Sebastiaan Rothmann
The notion of personal engagement of individuals in their work (investing cognitive, physical, and emotional energy into their role performances) was first introduced by Kahn (1990). Since then, interest in employee engagement has grown gradually for various reasons. First, the focus in psychology shifted from weaknesses, malfunctioning, and damage toward happiness, human strengths, and optimal functioning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Strümpfer, 2005). Seligman (2003) regarded the study and promotion of happiness as important goals of psychology and suggested three routes to happiness, namely pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Engagement entails that individuals pursue gratification by applying their strengths. In a follow‐up book, Seligman (2011) regarded engagement as one of the dimensions of human flourishing. In the burnout literature (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), interest arose in engagement as the direct opposite of burnout. According to Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, and Taris (2008), research on burnout has stimulated research on employee engagement. Maslach and Leiter (1997, p. 23) define burnout as “an erosion of engagement with the job.” The view of these authors is that employee engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy (i.e., direct opposites of exhaustion, cynicism, and low professional efficacy, which were identified as the dimensions of burnout). In contradiction to this view, Schaufeli, Salanova, González‐Romá, and Bakker (2002) point out that although engagement is negatively related to burnout, it is an independent and distinct concept characterized by three dimensions, namely vigor, dedication, and absorption at work.
Second, the needs of businesses to maximize the inputs of employees have contributed to the interest in engagement. The satisfaction–engagement approach, which was developed by Gallup, showed that employee engagement enhances organizational outcomes, such as customer satisfaction, return on assets, profits, and shareholder value (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Third, it was found that personal engagement at work has positive effects on the psychological well‐being of employees (Robertson & Cooper, 2009). Engagement affects the mindset of employees, and relates to personal initiative and learning (Sonnentag, 2003). Furthermore, it fuels discretionary efforts and concerns for quality (Salanova, Llorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003). Fourth, the multidimensional approach to engagement, associated with the work of Saks (2006), distinguished between job engagement and organizational engagement (Shuck, 2011).
Employee engagement has caught the imagination of academics and practitioners in the disciplines of psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, nursing, education, human resource management, and business (Truss, Delbridge, Alfes, Shantz, & Soane, 2014). Bargagliotti (2011) notes that engagement of more than one million employees has been studied by scientists. Furthermore, it is predicted that employee engagement will become an increasingly important concern for organizations and countries seeking to increase labor productivity as the global economy continues its rapid pace of change (Gallup, 2013). However, engagement research has been plagued by inconsistent definitions and measurement of the construct (Schaufeli, 2014) and inconsistent views of antecedents and consequences of employee engagement by academics and practitioners (Truss et al., 2014).
This chapter provides an overview of the research regarding employee engagement. First, employee engagement is conceptualized and current knowledge regarding the measurement and prevalence thereof is reported. Second, an overview of the theories and models which explain employee engagement is given. Third, drivers and outcomes of employee engagement are identified. Finally, future research regarding employee engagement is discussed.
Confusion exists about the definition of employee engagement: it occasionally refers to states, traits, and behavior, and even to antecedents and outcomes thereof. Variations are evident in the terms used to refer to the concept, such as “work engagement” and “employee engagement” (Truss et al., 2014). Schaufeli (2014) argues that the term work engagement refers to an individual’s relationship with his or her job, while employee engagement refers to the individual’s relationship with his or her job as well as organization. However, in this chapter the term employee engagement is used to cover both work engagement and employee engagement.
Employee engagement has been conceptualized from various perspectives, namely individual versus organizational engagement, academic versus practitioner perspectives, “hard” versus “soft” perspectives, fluctuating versus enduring engagement, and employee engagement versus well‐being perspectives.
Concerning the individual perspective on employee engagement, Macey and Schneider (2008) distinguished three types of definitions of employee engagement, namely engagement as a psychological state (indicated by involvement, commitment, and attachment), a trait (e.g., positive affect and conscientiousness), and direct observable behavior in the work context (putting forth discretionary effort, i.e., extra time, brainpower, and energy). Engaged employees will not only do more; they also demonstrate innovative behaviors and initiative, proactively seek opportunities to contribute and go beyond what is typically expected in their roles (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Definitions of engagement which focus on its state‐like nature include those of Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al. (2002):
According to Rothbard and Patil (2012), engagement has its roots in the concept authenticity, which results in individuals investing personal energies into role behaviors and expressing their selves in roles by exhibiting authenticity. They criticize definitions of employee engagement that equate it with positive affect (e.g., Bakker & Oerlemans, 2012; Schaufeli et al., 2002) and point out that engagement can be associated with both positive and negative affect.
Based on the perspectives of Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al. (2002), it can be stated that employee engagement comprises three dimensions, namely a physical dimension (being physically involved in a task and showing vigor and a positive affective state), a cognitive dimension (being alert at work and experiencing absorption and involvement), and an emotional dimension (being connected to job/others while working and showing dedication and commitment).
Macey and Schneider (2008) combine psychological state and behavior when they define engagement as a state signifying high levels of involvement (passion, absorption) in the work and the organization (pride, identity), affective energy (enthusiasm, alertness), and a sense of self presence in work. Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010) suggested that antecedents of employee engagement, the psychological state (i.e., cognitive, physical, and emotional dimensions), and behavior (i.e., performance‐related outcomes) should be considered in the definition of employee engagement. Therefore engagement refers to how employees experience and interpret the context around them and how they behave (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2012). Employee engagement entails an intense focus on a task, and a decision to invest personal resources (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Shuck et al. (2012) argue that focus on the tasks related to the immediate work of employees is a fundamental characteristic of engagement. This is followed by a decision to invest personal resources into work, depending on specific psychological conditions (e.g., meaningfulness, safety, and availability).
