Macey, Schneider, The Meaning of Employee Engagement.pdf

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 3–30.

The Meaning of Employee Engagement

WILLIAM H. MACEY

Valtera Corporation

BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER

Valtera Corporation and University of Maryland

Abstract

The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners

who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological

states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes. Drawing on diverse relevant literatures, we

offer a series of propositions about (a) psychological state engagement; (b) behavioral engagement; and (c) trait

engagement. In addition, we offer propositions regarding the effects of job attributes and leadership as main effects

on state and behavioral engagement and as moderators of the relationships among the 3 facets of engagement.

We conclude with thoughts about the measurement of the 3 facets of engagement and potential antecedents,

especially measurement via employee surveys.

The notion of employee engagement is

a relatively new one, one that has been

heavily marketed by human resource (HR)

consulting ﬁrms that offer advice on how it

can be created and leveraged. Academic

researchers are now slowly joining the fray,

and both parties are saddled with compet-

ing and inconsistent interpretations of the

meaning of the construct.

Casual observation suggests that much of

the appeal to organizational management is

driven by claims that employee engagement

drives bottom-line results. Indeed, at least

one HR consulting ﬁrm (Hewitt Associates

LLC, 2005, p. 1) indicates that they ‘‘have

established a conclusive, compelling rela-

tionship between engagement and profit-

ability through higher productivity, sales,

customer satisfaction, and employee reten-

tion.’’ Some practitioners view engagement

as having evolved from prior research on

work attitudes, directly implying that this

newer concept adds interpretive value that

extends beyond the boundaries of those tra-

ditions. We agree with this thought and hope

to show why we agree in what follows.

Although compelling on the surface, the

meaning of the employee engagement con-

cept is unclear. In large part, this can be

attributed to the ‘‘bottom-up’’ manner in

which the engagement notion has quickly

evolved within the practitioner community.

This is not an unfamiliar stage in the incre-

mental evolution of an applied psychologi-

cal construct. Thus, similar to the manner in

which burnout was at ﬁrst a construct attrib-

uted to pop psychology (Maslach, Schaufeli,

& Leiter, 2001) engagement is a concept

with a sparse and diverse theoretical and

empirically demonstrated nomological net—

the relationships among potential antece-

dents and consequences of engagement as

well as the components of engagement have

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to William H. Macey. E-mail: wmacey@

valtera.com

Address: Valtera Corporation, 1701Golf Road, Suite

2-1100 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

William H. Macey, Valtera Corporation; Benjamin

Schneider, Valtera Corporation and University of

Maryland.

We appreciate the thoughtful comments of our col-

leagues Karen Barbera and Scott Young as well as con-

structive feedback from Paul Sackett and Allen Kraut.

W.H. Macey and B. Schneider

not been rigorously conceptualized, much

less studied. Indeed, many HR consultants

avoid defining the term, instead referr-

ing only to its presumed positive con-

sequences. At a minimum, the question

remains as to whether engagement is a

unique concept or merely a repackaging

of other constructs—what Kelley (1927;

quoted in Lubinski, 2004, p. 98) called the

‘‘Jangle Fallacy.’’ This is a matter of particular

significance to those who develop and

conduct employee surveys in organizations

because the end users of these products

expect interpretations of the results to be

cast in terms of actionable implications.

Yet, if one does not know what one is mea-

suring, the action implications will be, at

best, vague and, at worst, a leap of faith.

The academic community has been slow

to jump on the practitioner engagement

bandwagon, and empirical research that

has appeared on the topic in refereed outlets

reveals little consideration for rigorously

testing the theory underlying the construct

(for exceptions, see May, Gilson, & Harter,

2004; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005). Thus,

although research exists demonstrating

that some employee attitudes called ‘‘en-

gagement’’ are related to organizational

outcomes like turnover and productivity

(Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) these

employee attitudes do not conceptually

reflect the notion of engagement. Thus,

further development of the construct and

its measurement requires attention (for an

example, see Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,

2006).

