Perception of employee engagement at the South African Pharmacy Council

Abstract

High-performing companies are said to differentiate themselves from peers by paying attention to their clients and their employees (Amato, 2015). Relationships between people in the organisation are central to understanding relations within a system, because people relate to each other rather than departments, units and divisions. If the relationship is sound within an organisation, that spread across all areas affected by the relationship becomes much more effective than when the relationships are strained. (Goldman, et al., 2010) The purpose of the study which was to contribute a better understanding on how employees at the SAPC consider themselves engaged in performing their job roles and if that perception is reflected in their performance and to make a recommendation if necessary. The research question being to identify whether the perception held by employees on engagement correlates with the aggregate performance outcome in 2016. The estimated target was 61 employees, however only 68.89% (42) of employees participated. These participants signed the consent form, the remainder were either absent during the data collection period or did not complete the survey The study tested the psychological conditions perceived by each employee using aspects 12 variables from Saks and Rotman, (2006). The statistics results found only five of the twelve suitable to be analysed (described in chapter 4). Based on chapter 4 results, the five variables evaluated showed a negative perception of employee engagement. These are concerns that requires attention and the reasons should be determined so that they be addressed. The results on the job engagement; job characteristics, perceived supervisors’ support; OCBI; distributive justice; reward and recognition; and job satisfaction were not evaluated, as stated in chapter 4.  Meaningfulness in work: described the degree to which staff find meaning from their work, resulting from the nature of work one does. when they are feeling worthwhile, useful, and valuable; and perceiving that they are 7 making a difference and not been taken for granted. Includes but not limited to job control, task variety, feedback (Saks & Gruman, 2014).  Psychological meaningfulness at work: degree to which staff find value in the workplace, emanating from one’s membership in an organisation, It is more influenced by factors associated with the organisation itself instead of employee’s specific tasks (Van der Merwe, Chermack, Kulikowich, & Yang, 2007).  Psychological safety: feeling vital and essential for all types of employee engagement as the ability for one to employ and express one’s true self without fear of negative consequences to self-image and status (Kahn, 1990). Employees need to feel safe to completely involve themselves in roles (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The study suggests that there is a gap within this, although other variables influencing this were not evaluated.  Availability: The belief that one has the physical, emotional, and psychological resources required to invest oneself in the performance of a role. Task and role features and work interactions add value to meaningfulness which positively affects the availability. Saks and Gruman (2014) mention four distractions with undesirable influence on psychological availability being “depletion of physical energy, depletion of emotional energy, insecurity, and outside lives” (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The negative response to all five variables evaluated i.e. procedural justice, job character, organisational engagement, commitment and support, and the existing intention to quit are concerning to Meaningfulness in work, Psychological meaningfulness at work and Psychological safety and availability discussed in points above. Although the seven variables influencing this were not evaluated, the five procedural justice, organisational engagement, commitment and support, and the existing intention to quit. There was a general negative response by staff regarding being engaged by the employer, although they still perform duties in a commendable manner, as their clients’ perception and performance evaluation outcome showed.8 Regarding the customer satisfaction, the study does not have information on the percentage of participants in the SAPC customer satisfaction survey to measure significance level, however their clients’ satisfaction results were good as indicated in section 1.2. The Staff performance evaluation outcome was good as indicated in section 4.4. The hypothesis was to a reasonable extent tested and that it is true that the employee perception on meaningfulness of and at work correlates to with their performance evaluation. The positive customer feedback received also backs up these results. Future research could investigate the constructs of variables in Table 3 whether these are appropriate to measure each variable. The SAPC can also use this study to investigate the concerns further to positively influence the staff level of engagement. Clearly, they have committed and competent staff, they need to ensure that the organisation reciprocates that equitably. Overall, SAPC staff can be commended for the score given by their customers and their performance report which reflects a consistent achievement which to some extent is supported by the literature reviewed. RECOMMENDATION The SAPC can benefit by conducting a follow-up study to dig deep into the aspects and categories that scored negatively in employees’ engagement perception, this being to identify, verify, investigate and address the root cause of such perceptions. This can be achieved as they are already doing well for a non-profit organisation. SAPC can improve the perception of staff and achieve a better performance from the staff which will result in a better customer perception outcome.