Studies showed that employee engagement is a construct distinct from job attitudes (Christian et al., 2011), job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Rich et al., 2010; Shuck et al., 2012). Employee engagement also has predictive value above antecedents, such as work role fit (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011).
Concerning the organizational perspective, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) suggested that organization‐level engagement might be a way in which organizations are able to affect engagement at that level. However, few studies focused on employee engagement at an organizational level. Saks (2006, p. 601), included the organizational level when defining engagement as “to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role.” Saks (2006) included an individual perspective on engagement, but argued that a stronger focus on employee engagement with an organization is necessary. In the long term organizational arrangements may have a stronger effect on employees’ propensity to engage, because transitions in organizational ownership have become frequent. MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 9) defined engagement as “a workplace approach designed to ensure that employees are committed to their organization’s goals and values, motivated to contribute to organizational success, and are able at the same time to enhance their own sense of well‐being.” This definition views engagement in terms of an approach to manage a workforce rather than a psychological state.
Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, and Courtright (2015) developed a concept of employee engagement on organizational level, called collective organizational engagement. Organizational engagement is distinct from aggregated individual‐level engagement and is defined as “shared perceptions of organizational members that members of the organization are, as a whole, physically, cognitively, and emotionally invested in their work (Barrick et al., 2015, p. 114). Three factors contribute to collective organizational engagement, namely motivating work designs, human resource management practices, and transformational leadership behaviors of the chief executive officer. The effects of these variables are moderated by strategic implementation.
Different perspectives regarding the definition of employee engagement resulted in a divide between academics and practitioners: Academics have been wary of practitioners’ focus on engagement strategies and perceived lack of interest in theories, while practitioners question the relevance of definitions and theories for fostering high levels of engagement at work (Truss, 2014).
In their study of employee engagement, Jenkins and Delbridge (2013) contrasted academic and practitioner perspectives. The academic perspective is strongly drawn from psychology (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) and has provided very useful information regarding employee engagement, its antecedents and outcomes. Management’s role in promoting engagement of employees is central within the practitioner perspective, for example managers’ role in establishing and maintaining a constructive organizational culture, management approaches which value employees’ contributions, employee voice mechanisms, trust and organizational integrity are regarded as important in the practitioner’s perspective. However, within the practitioner agenda the “dark” side of engagement (e.g., its association with stress and burnout) are often not considered.
The “soft” approach to employee engagement is centered on positive workplace conditions and relationships between management and employees, designing a work environment conducive to employee engagement, while increasing productivity was not the primary aim. The “hard” approach aims at gaining a competitive advantage by focusing on employee engagement to improve organizational performance. Research by Jenkins and Delbridge (2013) showed that the “soft” approach was associated with high levels of engagement, while the “hard” approach was associated with high levels of disengagement. However, they found that organizations implementing these approaches faced contextual factors which provided opportunities and constraints for management’s abilities to provide internal contexts supportive of employee engagement.
Robertson and Cooper (2009) introduced the concept of full engagement, which integrates employee engagement and well‐being. Full engagement is in contrast with a narrow definition of engagement which exclusively focuses on employee commitment, attachment, and citizenship and not on psychological well‐being of employees. A longitudinal study by Cropanzano and Wright (1999) found that psychological well‐being is related to employee performance. Their results showed that the relationship between employee well‐being in the first year and performance in the subsequent five years deteriorated, which supports the importance of well‐being for performance.
The concept of thriving (Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, & Garnett, 2012) integrates dimensions of engagement (i.e., vitality) with learning in a bidimensional model of well‐being. The importance of a bidimensional perspective is evident when its two dimensions (vitality and learning) are combined to understand behavior. For example, if an employee is learning but feels depleted, he or she does not thrive. Diedericks and Rothmann (2013) reported strong relationships between employee engagement and flourishing (defined as emotional, psychological, and social well‐being).
Various theories and models of engagement include dimensions of well‐being. For example, psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability are included in the personal engagement model (Kahn, 1990; Kahn & Heaphy, 2014). Burnout, physical ill health, psychological well‐being, and organizational commitment are part of the job demands‐resources (JD‐R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Rothmann (2013) integrated employee engagement in a model of flourishing at work. This model includes emotional well‐being (i.e., job satisfaction and positive affect balance), psychological well‐being (absorption, vitality, dedication, meaning, purpose, autonomy satisfaction, competence satisfaction, and relatedness satisfaction at work), and social well‐being.
By investing in programs that promote individual well‐being, organizations can enhance the engagement of employees. Physical health of employees relates positively to their engagement at work. Engaged employees have healthier habits and lower incidences of chronic health problems (e.g., high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, obesity, depression, and heart problems) than actively disengaged employees (Gallup, 2013).
The concept of engagement was initially developed to refer to an enduring affective‐motivational state of employees regarding their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002), or psychological presence in a role (Rothbard & Patil, 2012). However, engagement has also been defined as fluctuating intra‐individual experiences of the work and environment in which it occurs (Bakker, 2014). Diary studies make it possible to study how and why employee engagement states and behaviors vary over time. Furthermore, they allow researchers to examine psychological processes in more detail, on a real‐time basis, in field settings. Third, they prevent problems with inaccuracies that arise when employees have to recall experiences and behaviors (Sonnentag, 2003). Bakker (2014) supported the use of diary studies given that a considerable amount of variance in employee engagement can be attributed to within‐person fluctuations. Furthermore, daily fluctuations in job resources explain daily fluctuations in employee engagement.
