THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY SELECTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN OBIO-AKPO L.G.A RIVER STATE NIGERIA.
ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE
PROJECT WORK, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW. THANK YOU!
TO GET THE FULL
PROJECT FOR THE TOPIC BELOW PLEASE CALL:
08068231953,
08168759420
TO GET MORE PROJECT
TOPICS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, PLEASE VISIT:
THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:
A STUDY SELECTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN OBIO-AKPO L.G.A RIVER
STATE NIGERIA.
THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT. A STUDY OF SELECTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS
IN OBIO-AKPO L.G.A, RIVER STATE, NIGERIA.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
“Capital”
can mean many things; its specific definition depends on the context in which
it is used. In general, it refers to financial resources available for use.
Companies and societies with more capital are better off than those with less
capital (Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S.W. 2002).
Capital
in some occasion has been likening to money only, thus, capital is different
from money only. Money is a part of financial capital and it is used simply to
purchase goods/services for consumption and physical capital i.e. machines,
patents, software and brand names, houses, land etc, all of these things are
inputs factors that can used to create wealth (quality and quantity). Capital
is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment and is part
of factors of production in the mixed of labour, land and entrepreneur. Besides
being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee
to create wealth (Granovetter, M. 1985).
Capital
itself does not exist unit it is produced (physical capital) or provided
(financial capital). Then, to create wealth, capital must be combined with
labour (employees), the work of individuals who exchange their time and skills
for money. When people invest (entrepreneurs) in capital by foregoing current
consumption, they can enjoy greater future prosperity. The four factors of
production can be expanded into skilled and unskilled for labour, privately
owned and owned by government for land, physical and financial for capital and
individual(s), corporate bodies, organizations and government for entrepreneur.
More so, for the purpose of this work more attention will be given to financial
capital and how it interact with other of capital, factors of production and
the society precisely education and particularly secondary schools. Any
inquisitive reader may ask who provides these capitals, for what purpose, where
do they belong; will they need the services of others? Simple the entrepreneurs
(individuals, corporate bodies, organizations and government) are the providers
of capital, the primary purpose is profit maximization for individual and
corporate bodies and provision of essential is profit government and some
Non-Government organizations, they are members of the society, and they engage
and/or employ labourers who are also members of the society. While a society is
simply people living together in a defined territory, therefore both the
capital providers and labourers are members of the society hence a mutual
benefit (maybe unequal) is expected for societal growth and balance among human
capital. Socializing capital with society and its organization give rise to the
term social capital. Social capital have been define and viewed in many ways by
different authors and scholars.
The
term social capital has been identified as a collection of resource that either
an individual or organization gains through a set of communal norms, networks,
and sanctions. Social capital can be viewed on both the collective and
individual resource front and has been studied, analyzed, and reported on the
micro, meso, and macro levels (Naim Kapucu, 2011).
As
an individual resource, social capital plays a prevalent role in the economic
performance of an individual, organization, and country through its support of
increased informational flow and reduction of transaction costs. Bridging,
bonding and linking of social capital can assist in the increasing of trust
between individuals, and as such, promote a healthy and expanded social network
(Halpern 2005; Field 2003).
Social
capital is a collection of resources that an individual or organized structure
gains through a set of communal norms, networks and sanctions. This can be
studied at the individual micro-level; from the meso-level such as a community,
organization, or states; or at the macro-level of a country or even globally.
Social capital is formed through bonding in homogenous groups, bridging
connections into external heterogeneous groups, and linking vertically with
others of different levels of power and resources (Halpern 2005).
Field (2003), the foundations of social
capital began in the fields of economics, sociology and political science.
Human capital, associating an economic benefit to labor and skills, was
popularized by economists Theodore Schultz and Gary Becker in the 1960s. These
works became the foundation for others to study social capital and attempt to
measure its benefits. Pierre Bourdieu, a European sociologist, studied social
capital at the individual level. He believed that social capital was cultural
capital primarily benefiting the upper class through their use of social
connections. James Coleman, an American sociologist, believed that social
capital was a benefit available to employers, employee and by all social
classes. He viewed social capital as a public good and an asset that
contributes to the social structure for the public’s benefit. Becker’s rational
choice theories toward human capital and economic studies relating to families
and education were especially important in the theoretical framework of
Coleman’s work. Robert Putman, an American political scientists, expanded the
study of social capital. He views it as “a resource that functions at a
societal level”.
In
the other hand, social capital is referred to the institutions, relationship,
and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social
interactions. Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies
to proper economically and for development to be sustainable. It is the glue
that holds them together. The central premise of social capital is that social
networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all
“social networks” (who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these
networks to do things for each other “norms of reciprocity” (Adler et al 2002).
The
term social capital emphasizes not just warm and cuddly feelings, but a wide
variety of quite specific benefits that flow the trust, reciprocity, information,
and cooperation associated with social networks. Social capital creates value
for the people who are connected and at least sometimes for bystanders as well
(Jasinski, J & Wright, J. 2005).
