Hence, other hand Towers Watson approach comprises traditional

Hence, the above paragraphs show the similarities between
Burr and Girardi’s (2002) ideas about intellectual capital and the Towers
Watson (2012) framework for sustainable employee engagement. Burr and Girardi’s
ideas suggests that in order to optimise the intellectual capital that exist in
with people, organizations need to control the capacity of people working in a
firm and their willingness to apply it and giving them the opportunity to do so
as well. And Towers Watson ideas believes that engaged employees are
emotionally invested in the organization. And the organization should facilitate
sustainable engagement through its culture, work systems and the way it manages
its people. So, it can be said as these two different ideas have different
values but at some point these ideas are similar and at some point it’s
different. Even though they have few dissimilarities, but these both ideas have
same common objectives which is to increase employees’ performance and
ultimately organizational performance.

There are few differences in between these two concepts.
Burr and Girardi’s model says that organizations need to harness the capacity
of employees and their willingness to apply it as well as giving them the
opportunity to do so whereas Tower Watson’s framework says that organization
has an important role in facilitating sustainable engagement through its
culture, work systems and the way it manages its people. Burr and Girardi’s
model talks about the control mechanism but Watson’s framework talks about the
employee who are not just motivated to do their jobs well, but they are
emotionally invested in the organization. Intellectual capital is the
collective insights, expert knowledge and commitment of employees whereas
employee engagement is the extent to which employees are emotionally invested
in an organization. Burr and Girardi’s approach comprises competence,
commitment and control but on the other hand Towers Watson approach comprises
traditional engagement, enablement and energy. Towers Watson is actually more
than commitment. As per this approach, engaged employees are not just motivated
to do their jobs but they are emotionally invested in the organization.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Both the models are concerned with increasing the employee performance
and ultimately organizational performance through different concepts. Both the
concepts include the commitment factor which should be there in every firms to
increase the working efficiency. Burr and Girardi’s model says that the
intellectual capital is the product of commitment and competence. Without
commitment, a firm can get a talented employee but can’t get things done.
Similarly, Watson’s elements also consist the traditional engagement element
which says employees’ commitment to the organization and willingness give extra
effort to their employer. Commitment is the degree of identification and
involvement that individuals have with their organizations’ mission, values and
goals. Employee engagement goes further than simple compliance or surface
behaviour, it is an emotional attachment to the organization. Employee think
not just of “what’s in it for me?”, but also “what’s in it for us?” Companies that
have engaged employees perform better and have higher staff retention than
those that do not. A highly passionate employee will have a high level of intellectual
capital and engagement, it means that s/he who is smart or competent and highly
engaged employee will perform well at work. And also, Intellectual capital
cannot be separately applied in efforts to explain performance and performance
management. So, both the elements are required for increasing the organizational
performance. As per the Burr and Girardi’s ideas, the nature of the employment relationship
influences the extent to which this discretionary effort is applied. So, employment
relationship has to be good in order to create a proper working environment,
culture and work systems. If the employees are engaged, then the firm can deliver
operating margins more that the low engagement companies. Within the frameworks
of job designs, theorists suggest that the power over respective jobs and hence
performance encompasses influences on the ability to utilise skills, to conform
to efficacy beliefs and job crafting with the ideology of worker empowerment at
the centre.

Towers Watson
preaches sustainable engagement – a measurement which has an increased focus on
productivity. And as per Watson, companies having high sustainable engagement
deliver operating margins that are 3 times higher than those of low-engagement
companies. According to the Towers Watson Australia Global Workforce Survey, 32
per cent of people admitted to performing below par in the previous month, only
52 per cent of people said the level of stress they were under was manageable
and 56 per cent worried about their future financial state. According to
Towers, there are five top workplace elements on sustainable engagement that
have the greatest collective impact. They are leadership, stress, balance &
workload, goals & objectives, supervisors and organizations’ image. And
Towers believes that by focusing on the five drivers of sustainable engagement,
organizations can set a focused and relevant agenda that can make a difference
in their performance, often without a significant monetary investment. Towers
Watson found that only two in five workers (39%) in Asia Pacific are highly
engaged at work. The rest, three-fifths of the workforce, are struggling to
cope with work situations that do not provide adequate support and emotional
connection. These workers are not consistently productive and they lack the
willingness to go the extra mile for their employers. The lack of employee
engagement translates to a cost for their employers in terms of loss in
productivity, lower work performance and high staff turnover. And Watson
believes that the organization should play an important role in facilitating
sustainable engagement through its culture, work systems and the way it manages
its people.

Burr and Girardi expanded Ulrich model developed in 1998 which takes into considerations
a third integral element that is control, and provide an empirical causality
between the variables that can all be affected by an organizations’
approach to HRM which
Ulrich fell short of doing. Intellectual capital is consequently a product of “capacity which
is the knowledge, skills abilities, information and experience of people;
willingness of people to apply capacity; and opportunity provided by the work
system to activate stocks of intellectual capital”. It is also said as a product
of competence and commitment. It is evident within two broad levels which are individual
and organisational. The interplay between ability, behaviour, effort and time
to which the employees have the sole autonomy is said to be an important
contributing factor for organisations. The effectiveness of this theory to
employee performance is seen on how it clarifies the issue of competence and
commitment as limited or insufficient factors in the development of
intellectual capital. It is used in understanding HRM principles particularly
in employee performance. As per Burr and Girardi, intellectual capital has
three core ideas integrated into it: capacity, willingness and opportunity. The
measure of intellectual capital is regarded as the measure of capacity, skills utilisation
and efficiency when it comes to competence requirements as well as commitment,
either affective, continuance or normative. And the model of Burr
and Girardi indicates that organizations need to harness the capacity of
employees, and their willingness to apply it and as well as giving them the
opportunity to do so in order to optimise the intellectual capital that resides
with the people. So, therefore, we can say that the implication of this model
is that HRM policies and practices that enrich employee capacity and willingness,
and which provide opportunity, will not only increase employee performance but
also leads to increase organizational performance.

Engaged
employees perform better in their jobs. And they are less likely to take leave,
and businesses with high engagement levels tend to show higher profit margins. Engagement is not just an
event, it’s an experience that shapes employee behaviour and performance in
positive ways. And to manage employee engagement successfully, we have to
measure the quality of work, not just the quantity. Sustainable engagement is
the intensity of employees’ connection to their organization, based on three
core elements which are traditional engagement, enablement and energy. And
sustainable engagement requires strong leaders and managers. It refers
to employees maintaining a positive connection to their companies that yields
consistent productivity.

“The
term “Intellectual Capital” collectively refers to all resources that determine
the value of an organization, and the competitiveness of an enterprise.” It is
an intangible assets of the organization which grows if the firm is to prosper
unlike other assets which begin to depreciate the day they are acquired.  It is considered as a valuable,
non-substitutable and inimitable strategic resources with similar propositions
in knowledge – based theory concerning knowledge based resources and
capabilities. Some people has also described intellectual capital as Intellectual
property is the value of a company or organization’s employee knowledge,
skills, business training or any proprietary information that may provide the
company with a competitive advantage. From a human resources perspective, it is
not an easily translatable into financial terms. Intellectual capital is both
ascertainable and transferable and so as performance that travels from
individual to organisational frameworks. Though the term capital is vague and
problematic, intellectual capital takes into consideration intangible assets
that are not intellectual. As such, performance is said to be equally diffused
in organisations. Intellectual capital includes the skills and knowledge that a
company has developed about how to make its goods and services.