Studies have shown that engagement can be measured in a valid and reliable way using the UWES (Bakker et al., 2008; Barkhuizen & Rothmann, 2006; Burke, Koyuncu, Tekinkus, Bektas, & Fiksenbaum 2012; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Storm & Rothmann, 2003). Either a three‐factor (i.e., absorption, vigor, and dedication) or a one‐factor model was reported in most studies. Although a one‐factor model of employee engagement might be preferable to use across cultures (Shimazu, Schaufeli, Miyanaka, & Iwata 2010), the dimensions of engagement (e.g., the emotional versus the cognitive component) might show differential predicting value of individual and organizational outcomes.
Measurement invariance of the UWES was reported for different cultural groups in a sample of police members in South Africa (Storm & Rothmann, 2003), emergency medical technicians from different cultural groups (Naudé & Rothmann, 2004), employees in the Netherlands and Italy (Balducci, Fraccaroli, & Schaufeli, 2010), and teachers in Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, and Oman (Klassen et al., 2012). Klassen and colleagues found that a three‐factor model of employee engagement (consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption) was acceptable in countries such as Australia and Indonesia, while a one‐factor model (where all the items of the UWES formed part of a single employee engagement factor) was acceptable within countries such as Canada and China. Furthermore, the UWES was invariant for Western and non‐Western groups, but not across Western and non‐Western groups. However, the UWES is not without problems, especially when it is used in multicultural or cross‐cultural contexts (Naudé & Rothmann; 2004; Shimazu et al., 2010).
The EI was developed by May et al. (2004). The inventory measures three components of employee engagement, namely cognitive, physical, and emotional engagement. These components shows overlap with the three dimensions used in the UWES, namely absorption (cognitive), vigor (physical), and dedication (emotional). Rothmann and Rothmann (2010) found that the psychometric properties of the EI are problematic. In follow‐up studies (e.g., Diedericks & Rothmann, 2013), the items used in the inventory were adapted to improve its construct validity and reliability. A subsequent study by Fouché (2015) supports the construct validity of the EI and reliability of the subscales.
The ISA Engagement Scale was developed by Soane et al. (2013). The scale is based on the personal engagement model of Kahn (1990). It measures three components of employee engagement, namely intellectual engagement (absorption in work), social engagement (the extent to which employees are socially connected with the working environment), and affective engagement (the extent to which employees experience positive affect relating to their work roles).
Gallup (2013) classified the satisfaction–engagement causes in terms of four dimensions, namely (1) whether primary needs of employees are satisfied (e.g., do they know what is expected of them in their roles, and do they have the materials and equipment for doing their jobs properly); (2) evaluating their contributions and assessing whether others value their contributions (e.g., do they have the opportunity to use their strengths, do they receive recognition and praise, do their supervisors care about them as persons, and does someone at work encourage their development); (3) whether they belong (e.g., do their opinions count at work, does the mission of the company make them feel that their jobs are important, are their fellow workers committed to doing good work, and do they have a best friend at work); (4) whether they can make improvements, learn, grow, innovate, and apply new ideas (e.g., does someone talk to them about their progress, and do they have opportunities to learn and grow).
It is difficult to evaluate what the global employee engagement levels are. Comparison of employee engagement in different contexts requires that measurement invariance exists before scores on a single measuring instrument can be compared. However, given the different conceptualizations and measures of employee engagement used by academic researchers and practitioners throughout the world, such studies have been done on a small scale.
Rothmann (2005) reported a measurement invariance study of employee engagement in different occupations in South Africa. The UWES was used in the study and measurement invariance was found for two subscales (vigor and dedication) in samples of employees in different occupations in South Africa. Employee engagement in different occupations was divided into three categories, namely low (pharmacists, emergency health technicians, correctional officers, administrative staff at higher educational institutions, and secondary school teachers), medium (police officers, nurses, and call‐center operators), and high (non‐professional counselors and train drivers).
Gallup (2013) report results of engagement of employees according to their definition thereof on a bi‐annual basis (see Table 18.1 for the results of 2011–2012). Research shows that only 13% of employees across 142 countries are engaged in their work, 63% are not engaged, and 24% are actively disengaged (Gallup, 2013). However, these results vary among different global regions. Among 26 countries in the Sub‐Saharan Africa region included in the 2011–2012 Gallup survey, only 19% of the respondents overall indicated that they work for an employer. South Africa had the highest percentage of actively disengaged employees in the world. One factor contributing to this state is the destabilizing labor unrest in the mining sector. In most cases, actively disengaged employees outnumbered engaged employees by 3 to 1. In South Korea, cultural norms pose challenges to increasing employee engagement. For example, tenure, rather than performance, is used when pay and promotion decisions are made. Talent development is undermined by a “group” mentality. In countries in South Asia, poor education and a lack of high‐level talent undermine employee engagement. In Western Europe, low levels of confidence in local job markets may lead employees to remain in workplaces that do not engage them. In Russia, management and leadership, trust and integrity are areas which have to be addressed to promote employee engagement.
Table 18.1 Employee engagement in selected countries.
Source: Author.
| Engagement category | |||
| Country | Engaged | Not engaged | Actively disengaged |
| United States | 30% | 52% | 18% |
| Philippines | 29% | 63% | 8% |
| Qatar | 28% | 62% | 10% |
| Brazil | 27% | 62% | 12% |
| Australia | 24% | 60% | 16% |
| New Zealand | 23% | 62% | 15% |
| Denmark | 21% | 69% | 10% |
| Russia | 19% | 63% | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 17% | 57% | 26% |
| Argentina | 16% | 56% | 28% |
| Germany | 15% | 61% | 24% |
| Pakistan | 15% | 68% | 16% |
| Egypt | 13% | 55% | 32% |
| Nigeria | 12% | 65% | 23% |
| Mexico | 12% | 60% | 28% |
| South Korea | 11% | 67% | 23% |
| Malaysia | 11% | 81% | 8% |
| Saudi Arabia | 9% | 80% | 11% |
| India | 9% | 60% | 31% |
| South Africa | 9% | 46% | 45% |
| Iran | 7% | 56% | 38% |
| Japan | 7% | 69% | 24% |
| China | 6% | 68% | 26% |
| Iraq | 6% | 63% | 31% |
| Israel | 5% | 73% | 22% |
Various models and theories of employee engagement, including the personal engagement model of Kahn (1990), the JD‐R model (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), self‐determination theory (SDT; Deci et al., 2001), and social exchange theory have been used to understand and predict employee engagement. The personal engagement model has been developed to understand employee engagement.
