Human Resources Case Study

Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: “Now and Around the Corner”, pages 185–200. Copyright © 2019 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 185

CHAPTER 9

MILLENNIAL WORKERS AND THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

PHENOMENON Has the Wave Crested?

Angela N. Spranger and Sierra Chen

INTRODUCTION

The concept of employee engagement has become ambiguous, a work-related psy- chological measure influenced by factors that scholars and researchers have focused on identifying. While the realm of research scholars seeks to identify it, the ob- vious effects of employee engagement, or, rather, disengagement are consistently observed in the workplace. A recent Gallup survey suggested that only 13% of em- ployees around the globe are engaged on the job and disengaged workers outnum- ber engaged workers nearly two to one (Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014). Research is trailing behind a phenomenon that is dominating the workplace.

By determining the factors that can predict levels of employee engagement, organizations can focus their efforts on active improvement. But, more impor- tantly, by identifying employees’ expectations of the factors of employee engage- ment, organizations can better understand the needs of their employees and tailor

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 . I n f o r m a t i o n A g e P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS AN: 2006258 ; Ronald R. Sims.; Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: 'Now and Around the Corner' Account: s4264928.main.eds

186 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

their organizational goals directly toward those needs. In a 1990 study, Kahn ad- dressed the deeper components of engagement (meaningfulness, safety, and psy- chological availability) which form the basis of addressing what HR professionals and executives can do to help ensure their associates feel seen, safe, and valued (Spranger, 2015) in the workplace. These components of engagement create the foundation of the psychological expectations of employees and, as a result, their expectations of their managers and organizations.

In this chapter, we explore the employee engagement phenomenon to better un- derstand the expectations of visibility (feelings or perceptions of being seen), safety, and value as related to engagement, particularly regarding the expectations of mil- lennials entering the workforce. By studying the engagement phenomenon and the factors that impact it from the perspective of millennials and their expectations, HR professionals and executives can determine areas of change that might inject positive adaptation in their organizations. In this chapter, we seek to decrease the ambiguousness of the concept of employee engagement by determining millennials’ expectations going into the workplace instead of focusing on their experiences in the workplace or after the fact. A primary research question then is, what are millen- nials’ expectations of visibility, safety, and value in the workplace? Secondarily, if these expectations are not met, how does it impact their level of engagement?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Employee engagement is a phenomenon that is dominating the workforce and organizational culture. It is a concept substantiated by a rigorous academic con- versation, which has caught up with the initial leadership of the consulting and practitioner community. As the significance of employee engagement becomes more firmly set in organizational culture, the generations are shifting, raising new questions about how an organization should best engage employees from differ- ent stages of life. Baby Boomers, one of the largest generations in history, are preparing to retire from the workforce while Millennials are flooding in with new expectations, demands, and work habits. Organizations must brace themselves for the changes that are about to occur, understanding how to engage millennials who will, by 2025, make up about 75% of the workforce (Deloitte, 2014; Don- ston-Miller, 2016). At its core, employee engagement manifests itself in the idea that an employee who feels seen, safe, and valued in the workplace will be more engaged. In this conceptual chapter, we emphasize the foundations of the term “employee engagement,” and relate it to the current expectations of millennials as a young, technologically advanced generation that will bring new ideas, but also new expectations of visibility, safety, and value.

Defining Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is an ambiguous concept discussed by researchers, but difficult to define in clear, concrete terms. However, there are several founda-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 187

tions for the concept on which my research was built. The first foundation was Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in 1970, a straightforward, conceptual framework for understanding the importance of fulfilling basic human needs (Kahn, 1990; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). This theory of motivation relies on a model which arranges human needs in order of necessity, suggesting that higher-level needs cannot be met until lower-level needs have been met. The needs are ar- ranged in a pyramid shape, demonstrating the most critical needs to survival as the lowest needs on the hierarchy according to foundational necessity.

The hierarchy’s bottom level represents an individual’s physiological needs; the theory suggests that these are the most potent of needs for human survival. This level includes needs such as food, water, and shelter (Shuck, Rocco, & Al- bornoz, 2011). The next level is safety, which is the feeling of personal protection and control over one’s life. This need provides a fundamental concept of the idea of the importance of safety in the workplace. Humans have an inherent need to feel in control over their lives and personally protected. It also includes the need to feel a part of something bigger than oneself. Environments that do not foster this element of safety may be overly competitive and cold, which discourages relationship development and reduces productivity and innovation. In Kahn’s employee engagement framework, safety promotes meaningfulness and psycho- logical availability. According to Kahn, employees who do not feel safe become cognitively, emotionally, and physically “paralyzed” (Kahn, 1990).