Our goal is to present a conceptual frame-

work that will help both researchers and

practitioners recognize the variety of mean-

ings the engagement construct subsumes

and the research traditions that give rise to

or support those meanings. We believe that

this is important in itself as it creates a

working model for how the research litera-

ture can inﬂuence practice and vice versa.

Thus, as we organize the various literatures

relevant to engagement, we establish a

researchagenda that identiﬁes further oppor-

tunities for science and improved science–

practice linkages.

Employee Engagement:

Getting Oriented

Numerous deﬁnitions of engagement can be

derived from the practice- and research-

driven literatures. Additional deﬁnitions

can be attributed to folk theory: the common

intuitive sense that people, and particularly

leaders within organizations, have about

work motivation. Common to these deﬁni-

tions is the notion that employee engage-

ment is a desirable condition, has an

organizational purpose, and connotes

involvement, commitment, passion, enthu-

siasm, focused effort, and energy, so it has

both attitudinal and behavioral compo-

nents. 1 The antecedents of such attitudes

and behaviors are located in conditions

under which people work, and the conse-

quences are thought to be of value to orga-

nizational effectiveness (see Erickson, 2005).

As a folk theory, engagement is used in

a manner that implies the opposite of dis-

engagement. For example, a number of

popular views of engagement suggest that

engaged employees not only contribute

more but also are more loyal and therefore

less likely to voluntarily leave the organiza-

tion. However, for present purposes, we

choose to focus on only those aspects of

engagement that have positive valence

(obviously from low to high). We believe

that this is crucial to developing conceptual

precision in that it maintains a clear inten-

tional focus on benefits that inure to the

organization. For example, certain behav-

iors that might be considered adaptive on

the part of the individual (e.g., taking

a ‘‘mental health day’’ as a form of adaptive

withdrawal) would not be considered

within the present framework. At least tem-

porarily, we are not taking a position on

1. Some readers may feel that there are clear hints of

‘‘motivation’’ in what we have just written and won-

der to themselves why we are not saying that this is

motivation. The answer is that the construct of moti-

vation is itself a hypothetical construct with consider-

able ambiguity surrounding it. Were we to introduce

it here, it might further confound the issues so we

leave the chore of integrating engagement with

‘‘motivation’’ to others.

Employee engagement

whether engagement and disengagement

are opposites (i.e., perhaps the opposite of

engagement is ‘‘nonengagement’’ rather

than disengagement or perhaps even burn-

out; Gonzalez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, &

Lloret, 2006). Rather, we simply choose to

arbitrarily exclude from consideration

models of behavior that focus on with-

drawal, maladaptive behavior, or other dis-

engagement phenomena.

organizational interventions based on sur-

vey results.

On a related point, confusion exists

because engagement is used by some to refer

to a speciﬁc construct (e.g., involvement,

initiative, sportsmanship, altruism) with

unique attributes and by others as a perfor-

mance construct deﬁned as exceeding some

typical level of performance. For example,

Wellins and Concelman (2005a, p. 1) sug-

gested that engagement is ‘‘the illusive force

that motivates employees to higher (or

lower) levels of performance.’’ Colbert,

Mount, Harter, Witt, and Barrick (2004,

p. 603) defined engagement in terms of a

‘‘high internal motivational state.’’ Similarly,

Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002, p. 737)

defined active engagement in terms of ‘‘high

levels of activity, initiative, and responsibil-

ity.’’ Again, we see engagement defined both

attitudinally and behaviorally—and we sub-

scribe to both. However, both practitioners

and researchers must be clear about the kind

of engagement they are speaking about. We

will show later the varieties of engagement

constructs that exist. As we will also show,

the various conceptualizations of engage-

ment as state, trait, or behavior, as imprecise

as they may have been, are exceeded in

imprecision only by the various ways this

vague concept has been operationalized.

Sources of Confusion:

State, Trait, or Behavior?

As a folk term, engagement has been used to

refer to a psychological state (e.g., involve-

ment, commitment, attachment, mood), per-

formance construct (e.g., either effort or

observable behavior, including prosocial

and organizational citizenship behavior

[OCB]), disposition (e.g., positive affect

[PA]), or some combination of the above.