The personal engagement model of Kahn (1990) is classified as a need‐satisfying approach (Shuck, 2011; Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, & Delbridge, 2013). According to this model, various antecedents contribute to individuals attaching themselves to their work roles. The perception of job context affects employees’ psychological responses, which affect their engagement. Kahn (1990) concluded from a qualitative study that various job contextual factors impact employee engagement via the experience of three psychological conditions, namely psychological meaningfulness, psychological availability, and psychological safety. Kahn and Heaphy (2014) refer to this model as a “relational model” of employee engagement.
Psychological meaningfulness refers to “a feeling that one is receiving a return on investment of one’s self in a currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy” (Kahn, 1990, pp. 703–704). Kahn and Heaphy (2014) argued that deepened purposes (resulting from collective efforts in groups, transformational leadership, belongingness, and contact with beneficiaries) result in psychological meaningfulness and employee engagement. Studies (May et al., 2004; Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rothmann & Welsh, 2013; Steger & Dik, 2010), showed that work role fit, the inherent task characteristics, and the nature of relations with co‐workers are strongly associated with psychological meaningfulness at work. Psychological meaningfulness predicts a large percentage of the variance in employee engagement (May et al., 2004; Rothmann & Buys, 2011; Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010). Steger, Littman‐Ovadia, Miller, Menger, and Rothmann (2013) found that when work was not perceived as meaningful, employees characterized by high scores on affective disposition (i.e., positive affect) were more strongly engaged compared to employees characterized by low scores on affective disposition. However, when work was perceived to be meaningful, no difference in level of engagement was found between those with high or low scores on affective disposition.
Psychological safety entails feeling able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self‐image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990). Individuals working in a safe environment will understand the boundaries surrounding acceptable behaviors. According to Kahn and Heaphy (2014), “holding” environments characterized by leaders and co‐workers who are accessible and who show respect and empathy contribute strongly to psychological safety. Psychological safety will lead to engagement, because it reflects one’s belief that a person can employ him‐/herself without fear of negative consequences. The opposite would occur in a work environment that is ambiguous, unpredictable, and threatening. Employees in unsafe environments with ambiguous, unpredictable, and threatening conditions are likely to disengage from the work and would be more cautious to try new things (May et al., 2004).
Psychological availability is defined by Kahn (1990) as the ability to engage as a result of having the cognitive, emotional, and physical resources. Energizing interactions and emotional relief affect psychological availability and employee engagement positively, while cognitive, emotional, and/or physical depletion affect these outcomes negatively Factors such as the individual’s work‐role insecurities might influence an individual’s beliefs, which might have a direct influence on his or her psychological availability (Vinarski‐Peretz & Carmeli, 2011). May et al. (2004) and Olivier and Rothmann (2007) confirmed that psychological availability is positively associated with employee engagement.
Research on engagement as an experience of work activity has utilized the JD‐R model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Jackson, Rothmann, & Van de Vijver, 2006; Schaufeli &, Bakker, 2004).
The JD‐R model assumes that it is possible to model work characteristics associated with well‐being in two broad categories, namely job demands and job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs (e.g., work pressure, role overload, and emotional demands). Job resources refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may be functional in achieving work goals, reducing job demands, and stimulating personal growth and development. Resources may be located at the level of the organization (e.g., salary, career opportunities, job security), interpersonal and social relations (e.g., supervisor support, co‐worker support, and team climate), the organization of work (e.g., role clarity, and participation in decision‐making), and the level of the task (e.g., performance feedback, skill variety, task significance, task identity, and autonomy).
Rothmann, Strydom, and Mostert (2006) confirmed the measurement invariance of a measure of job demands and resources in a sample of 2,717 employees representing five different types of organizations in South Africa. Various studies have shown that job resources, including social support from supervisors and colleagues, and the intrinsic nature of the job (e.g., skill variety, autonomy, and learning opportunities) are positively associated with employee engagement (Bakker et al., 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In a longitudinal study, Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen (2007) found that job resources predicted employee engagement better than did job demands. Hakanen et al. (2008) conducted a longitudinal study and found that job resources predicted future engagement. Rothmann and Pieterse (2007) studied the relationship between job resources and employee engagement and found that growth opportunities in the job (i.e., variety, learning opportunities, and autonomy) best predicted employee engagement. Rothmann and Joubert (2007) found that organizational support and growth opportunities in the job were strong predictors of employee engagement in the mining industry. High job resources, such as social support and feedback, may reduce the effects of job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, and Lens (2008) found that job demands and resources indirectly affect employee engagement via satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Furthermore, using the model of Spreitzer (1995), Mendes and Stander (2011) found that leadership and role clarity indirectly affect employee engagement via psychological empowerment (i.e., meaningfulness, self‐determination, and impact). However, most studies (e.g., Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) did not empirically test the mediating effects of these conditions on employee engagement.
In a study of eight European countries, Taipale, Selander, Anttila, and Nätti (2011) found that job demands reduced employee engagement, while autonomy and support increased employee engagement. Regarding the role of the organization and the supervisor, Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, and Stine (2011) showed that performance management activities contribute to employee engagement. More specifically, setting performance and development goals in a collaborative way, providing ongoing feedback and recognition, managing employee development, discussing performance with employees, and building a climate of trust and empowerment contribute to employee engagement.