The need for love and belonging is closely intertwined with the need for safety, as the need to develop relationships is especially prevalent in the workplace. Em- ployees develop several relationships at work, all of which have the potential to influence employees’ outcomes and experiences. Employees who interpret rela- tionships with co-workers as positive are more likely to experience a positive workplace climate, which leads to higher employee engagement (Shuck, Owen, Manthos, Quirk & Rhoades, 2016). The importance of a mentor in the workplace also reflects this shared need for love and belonging, while underscoring the need to be seen and valued. Mentorship allows for more inexperienced employees to be recognized by a more experienced employee or manager which makes them feel included in the workplace.

Once the need to feel safe and experience love and belonging is satisfied, the need for esteem becomes very relevant as employees work to achieve career goals, manifesting the desire for respect and recognition. The need for self-actualization finishes the hierarchy with a need to realize potential and “become everything one is capable of becoming” (Maslow, 1970; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). According to Kahn, self-actualization, the need to realize potential, parallels em- ployee engagement (Kahn, 1990). If the most basic needs such as physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, and esteem needs are met, employees will be more equipped to realize their potential by sharing their knowledge and creating opportunities for other people.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

188 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs represent some of the most basic human needs that manifest themselves in humans and, therefore, organizations in which hu- mans work and seek fulfillment. Employees within an organization are driven by an inherent need to be seen, safe, and valued. When such constructs are fulfilled, it enhances employee well-being and satisfaction in the workplace.

The second foundation for understanding employee engagement comes from Kahn’s 1990 article which laid a psychological framework for employee engage- ment. Kahn emphasized the fact that meaningfulness, safety, and availability are all key factors in determining levels of engagement (Kahn, 1990; Shuck, Rocco, Albornoz, 2011). Kahn defined meaningfulness as the “positive sense of return on investments of self in role performance,” safety as “the ability to show one’s self without fear or negative consequences to self-image, status, or career,” and avail- ability as “the sense of possessing the physical, emotional, and psychological re- sources necessary for the competition of work” (Kahn, 1990). According to these three psychological constructs (meaningfulness, safety, and availability), Kahn asserted that when individuals are engaged, they bring all aspects of themselves (cognitive, emotional, and physical) to the performance of their work role. Thus, employee engagement represents the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence, and active, full role performance” (Kahn, 1990; Valentin, Valentin, & Nafukho, 2015). Utilizing this psychological foundation, we can also assign meaning to the difference between engagement and disengagement.

The concept of disengagement represents a clearly different phenomenon from simply low levels of engagement. Kahn defined disengagement as the “uncou- pling of selves from work roles; people withdraw and defend themselves physi- cally, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Shuck, Zigarmi and Owen furthered this conversation by in- troducing a study that showed engagement as an experienced and complex psy- chological phenomenon that is experienced within the context of an employee’s experience (2015). As it relates to this chapter, an employee who does not feel seen, safe, and valued in the workplace will not be engaged. Additionally, the level of that employee’s disengagement will depend on the degree to which he or she perceives himself or herself as invisible, in danger, or of little value to the company. Human resource management and HR development professionals may engage employees by actively ensuring that they feel comfortable and appreciated in the workplace. This is not to suggest that Millennials, or any other employees, should be indulged or have policies and procedures relaxed to accommodate them in the workplace. Nor do we suggest that employees can, or ought to, be made to feel completely comfortable in the workplace at all times. Still, organizational development initiatives that intentionally address employees’ needs to feel seen, safe, and valued in the workplace will yield significant impacts on the organiza- tion’s culture, and the individual and organizational outcomes that are a proven result of high employee engagement.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 189

Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) furthered the development of the concept of engagement by defining it as the opposite of burnout. By defining engagement as “an energetic state of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that enhance one’s state of professional efficacy,” the researchers characterized engagement by energy, involvement, and efficacy (Saks & Gruman, 2014). If this is true, we can add these components to our understanding of what engagement and disengage- ment are and how they affect the workplace and organizational outcomes. In their 2001 article, Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter researched the idea that engagement is characterized by high levels of activation and pleasure, in that employees who are engaged in work are less susceptible to burnout because stress factors are reduced and replaced with satisfaction (Valentin, Valentin, & Nafukho, 2015).

