USING THE FOUR FUNCTIONS OF
MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
Todd A. Conkright, CPT, MA
This article provides a model for sustaining employee engagement through the application
of the four functions of management. Training managers in using the four functions, with an
emphasis on control, improves the sustainability of engagement efforts. Following is a brief
primer of the four functions of management. The article provides practical steps to apply the
functions to sustain employee engagement.
MUCH HAS BEEN written in the past decade on the
subject of employee engagement, both at a scholarly
research level as well as at a practitioner-oriented level
reaching a broad audience of executives and managers.
This article steps away from the argument of whether carrots or sticks are better at motivating employees. Neither
does it focus on the intricacies of meaningful and satisfying work. This article focuses on the implementation and
sustaining of engagement models, no matter the exact
flavor of the initiative.
The goal of this article is to discover what it takes to
implement an engagement model within an organization and how to sustain the model over time. Most of
us are well-acquainted with fly-by-night programs that
promise to deliver engaged and satisfied employees, only
to see those programs abandoned or neglected when
something new catches the attention of top leaders in the
organization. Is it possible to keep the attention of management and to infuse the organization with an approach
to engagement that becomes part of the very core of the
firm?
French engineer Henri Fayol published his theory of
management in 1916. It was not translated to English
until 1949, but it quickly gained favor. Today both Fayol
and Frederick Taylor are considered to be the fathers of
modern management (Hindle, 2009; Parker & Ritson,
2005). In General and Industrial Management, Fayol
introduced five elements of management, later reduced
to what we now refer to as the four functions of management: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling
(Rodrigues, 2001). Business majors are introduced to
the four functions early, usually in Business 101. But
somehow, the simplicity of the four functions gets lost
when students transition from academic to professional
life.
There is no doubt that the research of the past century,
since Fayol and Taylor formulated their theories, has
brought a better understanding of what motivates and
engages workers. However, many organizations still fall
short when it comes to on-the-job application. Perhaps
we need to set aside the further research of new theories
and focus instead on how to apply what is already known.
Maybe we need to go back to the beginning of management theory and discover the missing link between
theory and practice when it comes to implementing and
sustaining employee engagement.
Performance Improvement, vol. 54, no. 8, September 2015
©2015 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21506
15
Most of us are wellacquainted with fly-by-night
programs that promise to
deliver engaged and satisfied
employees, only to see those
programs abandoned or
neglected when something
new catches the attention
of top leaders in the
organization.
FOUR FUNCTIONS PRIMER,
OR REFRESHER
Fayol’s original categories of management were planning,
organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling.
Commanding and coordinating eventually merged into
leading. Following is a summary of the four functions of
management, followed by lessons we can learn from each
function as we consider how to sustain employee engagement beyond the initial launch.
Although presented linearly, and sometimes referred
to as a process, the functions of management often overlap as multiple projects and initiatives operate simultaneously and at different stages. However, it makes sense
to start with planning, which has to do with creating a
strategy and bringing the organization’s mission to life
through layers of activities performed at all levels of the
enterprise. Planning requires managers to understand
current realities and future contingencies concurrently,
while also creating a vision of the desired future.
With a plan in place, managers turn their attention to
organizing resources to carry it out. Organizing requires
a systems mind-set, an ability to view all of the pieces to
the puzzle and orchestrate specific activities toward making the vision a reality. Fayol saw the organization as an
organism, a body corporate, which needed to operate in
harmony (Parker & Ritson, 2005).
Leadership is perhaps one of the most studied topics of
our generation. We have come a long way since the great
person theory (Carlyle, 1840) and the belief that leaders
are born, not made. The term leadership was unknown
before 1800, but researchers have been busy for the past
200 years trying to understand what makes an effective
16
www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • SEPTEMBER 2015
leader. When it comes to the four functions of management, leading seeks to execute a plan by motivating the
human resources identified in the previous steps of planning and organizing through rewards or consequences.
As was noted earlier, Fayol used the terms commanding
and coordinating to mean leadership, so the emphasis is
on those activities that move people toward action in a
structured and accountable fashion.
The final function, controlling, has to do with measuring and revising activities to ensure the plan is completed.
Deviations from the plan need to be analyzed and corrected. If threats or opportunities present themselves,
the control function allows for intelligent adjustments.
Quality assurance, financial performance, customer experience, and overall objective achievement are all evaluated
through controlling activities.