The role of personal resources in the JD‐R model has also been studied. Personal resources were seen to determine the way people perceive and react to build a comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful environment (e.g., Feldt, Kivimäki, Rantala, & Tolvanen, 2004; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009), which results in employee well‐being and engagement. Barkhuizen, Rothmann, and Van de Vijver (2014) found that dispositional optimism, defined as “a relatively stable, generalized expectation that good outcomes will occur across important life domains” (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003, p. 64), had a strong direct effect on perceptions of job resources as well as strong indirect effects (via job resources) on employee engagement.
Social exchange is the basic underpinning of relationships between individuals, groups, and organizations. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can be used to explain why employees respond to these conditions with various degrees of engagement (Saks, 2006). According to this theory, obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties that are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. Using social exchange theory, Saks (2006) states that social relationships and organizational support are crucial for the development of employee engagement. Reissner and Pagan (2013) found that organizational communication activities, which promote a coherent strategic message and enhance employees’ knowledge of the organization and its culture, strongly contributed to engagement at organizational level.
Specific drivers of employee engagement (e.g., providing effective leadership and/or role clarity) might be perceived as evidence of organizational support, which can instill a sense of trust and justice (Meyer, 2013). Employees that experience organizational support reciprocate by increased commitment to organizational goals and increased discretionary efforts. Employees feel obliged to engage as repayment for the resources they receive from their organization. Employees are likely to disengage from their roles when the organization fails to provide resources.
Trust seems to be central to the development of employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Employees that are engaged invest their energy, time, and resources trusting the investment will be rewarded (intrinsically or extrinsically) in a meaningful way. From the perspective of social exchange theory, employees make investments for reasons of reciprocity (Coyle‐Shapiro & Conway, 2004). Employees could also make investments for reasons of social identity (Moorman & Byrne, 2005). Hence trust in the leader, team, and/or organization increases the likelihood that employees will be more engaged.
It is important to note that although Harter et al. (2002, p. 269) defined engagement as the involvement and satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for, work, the construct has not been measured in line with this definition in Gallup surveys. Based on 12 items (which can be seen as antecedents of engagement), surveys by Gallup classify employees into three categories (Gallup, 2013):
The Gallup survey measures conditions that are required for employees to be satisfied rather than engaged (Schaufeli, 2014). However, the results of Gallup surveys made an impact on research and practice because they have linked employee engagement with business unit outcomes (Harter et al., 2002).
Deci and Ryan (1985, 2011) developed the SDT, which postulates that human behavior is motivated by three innate, essential, and universal needs: namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Psychological needs provide the energy and direction for people to engage in activities that influence need satisfaction, allow observers to understand whether people will be subjectively well, and enable interventionists to determine which social contextual aspects should be changed to promote need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2011).
Within the SDT framework, it is the satisfaction of the three needs rather than the strength of the desire that is important in predicting employee engagement. The needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are universal, but individuals differ in terms of the degree to which they are able to satisfy the needs (Deci & Ryan, 2011). SDT differentiates between autonomous and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation predicts perseverance and adherence (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and relates to psychological well‐being. The psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness complement autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation elicits behavior by choice and volition; whereas controlled motivation acts via forces external to the self, under pressure and demand.
The need for autonomy is defined as the desire to experience freedom and choice when carrying out an activity. The need for competence refers to individuals’ inherent desire to feel effective in interacting with the environment. The need for relatedness concerns the innate need of individuals to feel connected to others, to love and care for others, and to be loved and cared for. This need is satisfied when individuals experience a sense of communion and develop close and intimate relationships with others. Psychological needs that are unmet (deficiency needs) as well as needs that are satisfied (growth needs) have motivational value across life domains (Sheldon & Gunz, 2009). Individuals therefore want more autonomy, competence, and relatedness experiences if their basic psychological needs have been satisfied.
If a work environment provides adequate support for the satisfaction of the three needs, it should generate more participation from employees as it will be associated with more autonomous motivation. Satisfaction of the basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness leads to autonomous motivation (Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). Employees setting themselves autonomous goals attain more goals, which then motivate them to set and attain more autonomous goals in the future and in so doing enhance their own well‐being (Sheldon & Houser‐Marko, 2001). The degree to which goals are autonomous will determine individuals’ energy in achieving their goals. Goals that are achieved relate to psychological need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which in turn is essential for optimal human development and integrity (Gagné & Deci, 2005), and prompts positive organizational outcomes (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010).
The self‐determination literature acknowledges the role of the leader in affecting psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation of employees (Gagné & Deci, 2005). More specifically, Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004) have demonstrated the beneficial effects of autonomy‐support in a work context. Furthermore, a study by Graves and Luciano (2013) showed how leader–member exchange theory evokes psychological need satisfaction. Studies by Hetland, Hetland, Andreassen, Pallesen, and Notelaers (2011), Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Van Quaquebeke, and van Dick (2012), and Kovjanic, Schuh, and Jonas (2013) focused on the positive effects of transformational leadership on psychological need satisfaction, work engagement, and performance. Specific leader behaviors elicit satisfaction of employees’ psychological needs, which in turn promotes their work engagement.
Van den Broeck et al. (2008) found that job demands and resources indirectly affect employee engagement via satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Findings of a study by Fouché (2015) showed that leader support (for autonomy, competence, and relatedness) was positively related to employees’ psychological need satisfaction and engagement. Leader support affected engagement positively via employees’ autonomy satisfaction.
