Employee Engagement & Involvement Harvard Case Solution & Analysis


Articles that have been analyzed are inclusive of either employee engagement or employee involvement issues. Most of the articles are focusing on employee engagement factor except for that one that is written by Manville. Although the articles include sufficient theoretical information on both the topics but they lack significant real time examples and facts.  In the article by Manville, he first delineates that how communication can impact employee engagement and involvement based on the Athenian model of architecture of citizenship. The author examines some pre-requisites necessary for engaging and involving employees in a learning organization.

However, it is seen that the author has a very optimistic and firm tone on his argument of the Athenian model. Hence, no contrary pints are presented. In addition to this, the author doesn’t tell the things that should be avoided in order sustain employee engagement and involvement. Nevertheless, the article focuses on emphasizing the importance of employees in an organization by endorsing the impact of participatory structures, communal values and practices engagement. The author gathers opinions from experts and stats that support the author line of reasoning. In essence, the article written by Manville is a concordant with the articles written by (Johnson 2011) (Vlachotsicos 2011) and (Boswell, Bingham and Colvin 2006) but with a different frame of mind. Manville’s article follows an approach that requires an organization to develop a holistic culture and help employees to grow organically by means of Athenian Model.

The article written by (Johnson 2011) is also concordant with the findings of Manville when talking about employee engagement. However, (Johnson 2011) correlates employer workplace deviance with employee engagement. The article by Meg Johnson is coherent, written in a logical fashion yet the article is theoretical in nature. However, it also includes references and facts cited from different studies and survey findings. Flowing in a logical manner, the article describes workplace deviance, followed by its types, targets and how it can be addressed through employee engagement. It concludes by marking that through employee engagement one can address the issue of deviance in the workplace.

The article focuses on workplace deviance and highlights major workplace behaviors. If the employees have this kind of behavior then according to the author the organization possesses engaged employees. However, this paper has a narrowed focus on deviance as the only cause of unengaged workforce; therefore, the author lacks in her ability to consider other factors that impact employee engagement. The author also tries to establish a correlation between these two by citing studies and surveys that support his line of reasoning.

The article is trying to establish that workplace deviance is minimized and employee engagement can be enhanced. This article takes a critical look at the concept of employee engagement and workplace deviance and also on the definition of engagement itself. The article has also cited Gallop studies, which have added rigor to the article. In addition to this, several other authorized citations are used in the article by adding credibility to the author’s prospect. Further the author is also quoting other variables that contribute to increase or decrease employee engagement, which shows that the article presents balanced view on employee engagement.

When talking of employee engagement, I can recall a personal experience where I encountered two types of employees. There were employees in my organization who were reinforced on a continuous basis, and those who were compared and humiliated on a continuous basis. As the organization was a new entrant in its prospective industry, it lacked employee skills or more precisely, personnel skills. Although the humiliated employees had no flaws in their work yet they were kept behind in the race. This puzzled them a lot. Slowly and gradually some of these out-group employees got disengaged to their work due to the prevalent perception about them in the organization. However, the remaining out-group employees didn’t give up and planned to speak their heart out with the management.

What happened was that the organization realized soon that the out-group employees were not out-group at all and they were a part of the organization human capital. As those employees raised their concerns regarding humiliation, hence, administration was worried of their perception amongst the employees. They conducted a meeting after a week and embraced the out-group qualities in front of the in-group employees.

However, the moral of the anecdotal example is that an organization should keep a check and balance on the issues of distribute and procedural justice amongst employees. If an organization fails to do so, then it may harm its reputation among the employees.  In addition to that, employees need to be involved, engaged and encouraged for their work piece regularly so that they start owning the organization. Comparison amongst employees face to face is a demeaning act and may lower down employee morale and motivation. This will impact the overall performance of the organization and may also bring in costs associated to employee turnover.............................

This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.

Share This


Save Up To




Register now and save up to 30%.