APPLYING THE FOUR FUNCTIONS TO
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES
An essential part of planning is to clarify meanings and
assumptions. When it comes to employee engagement,
it is important to define what is meant by the term. Any
organization interested in a more engaged workforce
needs to ensure everyone involved understands what
engagement looks like. It can be different in each organization. Engagement is not easy to sort out, because
different cultural and leadership behaviors do not equally
motivate different types of people.
In an April 2014 article at Forbes.com, HR consultant
Josh Bersin states, “I believe the issue of ‘engaging people
well’ is becoming one of the biggest competitive differentiators in business” (Bersin, 2014). He offers a new
definition of employee engagement that goes beyond the
annual engagement survey and focuses on those things
that make an organization thrive.
Engagement is not a panacea. Critics argue that there
is lack of evidence that an engagement strategy directly
affects organizational performance. In a July 2014 blog
article for hrmagazine.co.uk, organizational psychology professor Rob Briner states, “I do not know of any
publicly available, good quality evidence showing any
measure of engagement predicting any measure of performance” (Briner, 2014).
I believe Briner’s arguments about engagement practices really stem from the poor execution that accompanies many engagement programs. Introducing a new
engagement strategy requires the best in change management practices, which organizations are notoriously
lousy at carrying out successfully. The ball is dropped by
executives who turn their attention to the next crisis or
opportunity, leaving managers to carry on as best they
We may view many of
[Fayol’s] ideas as outdated,
but there is no doubt that
the principles of planning,
organizing, leading, and
controlling provide a
framework for organizational
operations that is still
relevant and useful today.
can to see the change through to the end. But the ball is
also dropped by frontline supervisors who lack the skill
and experience to sustain momentum and are torn in
multiple directions. If we could become better at managing change, we could improve employee engagement and
satisfaction markedly. As we look at the four functions of
management and apply them to launching and sustaining
of employee engagement initiatives, we will simultaneously look through the lens of change management practices and the related parallel activities.
Planning
At the planning stage, engagement goals are identified
and considered in light of the organization’s culture, mission, and values. The failure of many engagement initiatives stems from trying to use what worked in another
organization without thought for cultural and organizational fit.
Who should be involved in planning an engagement
strategy? Does it always fall on the shoulders of human
resources? I wonder how many engagement programs are
initiated by someone who read a book or saw a presentation at a conference and excitedly initiated a replica in his
or her own organization.
When done well, a planned engagement strategy is
championed by top leadership and implemented by
a cross-functional team of stakeholders. Engagement
efforts that are pushed down the organizational chart as a
program rather than organically developed with cultural
sensitivity are more likely to quickly fizzle out.
Stakeholders of engagement strategy come from
practically every corner of the organization. Talent acquisition must be included in the planning stage, so that the
right employees are hired to fit with the organization’s
culture. Next, it is important that the managers have the
knack and flair to motivate and retain talent. Operations
and marketing are often at strategic odds but must band
together when it comes to a unified engagement mind-set.
Defining engagement and choosing the right approach
takes time and a collaborative approach. The process
involves a review of values and objectives and a great deal
of insight into what core motivations exist for the organization as a collective entity. Planning requires a rigorous process for vetting ideas with a compelling vision to
enhance employee satisfaction, create meaningful work,
and affect commitment from employees.
At the end of the planning stage, there should be a clear
direction and a collective understanding of what is to be
done and why. Consideration for long-term endurance of
the plan should be among the top priorities. We should
ask what can be done to ensure our efforts continue and
become a part of who we are as an organization. With
commitment to the plan, those charged with developing
an implementation strategy can get started on their tasks.
Organizing
Fayol’s view of the organizing function was the creation
of order and structure (Parker & Ritson, 2005). In his
mind, order requires each member of the organization
to know his or her purpose, and individuals are held
together firmly by a well-structured hierarchy with limited bureaucracy. Esprit de corps, Fayol’s 14th management principle, is tied closely to what we now think of as
employee engagement. Fayol wrote,
Harmony, union among the personnel of a concern,
is great strength in that concern. Effort, then, should
be made to establish it . . . There is no merit in sowing
dissention among subordinates, any beginner can
do it. On the contrary, real talent is needed to coordinate effort, encourage keenness, use each
man’s [sic] abilities, and reward each one’s merit
without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing
harmonious relations. (1949, p. 40)
Organizing involves much more than merely planning
a kickoff of a new program. It means looking at every
function and process that affects engagement and the particular engagement scheme decided on in the planning
stage as well as developing new processes, mind-sets, and
approaches that support the overall initiative.
Considering engagement from a systems perspective
ensures that functions like sales, marketing, finance, and
operations are evaluated along with more obvious areas
like rewards and recognition. One would most likely aim
at aligning performance metrics and pay structures with
engagement, but what about less apparent shifts in customer service metrics or how the legal department writes
new contracts?