For example, Wellins and Concelman

(2005a, p. 1) suggested that engagement is

‘‘an amalgamation of commitment, loyalty,

productivity and ownership.’’ As we shall

see, the use of engagement as a psychologi-

cal construct in the research literature is no

more precise; it is commonly used to refer to

both role performance and an affective state,

even within the same research context (for

an exception, see Kahn, 1990).

The reader may recognize that many

other important psychological constructs

have suffered from a similar lack of precision

at early stages in their development. A par-

ticularly noteworthy example of such impre-

cision is job involvement (cf., Kanungo,

1982). Thus, the lack of precision in the

engagement concept does not imply that

the concept lacks conceptual or practical

utility. However, the concept would bemore

useful were it to be framed as a model that

simultaneously embraces the psychological

state and the behavior it implies. In the

absence of such amodel, including potential

antecedents and moderators, it does not

seem possible to either develop relevant

research hypotheses or apply the concept

in any meaningful way including the

design of surveys and the development of

Toward Untangling the Jangle:

A Framework for Understanding

the Conceptual Space of

Employee Engagement

To move the discussion of what engagement

is to a more concrete level, consider the

overall framework for understanding the

various components that the engagement

construct might subsume (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows that engagement as a dis-

position (i.e., trait engagement) can be

regarded as an inclination or orientation to

experience the world from a particular van-

tage point (e.g., positive affectivity charac-

terized by feelings of enthusiasm) and that

this trait engagement gets reflected in psy-

chological state engagement. We conceptu-

alize psychological state engagement as an

W.H. Macey and B. Schneider

Trait Engagement

State Engagement

Behavioral Engagement

(Positive views of life and work)

(Feelings of energy, absorption)

(Extra-role behavior)

Proactive Personality

Satisfaction (Affective)

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Autotelic Personality

Involvement

Proactive/Personal Initiative

Trait Positive Affect

Commitment

Role Expansion

Conscientiousness

Empowerment

Adaptive

Trust

Work Attributes

Variety

Challenge

Autonomy

Transformational

Leadership

Figure 1. Framework for understanding the elements of employee engagement.

antecedent of behavioral engagement,

which we define in terms of discretionary

effort (e.g., Erickson, 2005; Towers-Perrin,

2003) or a specific form of in-role or extra-

role effort or behavior.

Figure 1 also shows that conditions of the

workplace have both direct and indirect

effects on state and behavioral engagement.

The nature of work (e.g., challenge, variety)

and the nature of leadership (especially

transformational leadership) are the condi-

tions that most interest us. Figure 1 shows,

for example, that work has direct effects

on state engagement (e.g., Hackman &

Oldham, 1980) and indirect effects as a

boundary condition (moderator) of the rela-

tionship between trait and state engage-

ment. With regard to leadership, Figure 1

shows it having a direct effect on trust and

an indirect effect through the creation of trust

on behavioral engagement (e.g., Kahn, 1990;

McGregor, 1960); more on Figure 1 later.

In our remaining comments, we outline

how various traditions and models within

the research and applied literatures ﬁt the

model shown in Figure 1 and detail the

resulting implications. However, prior to

proceeding, it is important to note that we

do not choose a specific conceptualization

of engagement as ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘true’’ because

(a) this would not be useful at this early stage

in the development of thinking about

engagement; (b) any or all of these concep-

tualizations can be useful for specific pur-

poses; and (c) identifying these different

conceptualizations will help researchers

and practitioners have a firmer idea about

the locus of the issue when they work with

it. Our goal is to illuminate the unique attrib-

utes of prior research that most occupy the

conceptual space we would call engage-

ment so that future research and practice

can more precisely identify the nature of

the engagement construct they are pursuing.

Engagement as Psychological State:

Old Wine in New Bottles?

We begin our exploration of Figure 1 with

engagement as psychological state because

it is the state of engagement that has received

more attention, either implicitly or explic-

itly, than either of the other perspectives. In

addition, as both dependent and indepen-

dent variable in Figure 1, it is central to the

engagement issue.