Leaders (including managers and supervisors) play a critical role in creating an environment conducive to employee engagement in organizations (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014; Soane, 2014). Leader behaviors that support, encourage, and develop people play a significant role in the engagement of employees (Harter & Adkins, 2015; May et al., 2004; Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Porath (2014) found that employees were 55% more engaged when leaders treated them with respect. Half of employees in her study did not feel respected by their leaders. According to Harter and Adkins (2015), managers account for up to 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores.
Leader–follower relationships can offer a sense of connectedness and opportunities to attach to a purpose (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014), individualized consideration (Soane, 2014), and opportunities to promote psychological meaningfulness, availability, and safety (Crawford, Rich, Buckman, & Bergeron, 2014). Macey and Schneider (2008) argued that transformational leadership will unlock employee engagement. Barrick et al. (2015) found that transformational leadership of the chief executive officer of an organization is positively related to collective employee engagement.
Trust in a leader, which is affected by authentic leadership, leads to employee engagement (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). Leader trustworthiness can be linked to five categories of behavior, namely behavioral consistency, behavioral integrity, sharing and delegation of control, accurate and open communication, and a demonstration of concern (May et al., 2004). Reluctance on the part of managers to loosen their control can send a message to their employees that they are not trusted, which might cause employees to be afraid of taking any chances or of overstepping their boundaries. This fear will be strengthened when managers behave unpredictably, inconsistently, or hypocritically (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). Trustworthy leader and manager behaviors should lead to feelings of psychological safety as well as willingness among employees to invest themselves at work (Edmondson, 2004). Interpersonal trust can either have cognitive or affective bases (McAllister, 1995). The reliability and dependability of others are related to cognitive‐based trust, whereas the emotional relationships between individuals impact on affective trust.
May et al. (2004) found that supportive co‐worker relations that create camaraderie and a sense of belonging predict psychological meaningfulness and employee engagement. Rewarding co‐worker relations can create an experience of belonging and care, which can lead to feeling psychologically safer at work (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007). In addition, Wrzesniewski, Dutton, and Debebe (2003) suggest that employees receive cues from interaction with co‐workers to deduce meaning from their work. According to Kahn and Heaphy (2014), employees will experience a sense of meaningfulness from their interactions when they are treated with respect and dignity and are valued for their contributions.
Strategic implementation by the senior management team in organizations enhances the relationship between organizational resources and collective organizational engagement because of greater psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability experienced by employees (Barrick et al., 2015). Strategic implementation by the senior management team is characterized by the following behaviors: ensuring the employees understand the goals and strategies of the organization, relying on clearly defined metrics to assess progress on organizational goals and strategies, linking senior management team goals to the strategic direction of the organization, monitoring events outside the organization that might affect progress on goals and strategies, and seeking timely feedback from stakeholders about how well the team meets organizational goals and strategies.
Rees, Alfes, and Gatenby (2013) found that employee voice is positively related to employee engagement. Their study found that only 1 in 8 Chinese employees strongly agrees with an item which asks whether their opinions count at work. Voice is defined as verbal communication of ideas, suggestions and/or opinions with the intent to improve organizational functioning. Employee voice indirectly affected engagement via employee trust in senior management and the employee–manager relationship. Yoerger, Crowe, and Allen (2015) found that participation in decision‐making is related to employee engagement. Meeting participation had a stronger effect on employee engagement when meeting load was high and when the supervisor was supportive.
Human resource management practices that affect the collective engagement of employees can be categorized along two dimensions, namely practices that focus on an organization’s expectations of employees, and practices that enhance employees’ expected rewards and outcomes (Barrick et al., 2015). Employees vary in their engagement as a function of their perceptions of the benefits they receive from a role, for example a pay raise, job security, a promotion, freedom and opportunities, respect from co‐workers, praise from supervisors, training and development opportunities, challenging work assignments, and public recognition. According to Barrick et al. (2015), human resource investments and expectation‐enhancing practices (e.g., pay equity, job security, developmental feedback, and pay for performance) are positively related to organizational engagement.
Building on theories such as self‐concordance theory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), self‐determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and self‐concept‐based theory (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), Bono and Judge (2003) argue that individuals will be engaged if their work is consistent with their personal values. Therefore person–environment fit, rather than specific environmental demands and/or resources, lead to employee engagement. In line with the personal engagement model of Kahn (1990), the interaction between individual and organization explains employee engagement.
Individuals seek work roles in which they can express their authentic selves fully in creative ways. Fit between an individual’s self‐concept and his or her work role will lead to a sense of meaning due to the ability of the individual to express his or her values and beliefs (Shamir, 1991). When people perceive their work as an opportunity to express their beliefs and values, they will experience meaning at work, because they will perceive a work role fit (May et al., 2004). Human beings are creative and self‐expressive and therefore they will look for work roles that will help them express their true self. Individuals will feel more effective in a job that helps them express their true self‐concept; where they experience a work role fit. The identity their work gives will be readily assumed by employees if it fits how they see themselves when they perceive a work role fit (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004).
Individuals will experience more psychological meaningfulness, and invest more of the self in achieving the goals set out for them by the organization, when they experience greater congruence between the self and the requirements of their work role (May et al., 2004). Van Zyl, Deacon, and Rothmann (2010) found that work role fit predicted psychological meaningfulness and work engagement in a sample of industrial psychologists. This is because such individuals see their work as not only a means to an end but as an end in itself; they will see their work as a calling (Dik & Duffy, 2008). When the work roles are not fitting their self‐concepts, such individuals will recraft their work to match how they perceive the self (Wrzesniewski, 2012). Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, and Bakker (2013) found that engaged employees craft their work in physical and relational ways, which creates a better person–job fit. Rothmann and Hamakangandu (2013) confirmed that work role fit and work orientation predicted experiences of psychological meaningfulness and employee engagement of teachers in Zambia.