Adding another dimension to the research on employee engagement, Macey and Schneider focused on the idea that employees may be predisposed to certain positive outlooks based on personality characteristics (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011). These researchers have proposed that positive outlooks on the workplace may be based on innate personality characteristics and suggested that employees with a proactive personality may be more likely to be engaged in their work (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Shuck, Rocco & Albornoz, 2011). Instead of looking at employee engagement from an intrinsic, psychologi- cal perspective, they focused their research efforts on the external manifestation of internal employee satisfaction.

From this abbreviated summary of contemporary employee engagement re- search, and using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a foundational concept, we move to considerations of the actual, practical significance of employee engage- ment. For this chapter, we define employee engagement as an employee’s in- clination to both internally and externally express satisfaction in the workplace according to an organization’s efforts to make their employees feel seen, safe, and valued. We have taken Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a psychological foundation to address the factors that affect an employee’s motivation in the workplace. From there, we incorporate the work of Kahn (1990) who explains employee engage- ment as an employee’s perceptions of safety and meaningfulness combined with his or her psychological availability (or, the amount of cognitive energy he or she dedicates to the work). Finally, we acknowledge disengagement as a separate, important phenomenon as noted by Kahn (2010), Saks and Gruman (2014), and Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001).

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

There are several correlations and predictive relationships that can be observed from high and low levels of engagement in the workplace. These include en- hanced employee well-being, improved productivity, positive financial business outcome, positive workplace climate, and reduced levels of burnout. Many orga- nizations believe that employee engagement is a dominant source of competitive advantage on the basic premise that happy/engaged employees will perform better

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

190 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

due to their connectedness to the organization (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Workers who feel supported, safe, and provided opportunities for learning are more likely to engage (Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011).

In 2014, Kerns suggested that workforce engagement exerts an important in- fluence on happiness and well-being in the workplace setting. Employees who find their relationships with co-workers to be positive and trusting are more likely to exhibit higher levels of performance (Shuck et al., 2016). Forret and Love (2008) defined trust in coworkers as “holding confident positive expectations in situations involving risk with coworkers” (p. 249). This workplace concept, trust, has received significant attention in management research, leading to empirical determination of its relationship to increased organizational commitment, overall workplace trust, greater proactive behavior in the workplace, and lower intent to quit. The researchers investigated the relationship of perceptions of justice as independent variables (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) to co- worker trust and morale at the group level of analysis (Forret & Love, 2008). By analyzing survey data gathered from 264 employees at six small companies in the Midwestern U.S., Forret and Love controlled for gender, marital status, education, position and company tenure.

Organizational justice as a concept overall is based on fairness perceptions. Distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of outcomes received, while procedural justice is defined as perceived fairness of company procedures used to determine those outcomes. Interactional justice is defined as the manner in which results are explained. It addresses the “quality of interpersonal processes and treatment of individuals (i.e., were they spoken to with sincerity and sensitivity) as well as the extent to which the reasons behind the outcome are explained” (For- ret & Love, 2008, p. 249). The three subconstructs of organizational justice are interrelated but have been determined to be empirically distinct, accounting for “unique incremental variance” (Forret & Love, 2008, p. 249). Distributive justice predicts outcome satisfaction, withdrawal and OCB. It has also been associated with job and pay satisfaction, satisfaction with management, trust in organiza- tion and trust in manager. Procedural justice predicts of outcome satisfaction, job satisfaction, performance, organizational commitment, withdrawal and counter- productive work behaviors, cooperative conflict management, aggression towards management, and trust in management. Interactional justice related to evaluations of authority figures, job satisfaction, OCB, outcome satisfaction, commitment, withdrawal behavior and performance. Additionally, it predicts supervisor rela- tionship quality, intent to quit, and intent to reduce work effort.

Forret and Love (2008) found support for all of the hypotheses in their cross- sectional field study, with positive associations and regression analyses show- ing that each variable predicted trust. Longitudinal research would show how justice perceptions influence coworker trust, but this cross-sectional self-report survey study left room for common method variance. Forret and Love (2008) made recommendations for increasing the subconstructs under organizational jus-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 191

tice perceptions, in order to increase trust and other organizational outcomes. To improve perceptions of procedural justice, managers should ensure procedures are fair, involve employee input, and allow for formal appeals mechanisms. Hu- man resource managers can improve perceptions of distributive justice by helping employees understand how organizational compensation works so that the em- ployees understand reward allocation. Salary transparency, to the degree possible, helps with this—understanding how salaries are set, visibility on the company’s effort to eliminate salary inequality, and other compensation-related initiatives will help improve distributive justice perceptions. Management should get a bet- ter understand of what their employees actually view as rewards, or as stated earlier in this chapter what motivates their employees, to make sure distribution is fair. To improve interactional justice, managers must treat employees with respect and dignity regardless of performance level, employing active listening without defensiveness when questioned.

Simons (2002) also discusses the potential gap between leaders’ espoused and enacted values, stating that organizational norms emerge from the employees’ experience of trust stemming from poor word / deed alignment in their leaders and colleagues. In a conceptual paper investigating trust as a highly complex con- struct which underpins the reciprocal commitments between employees and their employers, Simons enumerates multiple behavioral antecedents which create employee perceptions and combine with their interpretations of those behaviors, leading to specific consequences of a concept Simons describes as behavioral in- tegrity. Those consequences include specific individual-level organizational out- comes, such as employee willingness to promote and implement change, intent to stay, organizational citizenship behaviors, and employee performance (Simons, 2002). Identifying the definitions and interrelationships between trust, credibility, psychological contracts, and hypocrisy, Simons suggests that behavioral integrity represents a perceived, ascribed trait that shows consistent alignment between a colleague or supervisor’s words and deeds. In this chapter, we connect employees’ perception of safety with the concept of trust in manager and trust in organization. Further, we suggest that a high degree of trust in the workplace manifests as high perceived value as well.

When employees are given opportunities to be seen and valued, such as train- ing development opportunities, career development opportunities, resources and benefits given by the manager, or mentorship opportunities, they will also be more likely to engage (Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014). These feelings of safety and value/recognition in the workplace demonstrate a positive predictive correla- tion between relationships and engagement. Kerns also suggested that engage- ment stirs employee optimism about positively impacting products, services, and quality, which increases the customer experience as well (Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014).

Employee engagement also has a correlation with several factors that are re- duced when employees are adequately engaged in the workplace. Both theory

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

192 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

and practice support the clear predictive value of a culture of high engagement— not just high engagement scores. Practitioner research such as the Gallup meta- analysis of studies in 1997 popularized efforts to investigate the relationship of “employee engagement” as a workplace phenomenon with business and work unit profitability, productivity, employee retention, and customer satisfaction and loyalty across 1,135 business units (Harter et al., 2006). Later, the concept of “em- ployee passion” emerged, briefly, in practitioner research. Zigarmi, Blanchard, Essary, and Houson (2017) suggests that employee passion encompasses such empirical constructs as intent to stay, organizational commitment, job commit- ment, discretionary effort, and employee endorsement. To have employee pas- sion, certain organizational and job characteristics must exist: meaningful work, autonomy, career growth, recognition, collaboration, fairness, connection to lead- ers, and connection to colleagues. More recent scholarly research studies have shown that high engagement leads to a decrease in theft, turnover, burnout, and unhappiness (Kerns, 2014; Saks & Gruman, 2014). Researchers generally exe- cute studies of employee engagement at the workgroup or business unit level of analysis, because at this level the data are aggregated and reported generally to maintain employees’ anonymity and confidentiality. Measurable outcomes at the workgroup or business unit level of analysis include customer loyalty, profitabil- ity, productivity, employee turnover, and safety statistics.

When employees are engaged and satisfied in feeling seen, safe, and valued by their organization and employers, it promotes a sense of meaningfulness that al- lows employees to view their role in the organization as valuable and worthwhile. Employees need to have a sense of return on their cognitive and emotional invest- ments before they are willing to fully engage with their work (Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko, 2014). When employees’ work and workplace give them satisfaction, it discourages them from leaving the organization. Employees who do not feel seen, safe, or valued in the workplace become cognitively and emotionally disen- gaged, which leads to low productivity in the organization (Kahn, 1990).

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND MILLENNIALS

According to recent Gallup surveys, millennials are the least engaged generation in the workforce as organizations struggle to integrate different values and expec- tations in a workplace that has been shaped by Baby Boomers and Generation X (Adkins, n.d.; Rigoni & Adkins, n.d.). Around 86 million millennials will be in the workplace by 2020, making up about 35% of the total workforce (Asghar, 2014; Kurian, 2017). By 2025, the percentage will rise to millennials representing an es- timated 75% of the workforce, as ten thousand Baby Boomers reach age 65 every day in the United States and begin to retire (Dannar, 2013). As the Baby Boomers retire, one of the largest generations in the United States will exit the workforce. This leaves room for the Millennials to integrate themselves into those openings, entering companies with expectations that differ dramatically from those of Baby Boomers (Asghar, 2014).

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 193

Surveys also show that 93% of millennials left their employer to change roles and 21% say that they have changed jobs within the past year, which is signifi- cantly more than the turnover rate of non-millennials (Adkins, n.d.; Rigoni & Adkins, n.d.). As mentioned previously, one of the reasons that employee en- gagement is significant to the effectiveness of a company is because productivity increases profitability. However, when employees are disengaged, which triggers high turnover, consultants estimate that it costs the U.S. economy $30.5 billion annually (Adkins, n.d.).

Gallup found that only 29% of millennials are engaged at work, meaning that only 29% are emotionally and behaviorally connected to their job and company. On the other hand, 16% of millennials are actively disengaged, meaning that they are actively working against the goals of the company and seeking to do damage to it. This leaves the remaining 55% disengaged workers who are interested in simply completing their tasks and leaving (Adkins, n.d.). Companies need to give these workers reasons to stay, attracting, retaining, and engaging their employees in the workplace so that they feel seen, safe, and valued. It is important to under- stand the millennials’ levels of engagement now, before they make up the larg- est portion of the workforce. By understanding the expectations that Millennials bring to the workforce, companies can be more prepared and equipped to engage them and ensure that they feel seen, safe, and valued in the workplace.

Who are the Millennials?

In an increasingly diverse, multigenerational workforce, the challenges of navigating issues of communication and organizational commitment has garnered increasing attention from Human resources professionals and executives, as well as management scholars and researchers. Rodriguez (2006) stated that the big- gest, most important factor driving executive level diversity and inclusion strat- egy would be the need to engage all employees’ skills and creativity, and use those assets to add value to the customer experience. The term “diversity” in itself evokes the idea of differentiation in the workplace, and it is appropriate to identify Millennials in the context of varying qualities, experiences, work styles and val- ues that make individuals unique. Diversity factors may be surface level, such as those which are visible and easily observed (age, race, gender, some disabilities) or it may be deep level, involving religion, some disabilities, sexual orientation and ethnicity. In the contemporary workforce the four dominant groups represent the Veterans, or Traditionalists (those born before 1946), Baby Boomers (born mid-1940s to mid-1960s), Generation Xers (mid-1960s to 1980), and Millennials (1980 to 2000). The latest generation, Gen Z, has reached working age (those born from 2000 forward) and will bring even more diversity and specific expectations into the workplace.

The Veteran workers in the United States workforce are the survivors of World War II and the Great Depression. They tend to hold great pride in and loyalty toward American values, and have significant respect for authority and

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

194 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

chain of command. Baby Boomers, the children of the returning Veterans, value work but see it as a competition, as they had to prove themselves at every level of achievement they earned. Members of Generation X tend to desire feedback and flexibility, which require clear communication. However, Gen Xers resent close supervision and work to live, rather than operating under the need to prove their dedication through long hours and high visibility. The Millennials are the smartest, cleverest, healthiest, most wanted generation to have ever existed. They are quickly bored by routine, confident, assertive, and friendly with their parents (who may have adopted an overly-involved role in their lives, thus earning the term “helicopter parent”) (Gurchiek, 2008).

There is an impending talent shortage, as the experienced individual contrib- utors and managers of people from the Veteran and Baby Boomer generations exit the workforce. Additionally, and worse, traditionally there has been a limited transfer of knowledge between the groups. Gurchiek (2008) suggests that the gen- erations rarely interact in the workplace, such that employee engagement, trust, and commitment are difficult to establish. Members of different generations on the same team may not recognize each other’s skills and work ethics, or value one another’s perspectives.

As mentioned earlier, Millennials are those individuals who were born between 1980 and 2000, between the ages of roughly 20 to early 30s. This generation will soon represent the largest portion of the American workforce (Asghar, 2014). Also known as Generation Y, the millennials have been described as globally aware, technologically sophisticated, ambitious, team-oriented, narcissistic, socially in- ept, and lacking in work ethic (Asghar, 2014; Dannar, 2013; Gibson, Greenwood, & Murphy, 2009). Millennials are curious, questioning and results oriented, a generation that accepts diversity and is comfortable with instant communication and social networking (Gibson et al., 2009). They have, however, been given names like the “Look at Me” generation to describe their overly self-confident, self-centered, disloyal, and unmotivated stereotypes (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).