Engagement as a psychological state has

variously embraced one or more of several

related ideas, each in turn representing some

form of absorption, attachment, and/or

enthusiasm. Operationally, the measures of

engagement have for the most part been

composed of a potpourri of items represent-

ing one or more of the four different

Employee engagement

categories: job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, psychological empowerment,

and job involvement.We summarize the rel-

evance of each of these to the concept of

engagement. We then review some more

recent thinking about the state of engage-

ment, especially with regard to the affect of

that state. More speciﬁcally, it becomes clear

as our review unfolds that thinking and

research about engagement have evolved

to be both more precise and conceptually

appropriate. This clarity reﬂects an increas-

ing emphasis on absorption, passion, and

affect and a lessening emphasis on satisfac-

tion and perhaps also job involvement and

organizational commitment.

ple, the measurement of engagement with

the Gallup measure (Buckingham & Coff-

man, 1999; Harter et al., 2002) where the

items used to define engagement are all

items descriptive of the conditions under

which people work. The results from survey

data are used to infer that reports of these

conditions signify engagement, but the state

of engagement itself is not assessed—at least

insofar as one accepts our proposed concep-

tualization as one that connotes passion,

commitment, involvement, and so forth.

Erickson (2005, p. 14) articulated a view

consistent with our thoughts:

Engagement is above and beyond

simple satisfaction with the employment

arrangement or basic loyalty to the

employer—characteristics that most

companies have measured for many

years. Engagement, in contrast, is about

passion and commitment—the willing-

ness to invest oneself and expend one’s

discretionary effort to help the employer

succeed.

Engagement as satisfaction. To some,

engagement and satisfaction are linked

directly if not regarded as completely iso-

morphic. Thus, Harter et al. (2002) explicitly

referred to their measure (The Gallup Work

Place Audit) as ‘‘satisfaction-engagement’’

(p. 269) and defined engagement as ‘‘the

individual’s involvement and satisfaction

with as well as enthusiasm for work’’ (p. 269,

italics added). The Gallup survey items

tap evaluative constructs traditionally con-

ceptualized as satisfaction facets, including

resource availability, opportunities for

development, and clarity of expectations.

Perhaps even more directly, some practi-

tioners (e.g., Burke, 2005) measure engage-

ment as direct assessments of satisfaction

with the company, manager, work group,

job, and work environment characteristics.

Others distinguish between an affective, or

emotional, component of engagement and

rational or cognitive elements, linking the

emotional component to job satisfaction.

Thus, Towers-Perrin (2003) suggested that

‘‘the emotional factors tie to people’s per-

sonal satisfaction and the sense of inspira-

tion and affirmation they get from their

work and being part of their organization’’

(p. 4, italics added). The reader mayalso note

that despite the emphasis on affect in many

definitions of satisfaction (e.g., Locke,

1976), contemporary job satisfaction mea-

sures are largely considered descriptive

(Brief & Weiss, 2002). Consider, for exam-

Interestingly, many traditional measures

of satisfaction include items that would

seemingly tap facets that ﬁt our conceptual

space for engagement. For example, one

item included in Brayfield and Rothe’s

(1951) measure of job satisfaction reads,

‘‘Most days I feel enthusiastic about my

work.’’ Enthusiasm is regarded as a marker

of engagement by some (e.g., Harter,

Schmitt, & Keyes, 2003), and the relevance

of satisfaction is clear in that people invest

more time in roles they find enjoyable

(Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). Nonetheless,

the conceptual similarity of items used in

engagement and satisfaction surveys indi-

cates confusion between the concepts.

Looking ahead to our later comments, the

lack of conceptual clarity in distinguishing

engagement from satisfaction parallels the

conceptual confusion in understanding the

different uses of the term ‘‘positive affect,’’

where the common use of the term broadly

encompasses the hedonic dimension of

pleasantness, happiness, or cheerfulness

yet is portrayed more accurately when

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: