Definitions[edit]

William Kahn provided the first formal definition of employee engagement, as such: "the harnessing of

organisation members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves

physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances." Kahn (1990).

In 1993, Schmidt et al. proposed a bridge between the pre-existing concept of 'job satisfaction' and

employee engagement with the definition: "an employee's involvement with, commitment to, and

satisfaction with work. Employee engagement is a part of employee retention." This definition integrates

the classic constructs of job satisfaction (Smith et al., 1969), and organizational commitment (Meyer &

Allen, 1991).

Defining Employee Engagement remains problematic. In their review of the literature in 2011, Shuck and

Wollard [2] identify four main sub-concepts within the term:

1. Needs Satisfying approach, in which engagement is the expression of one's preferred self in task

behaviours.

2. Burnout Antithesis approach, in which energy, involvement, efficacy are presented as the

opposites of established "burnout" constructs: exhaustion, cynicism and lack of accomplishment.

3. Satisfaction-engagement approach, in which engagement is a more technical version of job

satisfaction, evidenced by Gallup's own Q12 engagement survey which gives an r=.91

correlation with one (job satisfaction) measure.[3]

4. The Multidimensional approach, in which a clear distinction is maintained between job and

organisational engagement, usually with the primary focus on antecedents and consequents to

role performance rather than organisational identification.

Definitions of engagement vary in the weight they give to the individual vs the organisation in creating

engagement. Recent practice has situated the drivers of engagement across this spectrum, from within

the psyche of the individual employee (for example, promising recruitment services that will filter

out'disengaged' job applicants [4]) to focusing mainly on the actions and investments the organisation

makes to support engagement.[5]

These definitional issues are potentially severe for practitioners. With different (and often proprietary)

definitions of the object being measured, statistics from different sources are not readily comparable.

Engagement work remains open to the challenge that its basic assumptions are, as Tom Keenoy

describes them, 'normative' and 'aspirational', rather than analytic or operational - and so risk being seen

by other organizational participants as "motherhood and apple pie" rhetoric.[6]

Correlates of Employee Engagement[edit]

Prior to the mid-1990s, a series of concepts relating to employee morale, work ethic, productivity and

motivation had been investigated in management theory, in a line dating back to the work of Mary Parker

Follett in the early 1920s. See for example the work of Frederick Herzberg, who concluded [7] that positive

motivation is driven by managers giving their employees developmental opportunities, activity he termed

'vertical enrichment'.

With the wide range of definitions of employee engagement come a wide range of identified causes and

effects. For some examples:

Involvement[edit]

Eileen Appelbaum and her colleagues (2000) studied 15 steel mills, 17 apparel manufacturers, and 10

electronic instrument and imaging equipment producers. Their purpose was to compare traditional

production systems with flexible high-performance production systems involving teams, training, and

incentive pay systems. In all three industries, the plants utilizing high-involvement practices showed

superior performance. In addition, workers in the high-involvement plants showed more positive attitudes,

including trust, organizational commitment and intrinsic enjoyment of the work.[8] The concept has gained

popularity as various studies have demonstrated links with productivity. It is often linked to the notion of

employee voice and empowerment.[9]

Two studies of employees in the life insurance industry examined the impact of employee perceptions

that they had the power to make decisions, sufficient knowledge and information to do the job effectively,

and rewards for high performance. Both studies included large samples of employees (3,570 employees

in 49 organizations and 4,828 employees in 92 organizations). In both studies, high-involvement

management practices were positively associated with employee morale, employee retention, and firm

financial performance.[8] Watson Wyatt found that high-commitment organizations (one with loyal and

dedicated employees) out-performed those with low commitment by 47% in the 2000 study and by 200%

in the 2002 study.[10]

Commitment[edit]

Employees with the highest level of commitment perform 20% better and are 87% less likely to leave the

organization, which indicates that engagement is linked to organizational performance.[11]

Productivity[edit]

In a study of professional service firms, the Hay Group found that offices with engaged employees were

up to 43% more productive.[12] Job satisfaction is also linked to productivity.[13]

Generating engagement[edit]

While it is possible to measure engagement itself through employee surveys, this does not assist in

identifying areas for improvement within organisations. To manage employee engagement upwards, it is

necessary to identify what drives engagement. Some points from research into drivers of engagement are

presented below:

Employee perceptions of job importance - "...an employee's attitude toward the job's importance

and the company had the greatest impact on loyalty and customer service than all other employee

factors combined."[1]