An engaged life results from knowing what your signature strengths are and recrafting your life to use them at work or in other life contexts (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005). Building on strengths creates more engagement than identifying weaknesses and trying to correct them (Linley, Woolston, & Biswas‐Diener, 2009). Strength is defined as “a pre‐existing capacity for a particular way of behaving, thinking or feeling that is authentic and energising to the user” (Linley, 2008, p. 9). The identify‐and‐use approach to strengths assumes that strengths can and should be used more than they currently are. About one‐third of people can identify their own strengths, and only 17% say that they use their strengths most of the time each day (Buckingham, 2007). The identify‐and‐use approach assumes that people are competent, and focus on employing strengths in the pursuit of personal achievement. The strengths development approach assumes that strengths interventions should not primarily be about the use of strengths, but rather about strengths development. This approach emphasizes building strengths competency. While the identify‐and‐use approach can influence individuals’ happiness and depression, strengths development focuses also on motivation, effort, interpersonal effectiveness, and other aspects of psychological functioning.
Employees experience engagement when they use their strengths. Employees will be 2.5 times more likely to be engaged than people whose supervisors focus on their weaknesses. Intentions to leave were 14.9% lower for employees that received feedback on their strengths (rather than their weaknesses). Units where the strengths‐based approach was implemented were 12.5% more productive after the intervention than before it was implemented (Lewis, 2011).
The organization itself, especially its goals and values, can be a source of engagement. Work conditions not only have a main effect on state and behavioral engagement – they also may moderate the relationships between trait engagement and state engagement as well as relationships between state and behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Perceived organizational support is defined as a general belief that an organization cares about and supports its employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). An organization serves as a source of socio‐emotional resources, including respect, satisfactory wages, and medical benefits. Therefore perceived organizational support contributes to satisfaction of employees’ needs for approval, esteem, and affiliation. Organizational support includes giving information to enable employees to plan their schedules, enabling access to useful training on the job, providing rewards, considering the goals and values of employees, showing concern for employees, caring about the employees’ opinions, being willing to help the employees when they experience problems, and not taking advantage of them. Saks (2006) found that perceived organizational support is a significant predictor of employee engagement. Employees that perceive the organization to be supportive of them become more engaged as part of the reciprocity norm of social exchange theory. Therefore, when employees believe that their organization is concerned about them and cares about them, they are likely to respond by attempting to fulfill their obligations to the organization by becoming more engaged.
The significance and purposefulness of tasks contribute to experiences of psychological meaningfulness. Five dimensions of a task, namely skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, may affect psychological meaningfulness and employee engagement (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; May et al., 2004). Barrick et al. (2015) found that collective employee engagement at organizational level was related to the implementation of these job characteristics at an organizational level. Skill variety refers to the assortment of diverse skills employees have to apply in order to complete their task. Task identity relates to the degree to which a specific piece of work is identifiable, in other words, where it is clear to see what piece of work has been completed. Task significance is defined as the importance of a piece of work against the backdrop of the overall organizational goal. Autonomy in a task relates to the degree of freedom with which employees can choose what tasks to complete and and how to complete them. The last component of job enrichment relates to the feedback from the job itself. Studies (e.g., May et al., 2004; Rothmann & Buys, 2011) confirmed the positive relationship between work design, psychological meaningfulness, and employee engagement.
Context seems to matter for employee engagement and its antecedents. Firstly, cultures in different countries might differ, which makes it difficult to generalize findings concerning employee engagement and its antecedents (Rothmann, 2014). Secondly, broader organizational factors (e.g., industry sector, market conditions, ownership and governance arrangements, organizational size, and internal structures) might affect employee engagement (Jenkins & Delbridge, 2013). Therefore a one‐size‐fits‐all approach will be doomed to failure.
Rothmann (2014) argued that it is necessary to take a combined etic and emic approach toward the assessment and promotion of employee engagement. This will combine the scientific rigor of an etic approach with the cultural sensitivity of an emic approach (Cheung, Van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). Unique cultural behavior can be detected when an emic approach is used. Cultural or measurement artifacts may contribute to constructs not being invariant between cultures. Therefore measurement invariance should be assessed when measuring instruments are applied in different contexts. Various methodological questions should be attended to when assessing employee engagement, namely whether respondents understood the items of measures, whether translation of measures was done accurately, whether the translated measure is equivalent to the original measure, whether there are cross‐cultural differences in the means and distributions of scores, and how cross‐cultural differences in scores could be interpreted.
It is crucial for employers expanding their operations around the world to find the drivers of employee engagement in culturally diverse workforces. The cultural dimensions (individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long‐term orientation) identified by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) could be analyzed to understand the factors driving employee engagement. Drivers of engagement in different countries might differ (Sanchez & McCauley, 2006). Drivers of employee engagement in the United Kingdom and China included a sense of personal accomplishment, confidence in senior management, training opportunities, fair pay, and receiving performance feedback. In the United Kingdom and the United States, respect matters; in France and India, employees care about the type of work that they are doing; while in Germany, the type of people employees work with matters (Sanchez & McCauley, 2006). Lu, Siu, Chen, and Wang (2011) found that family mastery strongly affected the work engagement of nurses in China, especially when their job demands were high, presumably because the family is a major source of ego strength for individuals in collectivistic cultures.
Klassen et al. (2012) reported that educators’ work‐related beliefs vary with cultural beliefs (i.e., level of collectivism) and country. Widely shared cultural values within a country influence the ways workplace motivation beliefs operate for educators and other workers. Motivation beliefs that focus on the individual (e.g., engagement) would show lower levels of reliability and construct validity in collectivist settings compared to individualistic settings. In their study of employee engagement Burke et al. (2012) cautioned against the application of Western human resource practices to Turkish organizations. The Gallup report (2013) shows how conventions undermine employee engagement in the Middle East and the North Africa region. For example, “who you know” plays an important role in gaining employment and advantages in the workplace, resulting in poor fit for roles and negative perceptions about organizations.
Employee engagement has been associated with various positive and negative outcomes. Concerning individual well‐being outcomes, the Gallup report (2013) shows that engaged employees are more likely to be thriving, that is, they experience higher satisfaction with life and more positive emotions than do actively disengaged employees.
Results of meta‐analyses showed that engaged employees make a difference to their organizations. Conducting 263 studies across 192 organizations and in 34 countries, Gallup (2013) showed that employee engagement has effects on 9 performance outcomes, namely customer ratings (10%), profitability (22%), productivity (21%), turnover (65%), safety incidents (48%), shrinkage (28%), absenteeism (37%), patient safety incidents (41%), and quality (41%) (the percentages in brackets reflect median differences between top‐ and bottom‐quartile units).
Various questions remain unanswered pertaining to the development, implementation, and experience of engagement initiatives (Truss, 2014).
First, to increase the usefulness of the engagement concept, research is needed that includes the psychological state and behavior it implies simultaneously. In the absence of such a model (which has to include potential antecedents and moderators), it will be difficult to make meaningful scientific progress in terms of measurement and interventions to increase employee engagement. Psychological state engagement could be modeled as an antecedent of behavioral engagement (e.g., discretionary effort and in‐role or extra‐role behavior). Utilizing a broader definition of employee engagement that includes the psychological state as well as behavior, questions such as the following should be answered: What are the consequences of low employee engagement? Are individual and organizational outcomes of employee engagement always positive? How can selection tools be used to select engaged employees? How can employee engagement best be promoted? Multilevel research designs should be implemented to study employee engagement at an individual level and at a collective organizational level.
Second, research on employee engagement has taken place from a psychological perspective and with micro‐level attitudinal variables (Truss et al., 2014). Research is needed on how managers and human resource professionals could develop and embed employee engagement programs and to evaluate lived experiences of such programs. New research themes will emerge that bring together the concerns of practitioners with those of researchers regarding employee engagement.
Third, a gap exists in current knowledge in that no information is available regarding cultural conventions that might explain why individuals are engaged. Future research should pay more attention to the contextual factors which affect employee engagement. The literature has not given sufficient attention to the complexity of the environments employees find themselves in. Scientific information is also needed regarding diversity (e.g., in terms of culture and gender) and employee engagement. It is also necessary to study the interplay between internal and external contextual environments, managerial constraints, and employee engagement. Poortinga (2011) points out that individuals’ motives behind behavior might be based on constraints on the one hand, and on affordances referring to those options open to an individual from which he or she can choose on the other. These affordances or options and constraints or rules are what inform decisions on how to act, think, and feel. An individual’s cognition, behavior, and affect again crystallize into practices and mentalities which are often unique to a particular community of people. Conventions refer to agreements in a society about how things should be done (Poortinga, 2011). Cultural conventions will have a large impact on how individuals cope with or are motivated to act on, think about, and feel about their work and organization.
Fourth, it is necessary to study employee engagement at group or team level. For example, information is needed concerning the contagiousness of engagement at group or team level.
The interest in employee engagement can be attributed to the increased interest in positive psychological states and the growing realization of the importance of human factors in employee well‐being and business performance. Employee engagement can be regarded as a state, a behavior, or a trait. To advance knowledge, the definition of employee engagement should include consequential behavior in line with organizational goals in addition to the psychological state. Employees might experience the psychological state of engagement, but might not contribute to organizational goals. While differences in approaches of academic researchers and practitioners might be reduced if such a definition is used, it might threaten the distinctiveness of the concept (Schaufeli, 2014). Research on collective organizational engagement (Barrick et al., 2015) has shown that employee engagement also matters on a collective level.
A unique theoretical framework for employee engagement does not exist. The personal engagement model of Kahn (1990), the recent relational model of employee engagement (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014), and the JD‐R model made important contributions to understanding and predicting aspects of employee engagement. However, there is a lack of an overarching model of employee engagement. Research and practice could benefit by the development of a comprehensive theory of employee engagement. Research will be needed to ensure the validity of the constructs (i.e., the empirical foundation). However, it is also necessary to ensure that employee engagement is grounded in theory (so that findings can be explained). More scientific information is needed to explain the relationships among employee engagement and its antecedents (e.g., drivers and psychological processes and conditions).
Despite more than two decades of research on the topic, research shows that engagement levels remain low in many countries. The question arises whether researchers focus on all relevant psychological processes and conditions which might explain employee engagement. Kahn and Heaphy’s (2014) model of employee engagement focuses on psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability as mediators in the relationships between context‐specific variables and employee engagement. Furthermore, SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2011) focuses on psychological need satisfaction as a possible mediating variable in the relationships between job demands/resources and employee engagement. However, longitudinal research is necessary to investigate the contribution that such psychological conditions and processes make to predicting employee engagement.
The utility of employee engagement has always been emphasized by practitioners. Various positive individual and organizational outcomes have been attributed to employee engagement. Successful application of existing employee engagement models supports the utility thereof.
Employee engagement in organizations could be influenced by contextual factors. This has various implications for managers and human resource practitioners. Increased contact between people of different cultures, wealth, and education reduces cross‐cultural differences. While the importance of culture should not be overstated, some aspects of cultures could be unique and should be considered to understand and affect employee engagement. Measurement invariance of engagement measures should be tested when differences in scores could be attributed to cultural and/or contextual influences in terms of item meaning and understanding, rather than differences resulting from the measuring of the constructs. If cultural and contextual influences are not accounted for, invalid conclusions could be drawn regarding the constructs under study.