However,
the multiplicity of uses for social capital has led to a multiplicity of
definitions. Social capital has been used at various times to explain superior
managerial performance, improve performance of functionally diverse groups; the
value derived from strategies alliances, and enhanced supply chain relations.
‘A resource that actors derive from specific social structure and then use to
pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among
actors’ (Baker 1990). Social capital ‘is the set of elements of the social
structures that affects relations among people and are inputs or arguments of
the production and/or utility function’ (Schiff 1992). Social capital can also
be defined as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are
linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition made up of social
obligations (‘connections’), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic
capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility ‘or
productivity (output), (Bourdieu 1986). on the other hand Employee engagement
has recently received much attention in the popular human resources and
management literature, however, remains a construct requiring further
conceptualization and clarification (Saks, 2006, Robinson et al., 2004, Macey
and Schneider, 2008). Employee Engagement is the willingness and ability to
contribute to company success, the extent to which employees put discretionary
effort into their work, in the form extra time, brainpower. Employee are
engaged when many different levels of employees are feeling fully involved and
enthusiastic about their jobs and their organizations (Katharine and Gewirtz, 2008).
Interest in social capital theory stems from the appeal of the concept as it
integrates sociology and economics, and combines a number of ideas including
civic tradition, civi-ness, civic involvement, employee engagement and social
cohesion. Existing studies have suggested that social capital has considerable
benefits for a range of economic (employment generation) and sociological
outcomes, while employee productivity is clearly connected with employee
engagement. Creating an environment that encourages employee engagement is
considered to be essential in the effective management of social and human
capital (Ryan el at, 2000). Hanifan’s (1916) article “social capital” in
reference to social cohesion and public/personal investment in the community that
requires employment of manpower for increased productivity and/or renders
essential services. Bourdieu (1986) agree with Coleman (1988) that social
capital in the abstract is a neutral resource, his work tends to show how it
can be used practically to produce or reproduce inequality, demonstrating for
instance how people gain access to powerful positions through the direct and
indirect employment of social connections. Robert Putman hash used the concept
in a much more positive ight; though he was at first careful to argue that
social capital was a neutral term, stating “whether or not (the) shared are
praiseworthy is, of course, entirely another matter”, his work on American
society tends to frame social capital as a producer of “civic engagement” and
also a broad societal measure of communal health. He also transforms social
capital from a resource possessed by individuals to an attribute of collective,
focusing on norms and trust as producers of social capital to the exclusion of
networks. Robison et la, Shmid and Siles (2002) identifies consensus building
as a agreement among various actors and stakeholders to induce collective
action. Collective action is thus an indicator of increased social capital.
1.1.1SOCIAL
CAPITAL AND EDUCATION
Societal
levels of educational attainment are liked to levels of economic development.
However, financial resources alone do not guarantee positive educational
outcomes for students. Considerable evidence shows that family, community and
state involvement in education improves outcomes (Coleman and Hoffer 1987;
Braataz and Putman, 1996; Francis et al 1998). Family community and state
involvement helps to increase the relevance and quality of education by
improving ownership, building consensus, reaching remote and disadvantage groups,
mobilizing additional resources, and strengthening institutional capacity
(Francis et al, 1998, Clleta and Perkins 1995).
Ø A
study of Indochinese families in low-income areas of five US cities linked the
average and above- average performance of children to parental promotion of
education. These parents read to their children regularly and establish times
and locations for homework preparation (Caplan, Choy and Whitmore 1992, Hogan
1998).
Ø Consultations
in Nigeria showed that voluntary organizations, such as Parent Teacher
Associations, school committee and other grass-roots organizations, contribute
significantly to their local schools infrastructure, maintenance and security
as well as in the promotion of school enrollment and attendance (Francis 1998).
Recent
research indicates that social capital is not only a critical input for
education but alone one of its valuable byproducts (Heyneman 1998). In addition
to strengthening the human capital needed for economic development, social
development and state produced through education in three fundamental ways:
Ø Students
practices social capital skills, such as participation and reciprocity;
Ø Schools
provide forums for community activity;
Ø Through
civil education students learn how to participation responsibility in their
society.
Education
can also promote societal cohesion and strengthen citizenship when children of
all socio-economic background are enrolled in the public education system.
Strong social capital among elites can impair public education should those
wealthy families opt out of the public school system and choose private
schools. This strips communities of financial resources, local leadership and
students who are well prepared to learn. The result is a school system with
little political influence to demand public resources and fewer parents who
have the time and money to join voluntary school associations.
Similarly
family and community social capital can negatively impact youth’s attitudes
towards education.
Wilson
(1987, 1996) and Fernandez-Kelly (1995) study the urban ghettos in Chicago and
Baltimore. The show that academic achievement of children is low when their
communities do not value education and see it as irrelevant because it does not
lead to formal employment or improved standards of living.
From
our background above it is clear that there is a strong link between social
capital and employee engagement, but the questions here are to what extent/ who
is benefiting? Are the benefits mutual? What are the transmission mechanisms?
