHING OPTIMISM SELF-ESTEEM SELF-EFFICACY STRESS RESISTANCE SERVICE ORIENTATION ENGAGEMENT LOYALTY 1. ENGAGEMENT & PERFORMANCE 2. EFFECT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE 3. OBJECTIVE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ORGANISATIONS WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT ACHIEVE A BETTER “RETURN ON ASSETS”, GENERATE HIGHER PROFITS AND HAVE A HIGHER “SHAREHOLDER VALUE”. CONCLUSION: ORGANISATIONS THAT USE THEIR EMPLOYEES’ ENGAGEMENT TO OPTIMUM EFFECT STAND TO BENEFIT ON MANY LEVELS Sources: An overview of ten years of research into inspiration. Bakker A.B. (2009). Behaviour & Organisation. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223. Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage (2009). Macey, Schneider, Barbera & Young. BOOK.

1. How dO WE USE ENGAGEMENT
TO MAXIMUM EFFECT?
GET THE MOST FROM ENGAGED EMPLOYEES
hOW IS ENGAGEMENT CREATED?
Work
R ESOURCES
j OB DEMANDS
ASPECTS OF THE WORK
THAT HELP ACHIEVE
WORK-RELATED GOALS
AND STIMULATE
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
& GROWTH
ASPECTS OF THE WORK
THAT REQUIRE PHYSICAL/
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFORT!
THE JOB DEMAND RESOURCES MODEL
R ESOURCES
{
J OB DEMANDS
WORK-RELATED
PERSONAL
WORK PRESSURE
RESOURCES
RESOURCES
EMOTIONAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
MENTAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
SELF-ESTEEM
PYSICAL JOB REQUIREMENTS
SOCIAL SUPPORT
SELF-EFFICACY
COACHING
{
OPTIMISM
FEEDBACK
impact on
AUTONOMY
STRESS RESISTANCE
E NGAGEMENT
P ERFORMANCE
VITALITY
IN-ROL PERFORMANCE
DEDICATION
EXTRA-ROL PERFORMANCE
ABSORPTION
CREATIVITY
FINANCIAL TURNOVER
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF
RESOURCES & JOB DEMANDS?


R ESOURCES
j OB DEMANDS
EnergY
HELPING TO
ACHIEVE GOALS
PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT
& GROWTH
WelFARE
MotivatiON
Stress
JOB DEMANDS HAVE
A NEGATIVE IMPACT
RESOURCES HAVE AN EVEN
GREATER IMPACT WHEN
JOB DEMANDS ARE PRESENT
AT A GOOD LEVEL
BUT
EXAMPLE
AUTONOMY ONLY MAKES SENSE
IF THERE ARE CHALLENGES
{
CHALLENGE EMPLOYEES
TO USE RESOURCES
TO OPTIMUM EFFECT
MAIN CHALLENGE
=
FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE
r ESOURCES
j OB DEMANDS
r
j
HOW DO WE STIMULATE ENGAGEMENT?
STIMULATE EMPLOYEES SUFFICIENTLY TO DEVELOP THEIR POTENTIAL
I
II
CREATE AN OPTIMAL WORKING ENVIRONMENT
BY OFFERING
WORK-RELATED RESOURCES
MEASURE AND STIMULATE
PERSONAL RESOURCES
H
H
OPTIMISM
SELF-ESTEEM
SELF-EFFICACY
STRESS RESISTANCE
AUTONOMY
FEEDBACK
SOCIAL SUPPORT
COACHING
WORK RELATED
RESOURCES
PERSONAL
RESOURCES
RESULTS (AT ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL)?
1. ENGAGEMENT & PERFORMANCE
RESOURCES
}
USE OF
RESOURCES
GAIN SPIRAL
PerformanCe
ENGAGEMENT
2. EFFECT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
loyaLTY
SERVICE ORIENTATION
3. OBJECTIVE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Return on
assets
Profitability
Shareholder
value
10%
7%
7%
5%
2,05%
1,08%
0%
-5%
-4%
-5%
-10%
Low engagement
High engagement
ORGANISATIONS WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT
ACHIEVE A BETTER “RETURN ON ASSETS”,
GENERATE HIGHER PROFITS AND
HAVE A HIGHER “SHAREHOLDER VALUE”.
HIGHLY ENGAGED
EMPLOYEES
NON-ENGAGED
EMPLOYEES
VS
72%
27%
THINK THEY HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT
ON SERVICE
THINK THEY HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT
ON SERVICE
84%
31%
THINK THEY AFFECT
THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS
THINK THEY AFFECT
THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS
CONCLUSION:
ORGANISATIONS THAT USE
THEIR EMPLOYEES’ ENGAGEMENT TO
OPTIMUM EFFECT STAND TO BENEFIT
ON MANY LEVELS
Sources:
An overview of ten years of research into inspiration. Bakker A.B. (2009). Behaviour & Organisation.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223.
Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage (2009). Macey, Schneider, Barbera & Young. BOOK.