A generation’s values and behaviors are a manifestation of the relationship between parents, siblings, influential people, the media, and historical events that have a significant impact during formative years (Danner, 2013). Events such as 9/11, Columbine and other violent tragedies (such as school and theater mass shootings), and celebrity scandals have shaped millennials’ culture and perspec- tive, causing them to alter their expectations of companies for which they work (Gibson et al., 2009; Schweitzer & Lyons, 2010). Growing up in a true global economy, most members of the generation experienced instant gratification of microwave cooking, news and entertainment in small bites from music television videos, early exposure to personal computers and other digital tools. Millennials have experienced many influential events and now have an emphasis on an ethical business culture and an organization that lives out its values.

Technology is an integral part of the millennial identity as they are the first generation to be in continual communication with a network of friends and fam-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 195

ily. As a result, millennials view work and life as a balance that is equally achiev- able because of advanced technology. This can, perhaps, explain why millennials are perceived as lacking work ethics. Millennials have grown accustomed to easy access to information and are eager to eager to share their thoughts, opinions, and experiences on social networks (Dannar, 2013; Gibson et al., 2009). This genera- tion was raised to believe, indeed to know, that their opinions mattered and were absolutely critical to people around the world. As a result, social media tools like Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Snapchat and Instagram empower millennials and represent a significant part of millennials’ lives, communication norms, and iden- tities, even in the workplace.

Millennials are a unique generation because they are entering the workforce with superior knowledge of technology. They are also unique because they are a generation shaped by unique events that have drastically shifted their values and beliefs. Employers and companies should take what makes this generation unique and use it to their advantage, creating work environments that are more likely to engage and retain millennial employees.

Millennials’ Expectations

Based on the values and beliefs that have come to define millennials, research- ers seek to determine what they expect of their workplace. In determining these expectations, companies can be more prepared in learning how to engage them. For the millennial employee, the first three years of the employment life cycle are critical. Their loyalty, if any, is tenuous during that time period and they may be slow to trust institutions but may trust a manager instead. They may show no hesitation in expressing their perspective that if they are not engaged, do not like the job, the work, the workplace, or the management, they can quit and be well received at home or somewhere else. To avert these potentially negative trends, leaders and role models can help millennials design reasonable blueprints to get where they want to go professionally. HR and frontline managers can and should make it acceptable to deal with workplace problems, challenges, and conflicts in different ways. And, most importantly, encouraging congruence between the (organization’s and the) managers’ stated or espoused values and their enacted values, or walking the talk (Gurchiek, 2008).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Popular literature suggests that millennials “want it all” and “want it now” (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). They want work/life balance, good pay and benefits, rapid advancement, interesting and challenging work, and work that holds sig- nificance. Millennials place a heavy emphasis on work/life balance. Because of advancing technologies, millennials do not feel that they need to choose between work and life, regarding it as “symbiotic in nature” (Dannar, 2013). The events of September 11, 2001, when the United States experienced its most drastic loss

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

196 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

of life due to foreign terrorist attacks, caused many millennials to re-evaluate their life priorities and choose work that allows them to adequately balance work and their personal lives. Millennials place their trust in organizations and have a strong preference for structured environments with clear rules (Schweitzer & Ly- ons, 2010). In this conceptual chapter we have laid the groundwork for a clearer understanding of millennial workers’ needs to feel seen, safe, and valued in the workplace, set in the theoretical context of employee engagement.

Millennials want to be seen. They desire attention and feedback, regarding their leaders as mentors, and companionship and close relationships within the workplace that emphasize teamwork and collaboration (Dannar, 2013). Motivated by ambition, a desire to be respected, and the significance of the work, millennials seek rapid advancement in an organization. They are willing to leave the company if this does not happen fast enough (Danner, 2013). Millennials are exception- ally good at gathering and acquiring information and knowledge because of their technological expertise, but they expect their organizational leaders to provide guidance as to how that information should be interpreted (Dannar, 2013). They want to be mentored and provided with sufficient support for their advancement (Kurian, 2017). Mentoring allows organizational leaders to provide instruction and guidance, offer wisdom, guide skill development, and develop meaningful relationships with their employees (Dannar, 2013). Mentoring also serves as a compromise between organizational expectations and millennial expectations. A mentor can teach millennial employees the company’s expectations in ways that makes sense to someone whose values have been shaped by different events and lifestyles (Asghar, 2014).