To provide answer to this question it will lead to our;
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The
importance of social capital and employee engagement in modern society has
motivated many scholars to research on them; while their broad view point has
attracted many definition see Robison et al. (2002), Baker (1990) Schiff (1992)
and Bourdieu (1986), as a result these topic is not lacking literature. Insofar
as literature abound in this case study there are gaps still in terms of;
research location, approach/methods, data, conceptual framework etc…… bulk of
the view concerning social capital and employee engagement were more of
macro-dynamics and most the research work on this topic were conducted in the
developing countries and more of schools were major case studies, they adopted
historical approach, used cross sectional data, some researchers has viewed social
capital and employee engagement to be one and the same as the two were taking
to be explanatory variables (input factors) to increased
organizational/community productivity (output) and share common components’
such as “Trust, training, career development, shared decision making,
empowerment.” In other to bridge the relative gaps and contribute to existing
stock of literature, this work under review will take its point of departure by
considering some of the neglected variables, approach, framework from the
literature reviewed. The research location will be selected private and public
secondary schools in Nigeria precisely Obio Akpor Local government Area in
Rivers State. This research work will also adopt a cyclical relationship
framework between social capital and employee engagement from the schools
selected that is social capital and employee engagement as interdependent variables
(see chapter two for conceptual framework and integration between social
capital and employee engagement). Engagements are set of strategies by
motivated employees to culture their individual career and organizations in
other to satisfy or attain to stakeholders expectations. Inclusive in the
research under review will be to show chains of causations (transmission
mechanisms) that is the relationship between or the effect of social capital on
employee engagement and also the impact of employee engagement on social
capital (stakeholders). In a simple manner this work will view social capital
(stakeholders activities) as a driving force that motivate other variables to
act and react upon themselves as to product in return a define result which can
be simply called trickledown effect of social capital. Again Two-way
communication, Trust in leadership, shared decision making, large group
meetings will be used to measure social capital, while enhanced organizational
performance, increased productivity, greater financial success and retention of
value employees will be used to measure employee engagement. We will also
compare the effectiveness of social capital and employee engagement of the
selected public and private schools.
1.3 RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
Against
this background therefore, this study seek to find plausible answers to the
following research questions.
1. Has
each of the social capital variables such as Two-way communication, Trust
positively each on each of the employee engagement variables such as enhanced
organizational performance, increased productivity, Greater financial success
and retention of value employees?
2. What
is the direction of relationship between corporate culture, social capital and
employee engagement in public and private secondary schools in Obio-Akpo Port
Harcourt.
1.4 PURPOSE
OF THE STUDY
The
broad purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between social capital
and Employee Engagement while the specific purpose is to examine.
1. The
relationship between Two-way communication and Employee Engagement.
2. The
relationship between Trust in leadership and Employee Engagement.
3. The
relationship between shared decision making and Employee Engagement.
4. The
relationship between large group-meetings and Employee Engagement.
5. To
examine the effect of culture on the relationship between social capital and
employee engagement.
1.5 RESEARCH
HYPOTHESIS
H01:
Two-way
communication have not impacted positively on enhanced organizational.
H02:
Two-way communication have not impacted positively on increased productivity.
H03:
Two-way communication have not impacted positively on Greater financial
success.
H04:
Two-way communications have not impacted positively on Retention of valued
employees.
H05:
Trust in leadership has not impacted positively on Enhanced organizational
performance.
H06:
Trust
in leadership has not impacted positively on increased productivity.
H07:
Trust in leadership has not impacted positively on Greater financial success.
H08: Trust in leadership
has not impacted positively on Retention of valued employees
H09:
Shared decision making has not impacted positively on enhanced organizational
performance.
H010:
Shared decision making has not impacted positively on increased productivity.
H011:
Shared decision making has not impacted positively on Greater financial
success.
H012:
Shared decision making has not impacted positively on Retention of valued
employees.
H013:
Large group meetings have not impacted positively on enhanced organizational
performance.
H014:
Large group meetings have not impacted positively on increased productivity.
H015:
Large group meetings have not impacted positively on Greater financial success.
H016:
Large group meeting have not impacted positively on Retention of valued
employees.
H017:
Corporate cultures have not impacted positively on social capital and employee
engagement.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This
study is essential and significance since it is meant to provide an overview of
social capital on the secondary school employee engagement and its trickledown
effect on students’ performance and community engagement. A study of this kind
therefore provides useful information for government, individuals
(stakeholders) and policy makers especially those involved in secondary school
management(s). It will also provide a database for further studies as this
research work presents a point of departure owing to peculiar nature of the
work, therefore it will present a platform on which similar workers can be
built.
I
am embarking on this study to bridge the gap that most countries such as U.S.A,
has done on this work because nothing much has been done in our developing
countries.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This
study centers on the education sector precisely secondary school with special
interest on the social capital and employee engagement. The selected schools
will be private and public secondary schools in Obio-Akpor in Port Harcourt.
AFFILIATE LINKS:
Comments
Post a Comment