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 8 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi
17
Subcommittees may form in several functional areas
but should always have accountability to a central authority that checks function level strategies and tactics against
the master plan. These committees are responsible for
both strategies and tactics, taking the broad plan and
applying it to a specific function, then organizing a way
to implement the plan within their function.
Organizing the launch of an employee engagement
model or framework goes way beyond posters, picnics,
and propaganda. Organizations tend to put a lot of time
and money into communicating the launch of a new
initiative, but tend to be short-sighted in continuing to
spread the message after the first few months. In other
words, there is no long-term engagement with engagement. After the posters and tabletop displays become
frayed and faded, what message about the model continues to live and breathe within the organization?
If our engagement efforts are going to last, we must
pay attention to how we communicate, what we communicate, and how frequently we communicate the essential
messages throughout the organization. Prosci Research
has developed the awareness, desire, knowledge, ability,
and reinforcement model for change, which starts with
the individual’s reaction to change and the cycle each of
us goes through as we adjust to a new way of doing things
(Hiatt, 2006).
The common thread that runs through the awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement model
is communication. From building awareness through
executive and frontline manager communication to more
structured and directed training programs, communication is at the heart of successful change. Reinforcement
comes by way of coaching, performance management,
and continuously sharing the key messages that tie organizational values about engagement to everyday behaviors
and decisions. Specific outcomes of the organizing phase
of an engagement initiative include a cross-functional,
multiphase project plan, a change management plan, and
a strategic approach to developing leaders to consistently
carry out the model as it evolves to adapt to changing
organizational needs and responds to external conditions.
Leading
Fayol is often thought of as being the French version of
Frederick Taylor, whose scientific management ideas we
are familiar with. Fayol was much less rigid and scientific
than Taylor in his sense of a prescribed manner of efficiency. However, he was just as disciplined in gleaning a
set of principles that could be used to train future managers of industry (Parker & Ritson, 2005).
Of Fayol’s five principle functions of management, what
we now call leading was originally called commanding
18
www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • SEPTEMBER 2015
and coordinating. Although the modern mind today
would probably prefer the synonym directing in place of
commanding, what Fayol certainly meant was the commanding of resources, not necessarily by means of a domineering command-and-control leadership style.
Leading an organization through a significant change,
especially one fraught with diverse interpretations, conflicting drives, and competing forces such as employee
engagement, requires strong and well-coordinated
leadership. The triad of leadership theory, a change
management model, and an employee engagement philosophy can create a complexity from which not all
organizations may emerge with a clear sense of direction.
Transformational leadership paired with a structured
and comprehensive change management approach seems
to be a natural fit for introducing and sustaining an
employee engagement model.
The goals of employee engagement as they pertain to
increased job satisfaction, providing meaningful work,
and influencing discretionary effort are directly in line
with transformational leadership’s aim to: “promote and
motivate . . . followers by projecting and communicating
attractive visions, common goals and shared values as
well as by setting an example for the requested behavior”
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006).
A 2012 article in Career Development International
presented research supporting the link between transformational leadership and employee engagement (VincentHoper, Muser, & Janneck, 2012). Transformational
leadership is expected to raise followers to higher levels
of potential while satisfying their higher order needs
and thereby increasing employee dedication. There is
empirical evidence that transformational leadership is
positively associated with organizational commitment
and work engagement, even in different organizational
and cultural settings (Attridge, 2009; Avolio, Zhu, Koh,
& Bhatia, 2004; Cotton & Hart, 2003).
James McGregor Burns and Bernard Bass are the
fathers of transformational leadership. In his 1985 book
Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Bass
outlined eight characteristics of a transformational
leader:
• Is a model of integrity and fairness
• Sets clear goals
• Has high expectations
• Encourages others
• Provides support and recognition
• Stirs the emotions of people
• Gets people to look beyond their self-interest
• Inspires people to reach for the improbable
Those who are dedicated to increasing satisfaction,
meaning, and effort of an organization’s human resources
know that leadership is influence (Maxwell, 2005).
Leadership that positively influences engagement has the
following characteristics:
• Sincerity and leader accountability
• Universality
• Individualized
Followers can see when their leaders are going through
the motions. Leaders who show a genuine interest in
employees and find ways to develop and encourage them
are rewarded with a loyalty that brings about full engagement. A sincere leader is accountable to followers and
builds trust, honesty, and transparency, which are crucial to the leader-follower relationship (Vincent-Hoper,
Muser, & Janneck, 2012).
Organizations with a defined leadership model that
consistently permeates the culture will be more persistent
in their engagement efforts. Leadership that promotes
engagement begins with selecting leaders intentionally
for alignment with leadership competencies that are
important to the organization. Leadership training and
ongoing communication about what the company values
in its leaders, combined with an accountability process
that reinforces desired behaviors, ensures a universal and
enterprise-wide integration of the leadership model.
Finally, leaders are encouraged to customize their
approach to engagement at the individual level. Sensitivity
to what motivates employees, and the type of work they
like to do, the work environment they prefer, and the
work schedule that maximizes their productivity should
be taken into consideration. A one-size-fits-all approach
to employee engagement is sure to fall short for a significant segment of the employee population. The key
is to identify key universal factors, then help managers
interpret them with each employee at the individual level.
Controlling
Many of us have experienced the reality that more attention is given to deciding on an engagement strategy and
planning a program than is given to measuring and adjusting the strategy over time. Companies have a reputation
for putting on grand launches for engagement and change
initiatives, but they fizzle out in a few months when
something else catches the attention of executives. In this
last of Fayol’s management functions, we consider control
measures that make for continuous engagement. Fayol’s
idea of controlling has to do with adapting the overall
plan to changing circumstances (Hindle, 2009). Exiting
and onboarding employees and managers, entering new
markets, responding to ever-changing economic conditions, and other factors require organizational vigilance if
employee engagement is to remain strong.
In the awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement change model, there are five tactics to help
sustain the change (Hiatt, 2006):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Celebrations and recognition
Rewards
Feedback from employees
Audits and performance measurement systems
Accountability systems
These five tactics fit well with our desire to sustain
employee engagement continuously beyond the initial
launch.
The old adage to celebrate what you want to see more
of reminds us of the need to call out those behaviors and
attitudes that promote what is important to the organization. Sharing stories and creating organizational lore
around desired values is a memorable way to recognize
individuals and teams. Rewards and recognition programs are often seen as optional and could be curtailed
as quickly as employee development and training often
are when an organization is looking for ways to reduce
expenses. Nevertheless, these morale-boosting programs
may contribute more to productivity and engagement
than companies realize.
Determining what to measure and having a process
to evaluate and respond to the feedback from those
measures is where many organizations lose their way in
sustaining engagement, or any change for that matter.
Something happens after a large initiative is launched that
seems to zap the energy for continuing with the work.
In our obsession to cross things off of our to-do lists, we
often forget that there are many endeavors that are never
completed and require incessant attention. Salespeople
may like to go from sale to sale, but relationship managers
know that keeping a customer requires ongoing maintenance. The same is true for employee engagement. Just as
it is more costly to replace a customer than it is to retain a
customer, so too is it more costly to replace an employee.
Metrics for employee engagement should be both
quantitative and qualitative. There are many surveys
available to organizations that measure satisfaction and
engagement. But too often, managers are not equipped
to interpret the data and to respond wisely to what the
measurements say. I had an experience with a company
that used Gallup’s Q12 assessment. In one particular
department, the lowest score was for the item, I have a
best friend at work. The manager’s solution to increase
the score was to require employees in the department
to go to dinner on a Sunday night, at their own expense.
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 8 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi
19
The manager did not participate in the dinner. This faulty
attempt by a manager to fix a low engagement score
related to one item in an assessment tool indicates a need
to better understand what the measurement data mean,
and not simply rush to a quick and dirty idea to remedy
a perceived problem.
In addition to engagement, satisfaction, and retention
surveys, an engagement audit is a valuable process for
evaluating all of the elements of employee engagement
from a systems view. In the previous section on organizing, we discussed the need to consider engagement within
each function of the organization and within specific
areas, such as sales, customer service, talent acquisition,
and operations. During the controlling phase, these areas
should be audited to identify effectiveness of practices
designed to promote engagement. Leadership audits, by
way of multirater feedback, may also identify how consistent leaders are executing engagement-inducing practices
and behaviors.
Accountability in the context of controlling employee
engagement momentum means that both leaders and followers are accountable to one another. From the leaders’
side, it is about empowering employees to make decisions
and entrusting them with the responsibility to perform
their jobs with autonomy and flexibility. Leaders must follow through on commitments and make decisions, fully
aware that they are accountable to their direct reports.
According to a 2012 article in Workforce Management, a
survey conducted by Towers Watson & Co. indicated that:
“among employees who are not fully engaged, 43% say
supervisors do not remove performance obstacles, and
TABLE 1
Organizing
Leading
Controlling
20
CONCLUSION
Fayol looked at the organization from the viewpoint of
senior managers, as opposed to Taylor, who started at
the worker level (Hindle, 2009). Fayol sought to identify
general principles that could be applied to many types of
organizations, and saw the functions of management as a
way for executives to carry out organizational objectives.