Millennials Want to Feel Safe in the Workplace

They want to enjoy the working experience and feel comfortable in the organi- zational culture. Close companionship is important for millennials, who prefer to collaborate rather than compete with co-workers (Dannar, 2013). Millennials want to collaborate with colleagues and managers that they respect and connect with colleagues inside and outside the office (Kurian, 2017; Asghar, 2014). Gurchiek (2008) suggested several specific actions that human resources and management professionals can integrate to improve intergenerational employee engagement:

1. Create training programs that address future senior leaders’ preparation 2. Design a set of competencies to model desired behaviors, including

knowledge transfer 3. Link compensation to goals of personal growth and career progression 4. Define the jobs or roles that are “mission-critical;” identify unique re-

quirements, and target /develop the talent needed 5. Customize retention strategies to generational needs 6. Define expectations about performance and productivity and then stand

by that

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 197

7. Use clear, straightforward language 8. Don’t hint and don’t assume 9. See the best. 10. Celebrate achievements.

To ensure that Millennials feel safe in the workplace, communicate expecta- tions clearly and offer opportunities for achievement of personal and professional goals in a learning organizational culture, or an environment that does not punish mistakes or inquiries.

Millennials want to be valued. They have a constant need for gratification and appreciation for both small and big successes. A workplace that fosters open and honest communication is more likely to engage this generation because they want to feel like their ideas and opinions matter. They want to know that their insight has company-wide significance (Kurian, 2017; Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Millennials value manager feedback and they view strong relationships with su- pervisors to be foundational to their long-term satisfaction in the organization (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Because millennials are motivated by accomplish- ment, close companionship, and a desire to be respected, they want responsibility within the company, evidenced in the significance of the work, and want a chance for promotions (Dannar, 2013; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). By making work more exciting and relevant, managers can engage their millennials employees, showing them verifiable career opportunities (Gibson et al., 2009). According to Dannar (2013), a “delegation of employment-related duties should be utilized so millennials can experience high levels of responsibility, meaningfulness, and a sense of personal fulfillment” (p. 9).

Company leaders can foster a workplace environment that facilitates the best performance from all their employees, starting with making their employees feel seen, safe, and valued. These organizations may need to alter rules and policies, so they can fully utilize millennials’ abilities (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). It is important for companies to understand the expectations that Millennials bring into the workplace so that they can better engage them. The impending influx of Millennials should excite employers, but it should also motivate them to prepare their workplace to ensure compatibility and compromise with millennial and or- ganizational expectations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

This initial conceptual foray into the dialogue around employee engagement has led to many practical ideas and considerations for HR managers and executives to consider. These considerations are particularly relevant with regard to improving employee engagement among the millennial generation as they enter the work- force en masse within the next two to seven years. Our initial research has indi- cated clear connections between established theoretical models and the idea that employees of all generations, but especially Millennials, need to feel seen, safe,

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

198 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

and valued in the workplace. These connections link theories around employees’ basic human needs with specific ways to address and validate those needs in the workplace. Additionally, we see opportunities for additional academic research into the dimensions of employee engagement and workplace motivation identified here. Specifically, we intend to identify validated scale items to capture employee perceptions of visibility, safety, and perceived value in their workplaces. Compil- ing such a scale from previously validated instruments, testing, and administering it, will provide a clear image of Millennials’ expectations and actual perceptions of being seen, safe, and valued in their workplaces. We seek to compare these data points with responses to an abbreviated measurement of employee engagement such as the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, or UWES or UWES-9 (Roof, 2015; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) to millennial employees with less than five years’ workforce experience will provide a dataset from which we can identify the relationships between employee engagement and feelings of being seen, safe, and valued in the workplace, and what those factors indicate in terms of millennial employees’ expectations.

One challenging limitation of the continued research motivated by this review of the literature is that while millennial employees may be willing to share their expectations and desires for their workplace experience, common method vari- ance (CMV) is likely to pose a challenge, as with any self-report data gathering initiative. Additionally the challenge of social desirability bias may affect how participants respond to questions about whether they expected to feel seen, safe, and valued in the workplace prior to joining their current employer, and the de- gree to which they actually feel those things. Further examination of the employee engagement literature for validated scales that precisely capture employee en- gagement is required, as well.

CONCLUSION

This chapter established the linkages between individual motivation, employee engagement, and employee perceptions of visibility, safety, and value in the work- place. We have reviewed the literature on employee engagement and identified that among millennial workers there are specific demands which HR leaders and frontline managers and supervisors should acknowledge and address, to ensure higher engagement among the millennial workforce. We have also initiated analy- sis of the available scales and instruments with which we can measure and docu- ment employees’ perceptions of engagement and identify correlations between engagement levels and feeling seen, safe, and valued in the workplace. As we add to the dialogue around millennial workers’ expectations and existing perceptions of employee engagement, we do so with the desire to help consultants and practi- tioners in human resource development and HR management, as well as frontline managers and supervisors, to convert theoretical research results into practical steps that will positively affect productivity, performance, and employee com- mitment. In light of the constantly evolving body of knowledge around employee

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Millennial Workers and the Employee Engagement Phenomenon • 199

engagement and organizational commitment, trust, relative to the demands of the millennial workforce, we assert that the employee engagement “wave” has not crested, but that there is significant work yet to be done in this area.