Employee clarity of job expectations - "If expectations are not clear and basic materials and

equipment are not provided, negative emotions such as boredom or resentment may result, and the

employee may then become focused on surviving more than thinking about how he can help the

organization succeed."[14]

Career advancement/improvement opportunities - "Plant supervisors and managers indicated that

many plant improvements were being made outside the suggestion system, where employees

initiated changes in order to reap the bonuses generated by the subsequent cost savings."[15]

Regular feedback and dialogue with superiors - "Feedback is the key to giving employees a

sense of where they’re going, but many organizations are remarkably bad at giving it."[14] "'What I

really wanted to hear was 'Thanks. You did a good job.' But all my boss did was hand me a check.'"[12]

Quality of working relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates - "...if employees'

relationship with their managers is fractured, then no amount of perks will persuade the employees to

perform at top levels. Employee engagement is a direct reflection of how employees feel about their

relationship with the boss."[16]

Perceptions of the ethos and values of the organization - "'Inspiration and values' is the most

important of the six drivers in our Engaged Performance model. Inspirational leadership is the

ultimate perk. In its absence, [it] is unlikely to engage employees."

Effective Internal Employee Communications - which convey a clear description of "what's going

on". "'

Reward to engage - Look at employee benefits and acknowledge the role of incentives. "An

incentive to reward good work is a tried and test way of boosting staff morale and enhancing

engagement."

Commitment theories are rather based on creating conditions, under which the employee will feel

compelled to work for an organization, whereas engagement theories aim to bring about a situation in

which the employee by free choice has an intrinsic desire to work in the best interests of the organization.[17]

Recent research has focused on developing a better understanding of how variables such as quality of

work relationships and values of the organization interact, and their link to important work outcomes.[18] From the perspective of the employee, "outcomes" range from strong commitment to the isolation of

oneself from the organization.[16]

Hazards[edit]

Methodological: Bad use of statistics: practitioners face a number of risks in working with

engagement data, which are typically drawn from survey evidence. These include the risk of

mistaking correlations for causation, making invalid comparisons between similar-sounding data

drawn from diverging methodologies and/or incomparable populations, misunderstanding or

misrepresented basic concepts and assumptions, and accurately establishing margins of error in data

(ensuring signal and noise are kept distinct).

Administrative: A focus on survey administration, data gathering and analysis of results (rather than

taking action) may also damage engagement efforts. Organizations that survey their workforce

without acting on the feedback appear to negatively impact engagement scores.[19] The reporting and

oversight requirements of engagement initiatives represent a claim on the scarcest resources (time

and money) of the organisation, and therefore requires management time to demonstrate value

added. At the same time, actions on the basis of engagement surveys are usually devolved to local

management, where any 'value add' is counted in local performance. Central administration of

'employee engagement' is therefore challenging to maintain over time.

Ethical: Were it proven possible to alter employees' attitudes and behaviours in the manner intended,

and with the expected value-adding results for the organisation, a question remains [20] whether it

would be ethical to do so. Practitioners generally acknowledge that the old model of the psychological

contract is gone, but attempting to programme a one-way identification in its place, from employee to

organization, may be seen as morally and perhaps politically loaded.

Externalities: According to the Conference Board and other recent studies, employee engagement

has deteriorated significantly in the US and the UK over the last five years.

References in popular culture[edit]

Dilbert comic strip

OneFTE comic strip

See also[edit]

Corporate social responsibility

Human Resources

Organizational citizenship behavior

Organizational commitment

Empowerment

Flow (psychology)

Positive psychology

Internal marketing

Brand engagement

Work engagement

Onboarding

Internal communications

References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Crim, Dan and Gerard H. Seijts (2006). "What Engages Employees the Most or, The Ten

C’s of Employee Engagement". Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved 2013-01-24.

2. Jump up^ Shuck, Brad and Wollard, Karen K. (2011). "Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A

Structured Review of the Literature". Advances in Developing Human Resources. Retrieved 2014-01-03.

3. Jump up^ Bakker, Arnold B, ed. (October 30, 2010). "Chapter 2: Defining and measuring work

engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept". Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and

Research. Taylor & Francis. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-203-85304-0.

4. Jump up^ [1]

5. Jump up^ [2]

6. Jump up^ Keenoy, Tom (October 30, 2013). "Chapter 11: A murmuration of objects?". In Truss,

Catherine. Engagement in Theory and Practice. Routledge. pp. 197–220.ISBN 978-0-415-65742-6.

7. Jump up^ Herzberg, Frederick (2003). "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?". Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved 2014-01-03.

8. ^ Jump up to:a b Konrad, Alison M. (March 2006). "Engaging Employees through High-Involvement Work

Practices". Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-14.

9. Jump up^ Wilkinson, Adrien, et al. (2004). "Changing patterns of employee voice". Journal of Industrial

Relations 46,3 (3): 298–322. doi:10.1111/j.0022-1856.2004.00143.x.

10. Jump up^ "Employee Commitment". Susan de la Vergne. 2005. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

11. Jump up^ Lockwood, Nancy R. "Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR's

Strategic Role." HRMagazine Mar. 2007: 1-11. SearchSpot. ABI/INFORM Global (PQ). McIntyre Library,

Eau Claire. 22 Apr. 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

did=1231781861&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&>

12. ^ Jump up to:a b "Employee Commitment Remains Unchanged....". Watson Wyatt Worldwide. 2002.

Retrieved 2006-11-07.

13. Jump up^ Bockerman, Petri; Ilmakunnas, Pekka (2012). "The Job Satisfaction-productivity Nexus: A Study

Using Matched Survey and Register Data". Industrial and Labor Relations Review 65 (2): 244–262.

14. ^ Jump up to:a b "Engage Employees and Boost Performance". Hay Group. 2002. Archived from the

original on 2006-11-23. Retrieved 2006-11-09.

15. Jump up^ Hulme, Virginia A. (March 2006). "What Distinguishes the Best from the Rest". China Business

Review.

16. ^ Jump up to:a b Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (January 2000). "Self-Determination Theory and

Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being". American Psychologist

Association 55: 68–78. Archived from the original on 2006-12-12. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

17. Jump up^ Hellevig, Jon (2012) “Employee Engagement in Russia” An Awara Guide, p.29 Link PDF

18. Jump up^ Harter, James K., Frank L. Schmidt, and Corey L. M. Keyes (2003). "Well-Being in the

Workplace and its Relationships to Business Outcomes".Flourishing: the Positive Person and the Good Life:

205–244. Retrieved 2006-11-08.

19. Jump up^ BlessingWhite (December 2010). Employee Engagement Report 2011. Retrieved 2010-12-12.

20. Jump up^ Tourish, D and Pinnington, A (2002). "Transformational leadership , corporate cultism and the

spirituality paradigm: an unholy trinity in the workplace?".Human Relations. Retrieved 2014-01-03.

Robinson, D., S. Perryman, and S. Hayday (2004). "The Drivers of Employee Engagement". Institute

for Employment Studies. Retrieved 2006-11-07.

Wilkinson, Adrien (1998). "Empowerment: Theory and Practice". Personnel Review 27: 40–

56. doi:10.1108/00483489810368549.

CIPD Staff (2008). "Employee Engagement". CIPD. Retrieved 2008-10-01.

Further reading[edit]

Brady, Chris & MacLeod, David (2008). The Extra Mile - How to Engage Your People to Win.

MacLeod, David & Clarke, Nita (2009). Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through

employee engagement.

Ayers, Keith (2008). Engagement Is Not Enough: You Need Passionate Employees to Achieve Your

Dream.

Kahn, William A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at

Work. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 692–

724. http://www.jstor.org/stable/256287

Harter, James K.; Schmidt, Frank L.; Hayes, Theodore L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 87(2), Apr 2002, 268-279

Kruse, Kevin (2012). Employee Engagement 2.0.

Macey, Schneider (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial Organizational

Psychology.

McKay, Avery, & Morris (2008). Mean racial and ethnic differences in sales performance: The

moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 349-374.

Meyer & Allen (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human

Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Rayton, Bruce A., Dodge, Tanith & D'Analeze, Gillian (2012). Employee Engagement - The

Evidence. Engage for Success.

Rucci, Quinn, Kim (1998). The employee-customer profit chain. Harvard Business Review, pp. 83–

97.

Smith, Kendall, & Hulin (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy

for the study of attitudes.

Schneider, Hanges, & Smith (2003). Which comes first: employee attitudes or organizational financial

and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology

Treacy, Michael (2006). Double Digit Growth.

Morrell, Finlay (2011), 90 Steps to Employee Engagement & Staff Motivation. 200 pages.

"90stepengagement.com"

Karsan, Rudy & Kruse, Kevin (2011). WE - How to Increase Performance and Profits through Full

Engagement.

National Business Research Institute, Inc. The Importance of Employee Engagement Infographic

(2011)