We may view many of his ideas as outdated, but there
is no doubt that the principles of planning, organizing,
leading, and controlling provide a framework for organizational operations that is still relevant and useful today.
The four functions of management as a model for
sustaining employee engagement provide a structure
that currently is often missing in the implementation
and continuous execution of engagement models (see
Table 1). Carefully focusing on the leading and controlling
THE FOUR FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT AS A MODEL FOR SUSTAINING EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
FUNCTION
Planning
only 26% believe management involves them in decisions
that directly affect them” (Kranz, 2012).
From the employees’ perspective, engagement has to
do with being treated as trustworthy and being encouraged to use the autonomy and empowerment granted by
leadership to help the organization succeed. If the goal
of engagement is to induce employees to expend more
discretionary effort to achieve organizational objectives,
then the employees must be accountable for doing so. It
is certainly no easy undertaking for leaders and followers to develop a mind-set of accountability toward one
another, but it is a key ingredient in sustaining employee
engagement.
FOCUS
ENGAGEMENT
IMPACT
Vision-casting, identifying goals, objectives, values,
overall strategy
Defining engagement and associated terminology, determining the organizational culture aspects of engagement
Resource allocation, functional impacts, multilevel factors,
tactical actions
Creating a cross-functional team to explore and determine
engagement scheme, subcommittees and functional task
forces, implementation plan, communication, and leadership development
Leadership competencies, strategic and tactical behaviors, motivational activities
Identifing leadership competencies that promote the
engagement culture, training leaders, and building
accountability process
What and how to measure plans, interpreting qualitative
and quantitative data, responding to feedback
Identifing key performance indicators for engagement,
collecting qualitative and quantitative engagement feedback, creating process for continuous evaluation and
adjustment of engagement strategy
www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • SEPTEMBER 2015
functions can keep engagement as a top priority within
an organization and directly addresses the tendency of
change efforts fizzling out as new demands divert focus.
Finally, the keys to sustaining employee engagement
come directly from the management functions identified by Fayol a century ago. It begins with planning a
culturally relevant program and ensuring that there is
system-wide implementation with functional representation. It requires well-trained and accountable leadership,
continuous measurement, and adjusting to the internal
and external conditions that put employee engagement
at risk.
Briner, R. (2014) Don’t believe the hype of employee engagement. HR Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.hrmagazine
.co.uk/hr/features/1145595/dont-believe-hype-employeeengagement
Carlyle, T. (1840). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in
history. New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes & Brother.
Cotton, P., & Hart, P. (2003). Occupational wellbeing and
performance: A review of organisational health research.
Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 118–127.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management (trans.
C. Storrs). London, England: Pitman.
References
Hiatt, J., (2006). ADKAR: How to implement successful change
in our personal lives and professional careers. Loveland, CO:
Prosci Research.
Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work
engagement: A review of the research and business literature.
Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383–398.
Hindle, T. (2009). The Economist guide to management ideas
and gurus: Henri Fayol. Retrieved from http://www.economist
.com/node/13095213
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).
Transformational leadership and organizational commitment:
Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.
Kranz, G. (2012). A broken engagement? Workforce
Management, 91(9), 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy
.bellevue.edu:80/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/1038138389?accountid=28125
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Developing the leader within you.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Parker, L., & Ritson, P. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating
contemporary management. British Journal of Management,
16, 175–194.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rodrigues, C. (2001). Fayol’s 14 principles of management
then and now: A framework for managing today’s organizations well. Management Decision, 39(10), 880–889.
Bersin, J. (2014). It’s time to rethink the “employee engagement” issue. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/
sites/joshbersin/2014/04/10/its-time-to-rethink-the-employee
-engagement-issue/
Vincent-Hoper, S., Muser, C., & Janneck, M. (2012).
Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Development International, 17(7),
663–682.
TODD A. CONKRIGHT, CPT, MA, is an organization development practitioner with more than 20 years’
experience working with companies to maximize potential. The author of A Guide to Peak Performance
Through People (WriteLife, 2013), he understands what it takes to move people and organizations to the
summit of success. He is the owner and principal consultant of Cornerstone Global Training & Performance Solutions and teaches business and human resources courses at Creighton and Bellevue universities. He can be reached at todd@cornerstoneglobaltps.com.
Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 8 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi
21
Copyright of Performance Improvement is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.