REFERENCES

Adkins, A. (n.d.). Millennials: The job-hopping generation. Gallup, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/workplace/231587/millennials-job-hopping-generation. aspx

Asghar, R. (2014, January 14). What millennials want in the workplace (and why you should start giving it to them). Forbes.com. Retrieved from https://www.forbes. com/sites/robasghar/2014/01/13/what-millennials-want-in-the-workplace-and- why-you-should-start-giving-it-to-them/#1b27d8fa4c40

Dannar, P. R. (2013). Millennials: What they offer our organizations and how leaders can make sure they deliver. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 6(1/3). doi: http:// scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol6/iss1/3

Deloitte. (2014, January). The Deloitte millennial survey. Retrieved from Deloitte: https:// www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx- dttl-2014-millennial-survey-report.pdf

Donston-Miller, D. (2016, May 5). Workforce 2020: What you need to know now. Re- trieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/workday/2016/05/05/workforce- 2020-what-you-need-to-know-now/#44b16e9b2d63

Forret, M., & Love, M. S. (2008). Employee justice perceptions and coworker relation- ships. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 29(3), 248–260.

Gibson, J., Greenwood, R., & Murphy, E. (2009). Generational differences in the work- place: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity Man- agement, 4(3), 7.

Gurchiek, K. (2008, June 3). Generational conflicts aggravate talent shortage. Retrieved from Society for Human Resource Management: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/ news/hr-news/pages/generationalconflictstalentshortage.aspx

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2006). Q12 meta-analysis. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

Kahn, W. A. (2010). The essence of engagement: Lessons from the field. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), New horizons in management. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspec- tives, issues, research and practice (pp. 20–30). Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kerns, C. D. (2014). Fostering and managing engagement: A framework for managerial leadership. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(1), 34–49.

Kurian, S. (2017). Meet the millennials. Its her future (pp. 1–22). KPMG. Retrieved from https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2017/04/Meet-the-Millennials- Secured.pdf

Macey, W. H., &Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 376–387.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B, & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 52, 397–422.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

200 • ANGELA N. SPRANGER & SIERRA CHEN

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication

perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010- 9172-7

Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 281–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4

Rana, S., Ardichvili, A., & Tkachenko, O. (2014). A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 249–266. doi:10.1108/jwl-09-2013-0063

Rigoni, B., & Adkins, A. (n.d.). Millennial job-hoppers: what they seek: Gallup, Inc. Re- trieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/191585/millennial-job-hop- pers-seek.aspx

Rodriguez, R. (2006, August 1). Diversity finds its place. HR Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0806rodriguez.aspx

Roof, R. (2015). The Association of Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement: The spirit at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 585–599.

Saks, A., & Gruman, J. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Hu- man Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–181. Doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21187

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006) The measurement of work engage- ment with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. Retrieved from https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/ publications/Schaufeli/251.pdf

Shuck, B., Zigarmi, D., & Owen, J. (2015). Psychological needs, engagement, and work intentions: A Bayesian multi-measurement mediation approach and implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(1), 2–21.

Shuck, B., Owen, J., Manthos, M., Quirk, K., & Rhoades, G. (2016). Co-workers with ben- efits: The influence of commitment uncertainty and status on employee engagement in romantic workplace relationships. Journal of Management Development, 35(3), 382–393. doi: 10.1108/JMD-02-2015-0014

Shuck, B., Rocco, T., & Albornoz, C. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Train- ing, 35(4), 300–325. Doi: 10.1108/03090591111128306

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

Spranger, A. (2015). StepOne Consulting. Retrieved from StepOne Consulting, LLC: www.step1consulting.com

Valentin, M. A., Valentin, C., & Nafukho, F. (2015). The engagement continuum model using corporate social responsibility as an intervention for sustained employee en- gagement: Research leading practice. European Journal of Training and Develop- ment, 39, 182–202. 10.1108/EJTD-01-2014-0007.

Zigarmi, D., Blanchard, S., Essary, V., & Houson, D. (2017). The leadership-profit chain. perspectives. Escondido, CA: The Ken Blanchard Companies.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 4:44 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use